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."

Comments

Science or Religion?

[jmorris42]

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?

Re:Science or Religion?

[publiclurker]

Quick question? Are you actually ignorant enough to think that reality bases itself on a misleading poll, or are you just whoring for someone in order to prevent having to take responsibility for your actions?

Re:Science or Religion?

[wizardforce]

You do realize that AGW predicts an increase in Antarctic ice right? But I suppose it's easier to continue being an armchair "expert" on global climate. The prediction of Antarctic ice growth was a falsifiable one. Had it not occured, it would have been evidence that the AGW models was flawed to some degree.

Re:Science or Religion?

[wizardforce]

To clarify on the growth of Antarctic ice in some areas while receding in others. The overall ice growth in some areas exceeded ice loss in other areas although this is starting to change. Climate models win again.

Re:Science or Religion?

[publiclurker]

Reality is that which continues on, even if you don't believe in it.

Re:Science or Religion?

[aussie_a]

Reputable citations needed, particularly on the "Everyone publishing used those 2 as the ultimate source of their data" part.

I say that not because I think this is Wikipedia, but because I find this allegation/claim to be quite interesting so I would be quite happy to hear that this claim is true. Because I don't want global warming to be true. If it isn't true, we can keep burning as many greenhouse gases as we like. But without something to support your claim, you're just a random person on the internet who has yet to be modded troll ;)

Re:Science or Religion?

[oldhack]

Right, if one variable out of thousand variables moves according to the model, it's a "win" for the model.

I assume you're reasonably familiar with the main models?

Maybe you can be more persuasive if you can nail down the major predictions. I mean, calling it "climate change" is like saying "time-moves-forward". No one's disputing either - what exactly are the specific potential problems being predicted whose catastrophic nature requires us shifting trillions of dollars?

Re:Science or Religion?

[Ada_Rules]

If a ball falls down it is because of gravity. If it bounces back up it is because of gravity.

Actually, when it bounces back up it is due to inertia but thanks for playing.

Re:Science or Religion?

[jmorris42]

> Well, maybe for 2009 to not be the hottest year in recorded history, or 2000-2009 to be the hottest decade in recorded history, for one.

Ok, but 2009 wasn't and 2000-2009 wasn't. Don't believe me, believe Phil Jones. And believe is all you can do since he lost all of his original data and there doesn't appear to be a clean temperature dataset ANYWHERE. Politics and science don't mix. Politics, science and trillions of dollars make an especially toxic stew.

Remember when 1998 was supposed to be the hottest ever? Then that was debunked and it was 1934. Now Hansen & his asshats are saying they have massaged the data some more and it is 1998 again by a nose. I say so what? If it is a statistical tie it really doesn't matter, the Warmers were yelling the warming was "unprecedented" yet that doesn't square with a virtual tie with 1934 now does it? But saying 'It was just a cunthair higher than back in 1934' doesn't make a good argument for seizing trillions of dollars of economic output and redirecting it into politically connected pockets.

> Maybe not for a clear upward trend in average global temperature over the last 100 years, for another.

Well if ol' Phil is right and we haven't seen any statistically significant warming for fifteen years.... And if the recent high was inside the error bars with 1934. Your point is?

> Weather != climate.

I know that. But if Al Gore can make Hurricane Katrina the centerpiece of his farce of a movie and not ONE Warmer call him out on it it is equally valid for the other team to toss this blizzard right back in his face. Don't go all heads I win and tails you lose on me, don't treat me as an idiot and I'll return the favor. K? We both know the difference between science and arguments to win points in the mass media and influence the electorate, right? Why should we let your side get away with it while we take the noble path? Besides, Copenhagen's blizzard and now this blizzard to greet the creation of the new Climate Change dept. is such rich irony it would almost be criminal not to exploit the situation being handed to us by Mother Nature Herself.

And I notice you avoided the question. What would falsify AGW theory?

And yes I must be willing to take the opposite question. But I have one advantage there, AGW is probably the most extraordinary claim in the history of extraordinary claims and the proposed solution (seizing most of the world's wealth, eliminating most of the current industrial base, etc.) is so far beyond extraordinary I doubt any human language even has the proper vocabulary for describing it properly. I simply demand extraordinary evidence. Since the evidence offered to date is pathetic and weak I laugh at it and call it a silly thing for silly (or evil) people.

