Global Warming 'Undeniable,' Report Says

BergZ writes "Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming. 'A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest on record,' the annual State of the Climate report declares. Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, including Canada, the report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said its analysis of 10 indicators that are 'clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable.'"

Comments

More Info & Dashboard

[eldavojohn]

There's a really neat prototype dashboard that presents data surrounding climate change in an intuitive way. And the report is here (from the second link in the summary). And I submitted a story that got rejected a few weeks ago about NOAA's announcement:

So far, it's been a scorcher for folks all around the world. So it might come as no surprise that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released a report revealing 2010 having the record for warmest June, warmest April to June and warmest year to date. The announcement said 'Each of the 10 warmest average global temperatures recorded since 1880 have occurred in the last fifteen years. The warmest year-to-date on record, through June, was 1998, and 2010 is warmer so far.' So far we are even surpassing 1998's records which held the warmest year (despite directly contradicting reports). It certainly seems the scads of winter precipitation we enjoyed were no indication of how we would swelter through our summer this year. Will 2010 turn it around or are we set to break more records?

Aside from that, I'm not really interested in making comments on this anymore because I'm so sick and tired of the armchair idiocy that follows (and somehow gets moderated up). Prediction: Not even 300 scientists from 48 countries and NOAA are going to convince everyone that global warming is real. At this point, I think it's just going to get worse.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[_bug_]

When do we move on from whether or not the planet is warming up to why it's warming up?

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Anonymous Coward]

Prediction: Not even 300 scientists from 48 countries and NOAA are going to convince everyone that global warming is real.

There is decreasing amounts of doubt that the world is warming up. The disconnect occurs in the automatic assumption that

1. humans are causing it

2. we MUST do something DRASTIC AND IMMEDIATE to stop it

Thats really were the terminology gets muddled. As soon as you use the catch phrase "global warming" you're assumed to be talking about "man made global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels which has released to many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." If we could somehow seperate the two, and we can't because (especially in the United States) liberals are ONLY concerned with the man-made "portion" of the effect, the abrasiveness of the discussions would decrease and minds would be more open.

In short, trying to cram one possible-truth at a time down someone's throat is significantly easier than two.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[_bug_]

When there stops being data to the contrary, I guess.

Care to share the contrary data?

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[GooberToo]

I can't find the link so hopefully someone will provide the proper link before I get troll moderated to death.

Personally, I believe GW is real. I'm just not convinced that man is entirely behind it. And to date, I've not read one account which addresses the problem of the most accurate data in the world (US data) being so inaccurate as to be useless. These scientists then take this data to derive information which they then use to prove a conclusion. When sadly, if the conclusion is anything other than our data is invalid, the only thing they've proved is they are extremely poor scientists who don't grasp the very fundimentals of scientific research.

The problem is, the US has tons of sensors all across the US. Many have been in place for extremely long durations. That sounds great until you discover that almost no one validates the location and integrity of the sensor yet continue to blindly accept the data on which all of this research depends. Worse, independent volunteers who do go validate these sensors are horrified at what they find. And yes, they do document their findings with diagrams and pictures. Again, hopefully someone will provide the link to which I refer.

Many times the findings document sensors which were once in a field are now in the middle of a paved parking lot, or literally next to an A/C exhaust for a building, or receiving radiant heat for an endless list of man made factors which absolutely invalidate the sensor's readings. As a result, the readings are verifiable much higher than would otherwise exist. Additionally, the rise attributed to man by GW falls well within the noise provided by these very erroneous readings.

In other words, these "scientists" are finding a signal from known invalid data, which does not rise above its noise level. This type of science is what is universally called, "quackery", and yet that's largely the basis of a vast amounts of GW research. Until credible researches step forward and both, address how they can get valid data from invalid data and two, can come to inescapable conclusions based on invalid research and data, they only continue to dig their quack-hole deeper.

