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?

[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?

[interkin3tic]

One question for the warmers reading. Can the theory of AGW be falsified?

Sure. If we keep emitting and the climate doesn't change, then it's falsified. Kind of like if how the theory that 4 cheeseburgers and a pack of cigarettes every day will kill -you- specifically can be falsified by -you- specifically eating 4 cheeseburgers and smoking a pack of cigarettes each day and not dying. Try it, let us know, the rest of us are foolishly following the religion of "Carcinogens and cholesterol will kill us specifically."

Re:Science or Religion?

[sremick]

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.

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

Stuff that was predicted well before it actually happened is not evidence to the contrary. If your restricted mental model of how climate works doesn't allow you to comprehend the mechanism that allows global warming to lead to more precipitation, then I'm not sure anyone here can help you. Weather != climate. Luckily the people actually working on the problem are way beyond that first-year course issue. It's unfortunate that there are so many people like yourself with voting powers getting in their way though.

Re:Science or Religion?

[nedlohs]

Evolution is pretty easily falsified, of course a lot of the things which could have done so didn't.

Universal common descent could have been shown to be false when DNA was discovered and sequenced. Of course it didn't instead it matched common descent perfectly.

Finding a species that doesn't use DNA, would be a pretty big hit to evolution, at least the universal descent part.

Finding that the Earth is "young" would kill evolution dead.

The famous rabbit in the pre-Cambrian.

Re:Science or Religion?

[Tyler Durden]

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?

Well it takes more than repeating easily debunked platitudes and specious arguments. Here's Jones' original quote...

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."

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

Re:Science or Religion?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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?

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.

See how easy it is to gloss over the details and make something perfectly normal seem contradictory?

That's the kind of thing people have made up their mind and are only interested in promulgating their point of view do - not someone who is asking genuine questions.

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.)

Except, that's not what he said:

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

PJ - 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.

See now how that's nothing like the denial you spun it as? Or maybe you really didn't spin it, maybe you didn't even bother to go to first sources and just took the word of other spinmeisters - you know the ones who follow the mantra "if it bleeds, it leads!" Sucks not being able to apply critical thinking and google to do your own fact checking.

Re:Science or Religion?

[publiclurker]

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

Re:Science or Religion?

[theguyfromsaturn]

As anybody living in Canada knows, it doesn't snow on cold winter days. It snows on the warmer winter days. I've never witness snow at les than minus 7 or 10 Celcius. Most of the time, it's not far from the freezing point that you get your really heavy snowfalls. So, I do tend to agree, that lots of snow in no way contradicts global warming.

As for proving or disproving Global warming, a better indicator than any of the temperature measurements is the measurement of the thickness of the icecaps in the arctic. Those massive sheets of ice are not subject to localized short term variations of climate, but reflect the integration of many year's worth of effects. By all accounts the maximum thickness of the arctic ice sheets is decreasing rapidly.

Re:Science or Religion?

[DamienRBlack]

Well, when we have long-term evidence (not short-term anecdotal evidence) that climates aren't changing (15 years is nothing) and a model that explains why all the stuff we're pumping into the atmosphere isn't having an effect, we'll reconsider our theory. in the meantime we are at a crossroads of speculation. You say, "who knows what'll happen, we don't know how complex systems like this work", I say, "doesn't that worry you? shouldn't we then minimize our impact until we better understand". The very fact that there are conflicting opinions screams to me that we don't know what we're doing, and should tread lightly.

A counter question, what evidence do you need to start believing in global warming? Evidence has come and gone, there are valid points on both ends, but I'm sure you've been a staunch global warming denier the whole time. If you position any more reasoned? Lets say for a moment that neither of us really know what is going to happen, since we don't. Isn't it better to be careful. If global warming supporters are wrong, do big deal, we wasted money adopting green technology we need to support ourselves sooner or later anyway. If global warming critics are wrong are chances are that the consequences are very dire. Are you so sure from you 15 years of data that the climate won't ever budge that you are willing to risk civilization as we know it? Even if the chance or global warming is only 10%, or even 1% it seems like a good idea to be on the safe side.