Re:Science or Religion?

[192_kbps]

Whether I meet them or not is irrelevant. They have either done the research or they haven't, and if they don't have PhDs in Climatology then it is extremely unlikely they have done the research.

Re:Science or Religion?

[Kreigaffe]

2009 was the hottest year on record? Huh. News to me, I have heard otherwise. Not locally or nationally, but globally.

AGW is most likely a fact, but the EXTENT of AGW is certainly not. Is there any explanation as to what causes earth's natural climate shifts? Do we have any idea if we are in a natural upshift or downshift? No and no. We don't know. We're basing the entire AGW on very shaky ground -- that our climate should NOT be increasing naturally through mechanisms we still don't understand, and that CO2 is the primary cause of climate change. Um. Sorry, but both of those are wrong. Matter of fact, just yesterday saw that someone (iirc in Spain?) has been studying submerged caves and found evidence that ocean levels 100,000 years ago were higher than they are today. Maybe it was 80,000. Then there's the medieval warm period. Then there's the little ice age. What caused those two climate shifts?

Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere does, yes, verifiable fact, act as a 'greenhouse gas', and that would tend to increase temperatures globally. Anything beyond that point is just conjecture. We really have no clue if increased CO2 levels in ice cores are caused by or caused warmer temperatures (huh, nevermind those findings I read about recently that casts doubt on the infallability of ice cores -- that is, that gases and such aren't as static in ice cores as we thought, and they're not as accurate as we believed).

It would be GREAT if we could actually go back and look at records, but huh, apparently East Anglia hasn't ever heard about keeping records and threw out everything that was actual hard unadulterated data.. so we'll just never know. All we have are the numbers they hand-picked and corrected. We have only their word that the numbers they have are any good. Sounds a lot like faith to me.

Faith and trust is antithetical to the progress of science. Science is built upon doubt and distrust -- and that is a noble and commendable thing. Science doesn't give a shit what you say, PROVE it, prove it with evidence that is concrete. Don't wave your hands with a bunch of numbers and not let others peek behind the curtain. Frankly, I'm more inclined to call the whole AGW a hoax JUST TO SPITE those assholes who label themselves men of science but who wrung their hands and conspired to REFUSE FOIA REQUESTS. What the FUCK? What fucking scientist doesn't show his work to others so that they may verify it? A charlatan does that. Not a scientist.

AGW may be real -- in fact, I'd lean towards that pretty strongly -- but the wizard's been exposed and some of the leading men in the field have been shown to be nothing but frauds. Even if they're right, their refusal of FOIA requests, their destruction of original data.. that's just immoral and criminal in severity. Science without hard facts and data is not science, it's religion, and that's what AGW has become. Bow at the altar of Al Gore. Don't question. What's this shit about "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", have whoever said that shot for questioning AGW. Who needs proof when these guys in white coats are telling us that they're really very clever and most probably totally right, we should believe them you heathen.

Re:Science or Religion?

[geekpowa]

• IPCC's prediction of glacier melt in Himalayas
• IPCC's prediction of global temperature increase in past 10 years. (Actual numbers fell substantially below even their lower bound prediction)
• IPCC's recent claim that it is 'worse than we thought' and that climate change is accelerating which was based on change of trend from least squares line fitting using carefully selected moving end points. Intellectually dishonest behaviour in the most extreme.

Like I lamented. Who can I trust?

Re:Science or Religion?

[Jhon]

The only opinions that count are expressed in peer-reviewed journals of climate scientists

When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".

Now... this doesn't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding. Which means all new scientists entering the field will pick research were they can GET funding. It's a feedback loop of bad science, in my opinion (not necessarily the research).

Re:Science or Religion?

[athlon02]

Yes, and Galileo was in the minority once too. What's your point? Science is infallible, scientists are not. It is possible for human passions to mislead people on either side of an argument/debate regardless of how many degrees they have. I am glad there are those here willing to ask, "Do the facts fit global warming/climate change?" instead of "How do the facts fit global warming/climate change?"