Man may very well be behind GW, but to date, most if not all research supporting a man-made GW conclusion is compete quackery. Address the validity of their data and then they'll have my attention. Until such time, we have every reason to view them as grant-whores and science-for-hire. They are their own worst enemies.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[eldavojohn]

I don't think there is much doubt that global warming is real. The Earth has experienced both global warming and global cooling many times in its past.

Okay and from the expert:

'greenhouse gases are the glaringly obvious explanation' for 0.56C (1F) warming over the last 50 years.

Tell me, Mr. Arm Chair Expert I Referred to in My First Post, where in this 'long history of global warming and global cooling' did the average temperature rise 0.56C (1F) a degree in 50 years?

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Nursie]

False dichotomy.

There's no need to go back to an agrarian society, as much as it's a right wing fantasy that the global warming hippies want everyone to live in a mud hut and eat grass it's not true. Green technologies are coming along nicely, if slowly and on a smaller scale than is desirable.

We want people to stop denying the scientific evidence and start collaborating on a solution, rather than being obstructive.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Dishevel]

I think that cap and trade is stupid and drastic.

Dose that count?

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[characterZer0]

"Cap and trade" may be stupid, but it is not drastic.

"Cap" would be drastic, and probably a lot less stupid.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[eldavojohn]

And yet you managed to get in so early too.

Yeah, turns out if you chuck $5 at Slashdot you can see the stories 30 minutes before they pop. Big secret nobody knows about because nobody subscribes except those of us who appreciate Slashdot.

And despite trying to hold my tongue on opinion and just refer the reader the NOAA, that post is already moderated as Troll. Slashdot has gotten to the point where you can't even refer to the people that devote their lives to the study of climatology across the world without being called a Troll. And the real awesome thing is that I see people who haven't even read the report in question being moderated up up up up. People who have never studied climatology are deriving their own reason to disbelieve what's in this report. If it's not one thing, it's another.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[SpryGuy]

So basically, you admit to being living proof of Upton Sinclair's famous quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

So you're essentially admitting to refusing to believe something with overwhelming scientific evidence, because believing it would affect your business model? You really think that's the rational response?

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[gorzek]

Thank you for the above. You've outlined why I have such a hard time discussing climate change in general.

You get the people who think the world isn't heating up. Show them the evidence, they still discount it.

You get the people who will acknowledge that the world is warming up, but insist humanity has nothing to do with it. Show them the evidence, they still discount it.

Then, you get the people who are willing to accept that it is happening and that we are largely responsible, but think the whole problem will sort itself out so we shouldn't make any changes. Well, at least that's a place to start discussion, I guess.

But, as with so many other things, reasonable voices are drowned out by the extremists--the "do-nothing" crowd that thinks climate change will take care of itself, and the "down with civilization" crowd that would happily use combating climate change as a pretext for setting technology back 500 years. There has got to be a happy medium with reasonable solutions that, yes, will be painful, difficult, and long-term, but survivable--and not nearly as painful as the genuine possibility of making our planet uninhabitable.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[AndersOSU]

Humans already have so much food they don't know what to do with it all, and we've had more food than we could eat since sometime around 1890. The reason people go hungry has nothing to do with our ability to feed them and everything to do with corruption, transportation, and economics (usually in that order).

So yeah, there will be plenty of food in the Yukon - which is great for the 34,000 people who live there, the question is what do you do with the populations that grew up around what used to be fertile plains and that will likely become expanding deserts?

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Obfuscant]

You get the people who think the world isn't heating up. Show them the evidence, they still discount it.

And show them the faults in the system that collected the evidence, and the proponents deny that.

What I found most fascinating in the summary was the statement "it's been a scorcher for all of us" (or words to that effect), which is both untrue (we've had a few hot days here, mostly cool) and refers to WEATHER and not CLIMATE. So, when WEATHER supports the global warming argument, WEATHER is proof. When WEATHER doesn't support the global warming argument, we're told that "WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE, YOU MOUTH BREATHING KNUCKLE DRAGGER."