Besides, the article is common sense. If it is snowing hard, how did all that water get into the atmosphere? It was so cold that the water appeared in the sky? No, that means that oceans must be abnormally warm, therefor hastening the water cycle. Or it means that it was a random local fluke that no meaningful data can be extrapolated from. Anyone who uses local temperatures and conditions to either support or deny global warming is an idiot.

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?

[geekpowa]

Yet - so many predictions made by AGW that did not come to be - but are just silently discarded and substituted with even more fearful headlines of events soon to come. Because it's always worse than we thought.

It seems to me that the only thing that will conclusively falsify AGW at this stage is if the climate were to do absolutely nothing and act in a completely boring fashion for a clear run of several decades. Which paleoclimate records show the climate is anything but this. So as long as there is variability - as there always has been variability - the AGW bogey man will be invoked to explain it.

What to believe anymore? As a layperson - I've personally reached the point where I simply cannot trust what anyone says. I've tried to make sense of the issue myself with what little scientific and statistical background I have and what little I can understand from the literature I am not particularly impressed with the quality of evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis.

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?

[sremick]

Ok, but 2009 wasn't and 2000-2009 wasn't. Don't believe me

Ok, I won't:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

Re:Science or Religion?

[wizardforce]

Actually we're about halfway through the interglacial period which begain ~10,000 years ago. The planet is actually quite cold for most of the time during these glacial periods except for a 15-20,000 year gap every 130,000 years (interglacial periods) and has been for ~5 million years. Most of Earth's history has indeed been warmer but there was also much higher CO2 levels in the air. Further, the poles don't really melt away completely unless the climate warms 5+ degrees C for prolonged periods of time. We've got ice cores going back the last 4 or 5 interglacial periods (600-800,000 years) which would be pretty hard to do if the poles had melted :)

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?

[lwsimon]

Inertia that was originally provided by a force overcoming gravity, which converted kinetic energy into potential energy. The bouncing back up is due to elasticity. It slowing and coming back down is due to gravity.

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?

[ArcherB]

And all the recorded historical data proves these to be facts, right?

Yes.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

Sorry, I mis-remembered: 2009 is the second warmest year on-record. 2000-2009 is still the warmest decade.

Is that with or without the data from the Siberian weather stations? Seems that all the cold spots have been omitted in some of the recent data sets. Is your source one of them?

Here is what I got from the article:

To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer program, which is available for public download from the GISS website. The program calculates trends in temperature anomalies — not absolute temperatures — but changes relative to the average temperature for the same month during the period of 1951-1980.

So... how can they claim that it's the warmest record in history when the control data set only includes data from 1951-1980? Why does Antarctica, which takes up only a small fraction of the earth's surface make up 1/3 of the report? Why not the arctic? And again, is this from the dataset where monitoring stations were mysteriously moved when they shouldn't have been, not moved when they should have been (like when a parking lot is build where the monitor stands), or omitted altogether, like was the case in Siberia.

In other words, the raw has been tampered with.

Re:Science or Religion?

[Anonymous Struct]

Totally biased source. NASA just wants to convince us that the Earth is doomed so that we'll put more money into colonizing Mars. How can you not see right through these lies?

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?

[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?

[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?

[FiloEleven]

You exclude the possibility that the model for AGW is flawed and that the climate is changing for other reasons. As folks here are fond of pointing out, correlation is not causation.

The article fails to mention how long scientists have seen no contradiction between harsh winters and AGW. Is this something that has been predicted from the start, or is it a new development? If it is a new development, was it studied as its own phenomenon before modifying the AGW model to fit the data? That is, if this was not originally predicted, can we be reasonably sure that the AGW model isn't being shoehorned to fit contradicting data? The reasoning outlined in the summary makes sense, I would just like to know if it is ad hoc or not.

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?

[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?

[bunratty]

I honestly don't care who believes and who doesn't believe. The more important fact is that peer-reviewed papers consistently come to the conclusion that AGW is happening. I have yet to see a peer-reviewed paper that comes to the conclusion that AGW is not happening. If there were evidence that AGW were not happening, I would think someone would think it important enough to write up a paper about it. Do they all just write blogs and make YouTube videos and never think to write a paper?

Re:Science or Religion?