Sorry, the majority can, and has many times, been wrong. The skeptics have every right to speak up and it is the duty of scientists to speak up from time to time and question, "Is it so?" instead of "How does this fit with what we already 'know'?" No one doubts, "2 + 2 = 4", but that doesn't apply to every "fact" we think we know.

Re:Science or Religion?

[timholman]

If a ball falls down it is because of gravity.
If it bounces back up it is because of gravity.

If comet flies into the solar system it is because of gravity.
If the comet slingshots around jupiter and permanently exits the solar system it is because of gravity.

If the tide rises it is because of gravity.
If the tide recedes it is because of gravity.

The difference is that all of those behaviors are predictable according to the theory of gravity. You can precisely predict how that ball will bounce, and how that comet will travel through the solar system, given sufficient data.

If the theory of gravity was like the theory of AGW, you couldn't be sure a ball would fall down or up when you let go of it.

Re:Science or Religion?

[ArcherB]

To clarify on the growth of Antarctic ice in some areas while receding in others. The overall ice growth in some areas exceeded ice loss in other areas although this is starting to change. Climate models win again.

So, let's see if I understand.
If your first post, you basically said:

AGW predicts increasing Antarctic ice. We see increasing Antarctic ice, so the AGW models are correct. Therefor the earth is warming and it is man made.

Then in your second post, you said:

Oh, wait, I just learned something. It appears that Antarctic ice is increasing in some places, but receding in others. This was predicted in AGW models so the AGW models are correct. Therefor the earth is warming and it is man made.

Did I get that right?

Ever stop to consider that there is a reason we don't believe this shit? And I don't mean to rag on you, but this is the kind of crap that we hear all the time from what are supposed to be scientists. It's hot, so it proves AGW. It's cold, so it proves AGW. If there are more hurricanes, its AGW. If there are no hurricanes, its AGW. There is no snow at the Olympics because of AGW. There is too much snow in Washington because of AGW. Warmer temperatures mean AGW. Colder temps mean AGW.... and so on and so on and so on!

See, when you change historical data to make your model match current conditions, it's fraud. (AGW climatologists tend to throw out data that doesn't make sense to their models) You change the outcome of your model to match current conditions, it's fraud. (You see this one A LOT! Remember all the predictions that said hurricanes would increase and then we had a year with virtually no hurricanes? Remember the scramble to claim that the LACK of hurricanes was due to AGW?)

Re:Science or Religion?

[Stormx2]

It really isn't. You'd do well to try and claim that people without degrees in structural engineering are fit to design bridges, or that doctors who never went to medical school are okay to be surgeons.

In the same way, something as insanely complex as climate science needs a level of understanding that only a PhD can recognise. To claim otherwise is totally ignorant, but I suppose a little popularist.

Finally, 9000 is quite a minority. Numbers are meaningless without context. It's a long way to the sun, but thats nothing to the centre of the milky way.

Re:Science or Religion?

[NeutronCowboy]

Just because you were modded interesting, I'll respond.

Now please note that before excessive snowfall, no fucking global warming campaigners said ANYTHING about "there will be a blizzard in 2010 and it will prove global warming".

That's because no climatologist would ever make such a prediction, and none have made such prediction. For two reasons: NOTHING will ever PROVE any scientific theory. The same way that nothing will ever prove gravity - merely that datapoints keep supporting our current scientific model. Second, climatologists are as of now unable to predict something as localized as a specific snow storm in a specific area at a specific time more than a few days out. You are working with a two-body gravitational model, they are working with a trillion-body feedback loop. Give a bit of respect to the complexity here.

The predictions that are made are of the order of: over the next 50 years, ice will melt at rate x, and temperature will rise at rate y. What they're seeing is that over the last 20 years or so, data points have been consistently in the ranges of the most catastrophic models. Does it prove anything? No. See above for why. But it cause for concern when the aggressive models are consistently the ones that most accurately predict the evolution of average data points.

So please. Do us all a favor and go fuck off in the room where we keep all the creationists and come back when you have a working understanding of scientific research.

Re:Science or Religion?

[radtea]

See now how that's nothing like the denial you spun it as?