You get the people who will acknowledge that the world is warming up, but insist humanity has nothing to do with it. Show them the evidence, they still discount it.

Which Earth was used to conduct these experiments that provided the evidence? Are we confusing "the scientific method" with "correlation" again?

But, as with so many other things, reasonable voices are drowned out by the extremists--

You mean the ones who keep shouting down anyone who dares question the science behind global warming, calling them mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, even when some of those people doing the questioning are climate scientists? Yes, I agree. Reasonable voices are drowned out, on purpose.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[SirWinston]

There is decreasing amounts of doubt that the world is warming up. The disconnect occurs in the automatic assumption that

1. humans are causing it

Indeed. The problem most skeptics see isn't in the argument itself for global warming--it's in the argument, nay assumption, that it MUST be manmade. Because recent warming trends coincide with the Industrial Revolution, greens cry "It's obvious the two are connected!" and climate scientists, who have an overwhelmingly self-selected green bias (after all, the field attracts certain kinds of people), have a vested interest in minimizing the Little Ice Age and Mediaeval Warm Period and making the recent warming seem more intense and unprecedented than it actually is. If we pull back and look at a 100,000-year cycle (thanks to ice core data) instead of just the past 1,000 or 2,000 years, we see that current temperatures aren't unsurprising at all and that indeed we're overdue for warmer temperatures (overdue, because for reasonse which we still can't explain temperatures in the Holocene were relatively steady for about 10,000 years at a time when, according to the cyclical ice core temperature graph, they should have risen as they're finally doing now):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

And heck, if we look back even further with million-year timescales, we see that the Earth was significantly warmer for long geologic periods of time:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

There's just no logical reason to ascribe a majority of current climate change to anthropogenic causes.

2. we MUST do something DRASTIC AND IMMEDIATE to stop it

That's the one that loses most people, even those willing to assume that current warming is anthropogenic. How can we assume these changes will be bad for mankind--so bad, in fact, that possibly destroying all industrialized civilizations and dragging them back into stagnation through oppressive resource taxes is preferable to using technology to adapt? When larger timescales show such temperatures aren't unusual, where's the justification? While undeniably bad for small island nations which will be submerged, and for some poor and unstable nations which may see more instability as a result of climate change, the already-industrialized world could easily adapt, survive, and prosper. Given that, why should anyone in the already-industrialized world risk economic meltdown and chaos to avert something they can probably adapt to easily?

For some nations, global warming may even be a big plus. While the southwestern U.S. will probably suffer, the farming belt will just shift north and the country at large will continue to prosper. Canada will benefit greatly from more usable farmland. Europe is a toss-up because ocean and air currents which currently heat it are unpredictable, so anything could happen; but no matter what does, they have the economic and industrial power to cope. Wealthy island nations like Japan will find ways to cope and build sea walls and other defenses or adaptations. China will probably see desert shifting, but increased desertification isn't a foregone conclusion especially with their rapidly-expanding industrialization and huge workforce. Russia would probably benefit.

Indeed, it's only the third world--Africa, parts of Latin America, small island areas like Micronesia--which will certainly be negatively impacted. And while the humanitarian in me says, "It would be nice to help them," the realist in me says "Our civilizations got to the next level first. If the unadvanced civilizations wither away so that the advanced can prosper, that's how it should be."

We are never going to get off this rock and expand into space, safeguarding our civ

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[blueg3]

Correct me if my back-of-the-envelope estimate here is wrong.

Just looking at some readily-available graphs of recent temperature averages, it looks like there's a change of 0.8 C in somewhere between 100 and 150 years. That's about 0.005 C/yr (using 150 years). (NOAA claims the rate for the past 50 years is 0.013 C/yr.)

The graph you link notes two areas of interest: a time period with 41 kyr cycles and a time period with 100 kyr cycles. The maximum oscillations during the former appear to be about 5-6 C; during the latter, about 8 C. Using 6 C for the shorter cycle and approximating a "cycle" as taking one-half the period (20 kyr and 50 kyr) to vary between the maximum and minimum, I get temperature change rates of 0.0003 C/yr and 0.0002 C/yr. That's a solid order of magnitude lower rate than the effect that is described as "global warming".