[polar red]

1/ the greenhouse effect is proven; without the Greenhouse-effect it would be nearly 20C colder on average, and CO2 is one of the gases responsible.
2/ CO2 levels has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution, in fact we can calculate how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere by looking at the amount of oil and gas sold.
3/ because of (1) and (2), 'NOT AGW' should be proven, because no further warming would mean a strange cut-off point for the greenhouse effect of CO2, and that would mean we need an extraordinary explanation for 'NOT-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!?????!!!?

Meanwhile

[eldavojohn]

The East Coast gets a bit of a blizzard (I live in DC but am from Minnesota). People start saying, "Global warming?! HA!"

Meanwhile Sagar Island shrinks away from rising oceans.

Meanwhile a UAB professor claims ocean acidification is yet another measurable effect of climate change.

Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica (the steadfast 'unaffected' part of Antarctica) begins to show signs of melting (via NASA and U of TX).

Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change. One day the facts will pile up ...

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

[amiga3D]

It wasn't warm enough to snow.

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.

World is Fucked

[Anonymous Coward]

World is fucked. Oh well, time to jerk off.

Dear Global Warming

[ronz0o]

Dear Global Warming,
I looked out my window, and saw another 8 inches of snow. I just wanted to tell you that you are a liar, and I hate you.
Sincerely,

ronz0o

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 time for debate is over...

[dcavanaugh]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.

UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers

How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?

Re:The time for debate is over...

[aphyr]

I think you have it backwards. Time series estimates tend to be more uncertain with shorter windows. The "also calculated" trends were from longer datasets with higher statistical significance (and surprise! They also indicate warming!) He's being asked to comment on a period where insufficient data exists for a statistically strong statement, and says the trend is still positive, albeit with less confidence.

Re:The time for debate is over...

[zz5555]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.

UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers

How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?

So: 1. Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995. He said that it (barely) wasn't statistically significant since the time period was too short for the statistics (ie, not enough data). Oddly enough, had they asked about 1994 or any year prior to 1995 the answer would have been yes. So the question was pretty much a set up. 2. It appears that they did fully reply to the FOI request, giving Mr. Keenan all the data he asked for. The data was also published on their website, so it's not like anybody couldn't find it. 3. The IPCC document is something like 2400 pages and so far there has only been one error found. I'd be surprised if there aren't more. I mean, look at your response: you only had about 4 sentences and two of them were incorrect. :)

This is easily skewered by ...

[dkleinsc]

the best cable news team in America.

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.

Science in nothing like a Religion so hands off!

[dbIII]

I don't know about you unfortunately, but I expect to be able to have chemists tell me more about chemistry than a behavioural psychologist can - not everything in science is equal. An economist for instance may consider themselves a scientist. A petition is meaningless here - what would be meaningful is an argument convincing enough that climate scientists agree with it.
People can say they have found a cure for AIDS, won the Falklands War by advocating biological warfare, won a Nobel Prize, been elected to the British House of Lords or all kinds of things but unless experts in those areas agree with them their opinion is meaningless. You have been conned by a very audacious trick of professional confidence tricksters - that of pretending that others are pulling a trick themselves. It is a high paying profession now to fly around the world pretending that scientists are freezing their arses of in Antarctica to fabricate data when instead they could be fabricating at home where it is warm.
Believe the climate scientists, not the PR firms paid to tell you otherwise, and not people like Monckton and Plimer that say what sells instead of what is found.

Warmer years have more snow storms.

[riverat1]

A detailed study was done of “the relationships of the storm frequencies to seasonal temperature and precipitation conditions” for the years “1901–2000 using data from 1222 stations across the United States.” The 2006 study, Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States [PDF] (Chagnon et al., 2006) found we get more snow storms in warmer years:

Results for the November–December period showed that most of the United States had experienced 61%– 80% of the storms in warmer-than-normal years. Assessment of the January–February temperature conditions again showed that most of the United States had 71%–80% of their snowstorms in warmer-than-normal years. In the March–April season 61%–80% of all snowstorms in the central and southern United States had occurred in warmer-than-normal years. Thus, these comparative results reveal that a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more snowstorms than in 1901–2000. Agee (1991) found that long-term warming trends in the United States were associated with increasing cyclonic activity in North America, further indicating that a warmer future climate will generate more winter storms.

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.