I don't see that at all, but perhaps that's because I understand statistics, as perhaps the OP does and you, very clearly, do not.

"Not significant at p = 0.05" means "not significant at p = 0.05". Or, given that p = 0.05 is the usual bound on statistical significance in even the fuzziest subjects, it means "not statistically significant."

"There has been an uptrend that is not significant" is more properly interpretable as "there has been no warming" than anything else. Anyone who understands anything about statistics understands this. If you don't, I can only presume it is because you don't understand statistics.

Declaring your ignorance of statistics, and your belief in global warming, does not make the truth of global warming any more plausible.

And you have quite significantly failed the answer the OP's question: what would it take to make you question your faith?

In particular, what do the models say about warming in the past 15 years? Are they consistent with the observed data? The interesting scientific question is regarding the validity of the models, which are radically unphysical parameterizations of a very complex, nonlinear physical system. Why is no one asking that question? Because this is what scientists do, in the normal course of events: we test ideas, other people's and our own, to destruction. Which is why, by the way, that only someone violently anti-scientific would withhold data from people who might use it to argue against them.

Re:Science or Religion?

[shermo]

Eh that probably came off a bit trollish. Especially considering your points about it coinciding with "more power-efficient, less polluting source of energy".

I'm just trying to point out the irrationality of saying we must inconvenience ourselves now because there's a chance something bad might happen in the future. Without taking into account the probability of it happening, and the cost of taking those actions it's meaningless scaremongering.

Re:Science or Religion?

[radtea]

Sounds a bit more measured and reasonable than your biased histrionics. Yes?

No, it sounds like he has said there is no warming trend in the past 14 or 15 years. "Almost significant" means "not significant." Nor is p = 0.05 exactly a stellar level of certainty. Physicists like things at the three sigma level, for the most part.

And you have ignored the OP's quite reasonable question: what data would make you change your beliefs regarding global warming/climate change? If any climate event whatsoever constitutes "evidence" for global warming/climate change in your mind, then you are acting on faith and the kinds of arguments that rational individuals might use to convince you of the error of your ways are quite different than if you are acting on a rational basis.

Re:Science or Religion?

[OctaviusIII]

And I notice you avoided the question. What would falsify AGW theory?

He did, rather succinctly, and you quoted, and responded to, his answers.

AGW is probably the most extraordinary claim in the history of extraordinary claims and the proposed solution (seizing most of the world's wealth, eliminating most of the current industrial base, etc.) is so far beyond extraordinary I doubt any human language even has the proper vocabulary for describing it properly

I think there are far more extraordinary claims out there: flat-world theory and most religious claims, to name a couple. But if Climate Change is an extraordinary claim, yours is rather extraordinary as well: that carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane don't affect the climate despite reams of planetological data - not simply Earth-based - to the contrary. Your characterization of the proposed solutions is rather hyperbolic, too. Why can't an economy run on energy derived from sources other than the burning of fossil fuels? And who would seize most of the world's wealth? Where would it go? How would it be spent once it's seized? How would a conversion to non-carbon-emitting energy eliminate most of the world's industrial base? People will still need stuff, even if it costs more.

Re:Science or Religion?

[Cassius Corodes]

This. Remember when being called elite was a good thing - something to strive towards and respected for achieving? Experts are experts because they have invested their lives in learning as much as they can about an area. This doesn't mean they cannot be wrong but it means that they are in the best position to be right, that if anyone is going to get it right it would be them. I am deeply worried by the way that first the revived evolution "debate", and now this global warming business has resulted in (or is caused by) a lack of trust and respect towards science. You cannot run a modern society, handle modern problems and improve the economy without good science, and people are shooting themselves in the foot.

Every time politics is dragged into what should be solely a scientific question - debated and handled in the scientific method - we the ordinary people will end up losing because what comes out of that process is not good science but good politics. I don't want our world to be run based on politics, I would like it to be run on good science.

Re:Science or Religion?

[geekpowa]

Thankyou for your homely words - I do enjoy a rational discussion with someone who although may strongly disagree with my point we still manage to be civil and treat each other with respect.