It seems very reasonable to estimate that the decidedly natural effect(s) responsible for the periodic temperature change in the graph you link to account for no more the 5-10% of the temperature change referred to as "global warming".

Sometimes a little quantification is useful.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Count Fenring]

Dude - if your business model is a primary grounds for your acceptance or rejection of a theory, you have a serious fscking problem with your logic skills.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Hutz]

And this is the whole point. The "denialists" rarely if ever deny that we are experiencing a period of warming trends. The question has always been whether or not it is a natural phenomenon or if it is directly effected by the works of man. I, personally, am a mugwump on the issue. But I have no patience for anyone who says that they definitively know how the Earth's climate functions.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Surt]

Adapt or die! Every other animal or plant on this planet has to do this so why do we think we are special?

Animals and plants adapt via evolution. Most people are opposed to this strategy for adaptation, since it will mean, literally, billions of people dying of causes other than old age, and likely the downfall of our current civilization.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Count Fenring]

It may take a climate scientist to do the original research, and to collect those results into a valid analysis - but it's certainly possible to condense and explain the broad results to lay people. That's, in fact, a large part of the rationale behind having these analyses - people who aren't specialists need to make decisions that cover specialist fields all the time. And wildly differing specialist fields interact on a regular basis - that climate scientist might be on a committee with an agriculturalist, and they may both be making decisions and assumptions based on data outside of their fields. It's not perfect, but it's functional.

The issue is that people who aren't even informed second-hand are continually taking one side or the other because of political, religious, or other rationales.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Count Fenring]

It's much more like this: "Unless you're a priest or other person trained to understand religion, your religious views don't carry particular weight."

Except, it's actually about something based on known principles, facts, and science - so it's really: "Unless you understand how car engines work, you have no business telling me what's wrong with my car."

Which is true.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I have to disagree - that's not how academic funding works anywhere I've been. Academia is a hotbed of politics, in fact it's one of the worst environments for that I've ever come across. Yes, once you get tenure you can pretty much say whatever you want. You can also not get merit increases in your salary, not get approved for sabbatical, not get approved by the anonymous committees adjudicating grant applications and publication submissions etc. And if you are a post-doc or non-tenured in some other capacity you have to be very careful if you want to keep that pay-check rolling in at all.

Sadly you can't just rely on "facts" either - they don't really "speak for themselves" - facts always have to be interpreted by human beings and that's where the problems start.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Rary]

Big secret nobody knows about because nobody subscribes except those of us who appreciate Slashdot.

As a longtime Slashdot visitor and commenter who also appreciates Slashdot (as much as it drives me insane most days), I just wanted to let you know that your comment made me feel guilty, and I just (finally!) became a Slashdot subscriber.

Just thought I'd let you know.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Rei]

Coal is only "cheap" because it doesn't have to pay for its externalities. It can dump mining waste into creeks and contaminate rivers downstream. It can emit all of the CO2 into the atmosphere that it pleases. And it can emit amounts of other pollutants that, while regulated, are still extremely costly to society. I read one paper recently that showed that if America's coal plants had to pay for the health the cost of their emissions -- *not* counting CO2 and climate change -- the cost would range from just over 2 cents per kilowatt hour for the cleanest plants to just over 12 cents per kilowatt hour for the dirtiest. So merely making them pay for the health consequences of their emissions alone would put them out of business. Even the lower end is more expensive than the production tax credit for wind.

That's ignoring the consequences of AGW, of course. What do you think it does to poor fishermen when the ocean acidifies, dramatically lowering coral growth rates and hurting population of various kinds of phytoplankton? What do you think it does to poor Bangladeshis when they lose another large chunk of their country every decade, and a corresponding higher elevation suddenly finds itself at risk of storm surges? What do you think the expansion of the Sahara does to poor Africans? It's not that a warmer climate is somehow automatically a bad thing; in fact, historically, warmer climates have led to greater biomass and biodiversity. The problem is that it's a different climate than our societies are adapted to. It doesn't help a poor Bangladeshi that there's a bunch of new farmland in Canada when their country is drowning. It doesn't help an African village whose well just dried up that the winters are milder in Anchorage. And mass migrations are not only not a solution, but they're the cause of some of the greatest periods of chaos in human history. The Dark Ages were a consequence of the mass migration of Germanic tribes as a result of Mongolian pressure in the Asian steppes, for example.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[SleazyRidr]

Global cooling:

In the olden days, we used to do things that would release oxides of sulphur (SOx) into the air. Having these in the air creates some nasty side effects, one of the most dramatic of which is acid rain. Another less drastic side effect is that the SOx in the atmosphere reflects the heat from the sun back out into space, with global cooling as a potential consequence.

Due to the serious nature of acid rain, and the comparative ease of not emitting SOx into the atmosphere (a cheap scrubber on your exhaust) legislation to limit the discharge of SOx met little resistance. Thus, we were able to keep the levels of SOx in the atmosphere at a low level.

Small soot particles in the atmosphere may also contribute to global cooling (through global 'dimming') but regulations to reduce this met little resistance, similar to the SOx example.

Global warming, however, is caused by oxides of carbon (COx) which is not simple to remove from an exhaust stream (as it is the major component.) Thus efforts to reduce the amount of COx going into the atmosphere meet significant resistance as it would necessitate a far greater upheaval than either SOx or soot.

That was a science history update, brought to you by a concerned citizen. We now return to to your regularly scheduled flamewar.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Conception]

From your link, their reasoning is flawed, as I've seen elsewhere. For instance, "For the US, the recently revised NASA GISS Annual Mean temperatures show 6 of the 10 warmest years were from the 1920s to the 1950s and only 4 since 1990."

That means nothing. Global Warming means GLOBAL Warming. The US is allowed to have higher temps from time to time. If you look at the GLOBAL trend, it is getting hotter.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[EQ]

Here's the main point. Unless you're a climate scientist, you're not qualified in any way to engage in a "fact based debate." There's too much data here and it requires specialists to see all of it as a homogeneous whole and draw conclusions.

Complete and utter bullshit. Your statement is typical of cargo-cultists. No poll of scientists, nor self-selected signing onto an opinion about interpretation of data has anything to do with science. Science is not a democratic process! Try Feynman instead:

scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition. In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Red Flayer]

It's not about how much food we produce, it's about how much food we're capable of producing

Which is limited by the loss of arable land, the increasing cost of fossil fuel fertilizer, the pace at which we're depleting aquifers, etc.

With current technologies we will easily be able to keep up with global demand for a long, long time... and the technologies are improving rapidly as well.

How can you say that when we can't even keep up with *today's* demand?

If we have to dedicate more land to food production, we can and will do that.

I see that you don't understand the scope of the problem. This is not about use of arable land. Even if land were infinite (it's not), fresh water was infinite and cheaply deliverable to the needed sites (it's not), population growth was stagnant (it's not) we'd still be screwed in the next 50-100 years because modern agricultural production is highly dependent on finite sources of cheap fertilizer (natural gas, mostly).

And as for the technologies improving... are they really? To the extent needed? Most of the improvements we are seeing do not solve the intrinsic problems of limited resources (water, etc), nor do they address another fundamental problem -- the change in global consumption habits (increasing meat consumption, etc) that is increasing food demand on top of population growth.

Please, do some reading on the subject before stating simple platitudes that we all wish were true, but are nowhere close to the truth.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[SpryGuy]

Yes, that's right... it's a massive conspiracy of tens of thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries across the world, crossing all scientific disciplins, out to get you by putting their scientific reputations on the line to propose a total lie to squeeze a few more tax dollars out of YOUR pocket. (rolling eyes)

That makes SO much more sense.