I made nothing up. I am merely reiterating points of view I picked up elsewhere from well known sceptics such as Anthony Watt's, Monckton etc etc. Of course I am cognisant of the fact that their contribution to this issue may be shoddy and to this effect I made reasonable effects at due diligence to ensure that I was not merely parroting the views of mere crackpots and liars. But if I am indeed operating of incorrect data - by all means feel free to correct me

A small tip - calling someone an idiot from the comfort and security of your keyboard does little to advance your argument. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and wait for your reply that demonstrates what I posted above is in some way incorrect.

And to save you some trouble - please don't bother me with all that peer review literature vs grey literature stuff. I am of the view now it is to some extent just self validation from the climate science tribe where its practitioners have figured out there is no better way to keep the grant money flowing than to keep peddling the AGW. That the checks and balances within the climate community to keep them honest and on target are insufficient to the task : no human institution of endeavour is above scrutiny or groupthink or the risk of politicisation or outright corruption or any number of issues that can result in sub-optimal output - not even the scientific community. An issue as far reaching as AGW requires broader audience treatment. If you are of a different view and you think that I am a complete idiot then you and I cannot possibly share any reality on this issue so there is no point discussing further so don't bother wasting your time engaging me further.

Re:Science or Religion?

[jhol13]

There is absolutely nothing in structural engineering someone without a degree cannot understand that someone with one magically does. This is proved by the huge number of bridges build before there even were schools for engineering.

No doctor fresh out of the school can do medical surgery alone without assisting - i.e. learning in practice - first. Could someone without the school learn it? During war a few have ...

There is nothing in climate science that somehow makes the owner of a paper which says "PhD" magically smarter than someone without one.

Claiming anything else is utterly idiotic.

Minority or not (I would not sign that petition for several reasons), science should not be done by popularity voting. 9000 is such a big number that it raises some questions.

Re:Science or Religion?

[why-lurk]

> AGW is probably the most extraordinary claim in the history of extraordinary
> claims and the proposed solution (seizing most of the world's wealth,
> eliminating most of the current industrial base, etc.) is so far beyond
> extraordinary

While I feel way too underqualified to judge the science of AGW, I don't understand these oft-repeated hyperbolic claims that carbon reduction strategies will "eliminate most of the current industrial base."

On the contrary, even in the absence of evidence of AGW, most of our strategies are just common economic sense and good health policy -- reduce dependence on oil (which will continue to rise in price as demand outstrips supply); decrease destructive mountaintop coal mining (which imperils the health of countless rural residents); improve public transportation availability and usage; improve our electrical grid and accommodate supply elasticity; etc

Where carbon reduction or carbon taxes would add costs to some manufacturing industries, it will also create economic opportunities in new technology, alternative energy production, new batteries, nuclear energy, etc.

Re:Science or Religion?

[techno-vampire]

As a friend of mine likes to comment, "It's probably not a good idea to run an open-ended experiment of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to see what happens." Even if AGW is the biggest scam the world has ever seen, that's still true.

Re:Science or Religion?

[alteran]

So much of this whole post is simply not true.

Look, a few proponents of AGW sceintists have falsified some data, that's true. Many opponents of AGW have falsified data as well-- I don't see you screaming about them.

The bottom line is that the Earth's temperature is going up every year, give or take, while its CO2 content goes up-- and CO2 is well known to retain heat within the atmosphere.

This isn't "innocent until proven guilty," folks. The anti-AGW folks have to make their case, too. They haven't. All they've done is try to muddy the water and nitpick. There's a good reason they haven't made a case-- the evidence that AGW exists is overwhelming. The specifics-- whether it will cause more hurricaines or snow, more precipitation or less, these things are being hotly contested, just like with any young scientific theory. But the overwhelming arc is that iAGW exists and that it ain't going anywhere.

 

Re:Science or Religion?

[hairyfeet]

Because ultimately it will be used as a Ponzi scheme by Goldman Sachs and other leeches to rob the coffers to yet again gorge themselves. You see I would be ALL for it if like in the 70s energy crisis we were simply putting limits and what you could use/release, but instead they have cooked up this little Catholic indulgences style scheme called "Carbon Credits" which will just become a new market for GS to blow bubbles in.