It's like you have no clue what scientists are like. And you have no clue who is funding all the Global Warming denialism. It's the most ludicrous conspiracy theory I've heard yet, and I've heard a lot of completely crazy ones.

As a great man once said

[Pojut]

"The planet is fine...the people are fucked."

Of course it's deniable

[amstrad]

All sorts of facts are denied by those who refuse to change their positions. See cognitive dissonance

Re:"Undeniable"

[butlerm]

There isn't an intelligent person the planet who denies that global warming is real. The debate is all about causation.

Re:Excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

Same asshats that state hot summers or blooming cheery blossoms in the spring are proof of global warming.

Re:Two Different Thoughts

[easterberry]

"well the basement is flooding but it's already STARTED flooding so why should we bother going down and turning off the tap? My pants would get wet and it's already a bit wet down there anyways. What do you mean 'structural damage if it gets worse?' That doesn't make any sense to me."

Re:The truth is

[Arlet]

Why would the presence of glaciers 100,000 years ago cause (accelerated) warming in recent times ?

Re:"Undeniable"

[Daniel Dvorkin]

There isn't an intelligent person the planet who denies that global warming is real. The debate is all about causation.

The deniers set up multiple goalposts. There are the ones who deny it's happening at all (a favorite tactic of this group is to start their time series with 1998, which was an unusally warm year, to insist that there's been no warming trend in the last 10^H^H11^H^H12 years) and then the "reasonable" ones who say it's happening but that human activity plays no part. This mirrors the pseudo-split between young earth creationists and "intelligent design" proponents almost exactly, and it's no surprise that there's a lot of crossover between the groups.

Of course its deniable...

[nweaver]

People deny evolution. People deny global warming...

People are incredibly good at denying that reality exists, especially when its reality they don't want to comprehend.

Re:It sure is undeniable.

[H0p313ss]

He appears to be trying to argue that since the last major climate change was clearly not caused by humans that the current one must not be.

While not without some merit, this is logically akin to arguing that I didn't get killed driving home last night therefore it would be impossible for me to be killed driving home tonight.

Convincing the deniers is like arguing religion with a believer since their beliefs are not founded in fact, measurable science or sound theory.

One of the problems with the whole debate is that by the time we have definitive proof CO2 emissions are causing global warming it will be far, far too late. At some point I'd like to actually hear a coherent argument about why it could possibly be good to actively modify our atmosphere from the deniers, so far all I've heard is rote-repetition of nonsense arguments.

Re:no global warming != no MAN MADE global warming

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

First line of defence there is no warming

Second line of defence the warming is not manmade

Third line of defence I didnt cause the warning so I wont change my way.

Fourth line of defence come closer or I blow your head off.

Fifth line of defence praying will save the world - all stop working and pray with me.

Welcome to the second line.

Summary appears 'undeniably' wrong.

[RyanFenton]

The word used in TFA is 'unmistakable'. Still, all things can be denied/mistaken by hardcore deniers...

--Irrational response squad is a go!--

Rising indicators

      1. Air temperature over land

Denial: Measurements are wrong - and the sun did it (despite the solar minimum).

      2. Sea-surface temperature

Denial: Measurements are wrong - whales did it, we need to allow more hunting.

      3. Marine air temperature

Denial: Measurements are wrong - underwater volcanoes must have done it.

      4. Sea-level

Denial: Measurements are wrong - land must be getting lower, or else human sin is causing a new flood.

      5. Ocean heat

Denial: Measurements are wrong - sonar must be messing with the equipment.

      6. Humidity

Denial: Measurements are wrong - and this is a self-correcting, perfectly natural thing.

      7. Tropospheric temperature in the 'active-weather' layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth's surface

Denial: Measurements are wrong - and heat rises, duh!

Declining indicators

      1. Arctic sea-ice

Something must be eating the ice! Must be all those hungry polar bears - caused their own problems!