So if you want to know why you shouldn't support AGW, there you go. In the end not a damned thing will be done, China and India will still say fuck you and do whatever they please, while we in the west get to hand money by the tanker full over to GS and other speculators. Oh and look up "Al Gore Lear Jet Carbon Neutral" for a good laugh. apparently Al pays his own company so he can fart around all he wants in his private jet and still "be green". It is that kind of horseshit that is what you will see more of in the future if everyone jumps onboard AGW.

Re:Science or Religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW! Seriosuly, WOW!

1. IPCC corrected the error relying on one person's speculation in some paper.
2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm
3. Yes, many things are "worse then they thought'. THis includes melt of Greenland. How melt water accelerates glacier melt is poorly understood. It turns out ignoring melt water resulted in models not predicting the rate of melt which is MUCH FASTER then old models show.

The best thing about science is you can go and get your own data. Unfortunately you seem to fail, like most deniers and "experts". All you rely on is "gut feelings" and "OMG, winter is cold and snowy in my backyard! I totally disproved Global Warming".

But don't worry. Science will win in the end because people will do jack shit to cut CO2 emissions. They will just go up and up and Earth will not warm 0.5C like now, or even 2C or 4C but probably it will be 10C by the time mankind realized WTF is happening. There is enough dirty oil (ie. tar sands, etc.) to make Venus out of Earth.

Now, how about denying antibiotics save lives? I mean, there are side-effects. I can pull up cases where people died due to allergic reactions to antibiotics. Therefore it must prove that antibiotics kill people and should be banned? Per your thought processes, that must be the only conclusion you would reach. Which doctor can I trust!?????!!!?

Re:Science or Religion?

[shutdown -p now]

There are certain things that are science (easily verifiable).

1. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its increased concentration does lead to overall increase in average temperature.

2. That antropogenic CO2 emissions are proportionally large enough to significantly contribute to natural ones - enough so to change the atmospheric concentration balance in a pronounced way.

3. That solar activity is not a highly variable factor contributing in global average temperature in short to medium term.

If you add them together, the conclusion that global average temperature will keep rising if we keep pumping CO2 into atmosphere at present (or higher) rates is also a scientific fact.

What exactly happens at that point is definitely debatable, yes. If you want to argue that the overall effect on climate will be beneficial to humans, by all means, go ahead. But denying that the basic heating process is going on, when it has to do that according to all laws of physics, is rather silly.

Sherlock Holmes

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this finding facts to fit theories, or theories to fit facts?

Or not

[oldhack]

Didn't make this argument when it didn't snow much last few years, did they?

Re:Or not

[slimjim8094]

I read in a children's science book written 20 years ago about how global warming could make places like Africa more temperate. It even had the map of predicted temperature change, showing large swaths cooling and others warming.

This has been known for a long time. The only reason scientists are reminding others of it now is because of all the blowhards over at Fox et.al that are too stupid to comprehend the difference between global climate and local weather (with a healthy dose of long-term trends vs. short-term outliers).

This stuff really isn't that complicated. Most people are taught the basics of climate in like 6th grade. The only way somebody couldn't understand it is if they were abjectly stupid, or had an agenda.

Support Global Warming

[vlakkies]

Since a shortage of fresh water is our next big crisis, doesn't that mean that global warming is a good thing?

Re:Support Global Warming

[Culture20]

Since a shortage of fresh water is our next big crisis, doesn't that mean that global warming is a good thing?

And food; increased heat, water, and CO2 will make crops grow like crazy.

Meanwhile, the ex head of CRU

[whoda]

Phil Jones has pretty much admitted most of the data is BS and nobody knows what it really means.

Global Warming means More Weather

[erroneus]

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.

Re:Global Warming means More Weather

[sremick]

It IS a simple notion. It's just too many people find it easier to distort their perception of data in order to allow them to continue their existing lives with as close to no change as possible. Anything that requires one to perform effort, change, or that reduces ones comforts obviously must be wrong.

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

The future matters more than the past

[atfrase]

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.

What we dont know....

[link5280]

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.

Re:A LIE - Climategate; 30 Year in the Making.

[Dodgy G33za]

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.

GW? Sure. AGW? Harder to say.

[weston]

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.

Conspiracy Theories

[grege1]

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.