      2. Glaciers

Something must be weighing them down - they're just going underwater! Perhaps all those polar bears crowding on them.

      3. Spring snow cover in the northern hemisphere

Ha! Is it too much snow, or too little now - confused scientists don't know nuthin'!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a congressional subcommittee to advise.

--/Irrational response--

It's easy to find a 'reason' to deny something, when you don't have a burden/benefit of evidence or peer review. And when all you're doing is stalling for the status quo, denial is all you need.

Ryan Fenton

Does it matter?

[dachshund]

I had an eye-opening experience the other day over at the Oil Drum, a blog run by folks associated with the industry. Not people you'd exactly think of as being against the consumption of fossil fuels. But the gist of this posting (which had nothing to do with climate change, and received a lot of favorable commentary) was that we're deeply, deeply fucked if we think we're going to continue burning fossil fuels into our old age. The argument was specifically related to the increasing cost of extraction. (In a nutshell, there's a reason we're now getting our oil from wells a mile underwater).

Now, the conclusion of that poster was pretty depressing, though I don't think he covered all of the options. But what struck me is that if you believe his arguments, it doesn't really matter whether you believe that humans are causing global warming. The actions we need to take now to ensure a reasonable standard of living in 40 years are exactly the same actions we need to take in order to deal with the global warming problem. Above all, to place a tax on fossil fuel consumption (and CO2 taxes do this pretty well) as a means to encourage the market to do something reasonable about the problem. The fact that we couldn't even pass the tiny little tax proposed in the recently defeated Waxman-Markey bill tells us something deeply frightening about our chances.

What kills me about the anti-global-warming argument is that its opponents think that it really matters whether AGW exists. It doesn't matter. For either reason we need to dramatically reduce our fossil fuel consumption and develop alternative sources (efficient, cost-effective nuclear, wind, solar, etc._ just to ensure that we and our children have a chance at living a decent life in the future. There's nothing in the universe that guarantees we won't face terrible consequences for our bad decisions, just because we've had a pretty good run for the past few decades.

Re:no global warming != no MAN MADE global warming

[RichMan]

> who are we to think we have that much power over the entire planet?

Ozone hole. Acid rain. Plastic Gyre. Rain Fores destruction. Species extinction. Desertification of large areas by agricultural practices.

We have done it many times.

Re:"Undeniable"

[XanC]

But the thing is, in order to justify creating the global socialist utopia which is the true goal of the "warmers", ALL the goalposts must be cleared. ALL of the following must be true:

a) warming is happening

b) it's a bad thing

c) human activity contributes significantly

d) it's possible to do something about it

e) the cure is better than the disease

Unless every one of those things is true, then the "green" crusade against global warming falls apart. So yes, you do have a goalpost issue: it's that you have to get past (at least) five of them to even have a shot.

Of course it's deniable

[DrXym]

Everything is deniable. Look at all the anti-vacination, intelligent design, 9/11 conspiracists. In each case they have had copious incontrovertible evidence shoved in their faces and they still parrot the same idiotic nonsense as they always did. So it is with the anti-global warming crowd. Some people will not budge from a viewpoint no matter how obviously wrong or idiotic it is demonstrated to be.

Re:Idiotic phrasing

[MightyMartian]

The one fact that counts, regardless of whether it's causing the warming or not, is that oil will not last forever. Whether taking millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 and puking it into the atmosphere in the space of three centuries is tipping us over the edge, the real disaster will happen when the price of a barrel of oil skyrockets to the point where everything from fertilizers to plastic spoons are priced beyond what our economic system can bare.

The reality is that complex long-chain hydrocarbons are goddamned fucking valuable for industrial processes and for the production of a stunning number of chemicals and products. The most idiotic and short-sighted thing we can do with these hydrocarbons is to put them in our fuel tanks. It's absolute madness, and the only cure is the disaster itself, that when oil does reach obscene prices, we'll be forced into using the alternatives. The hope of many was that we, as a species, would for once plan the obsolescence of a fading resource, rather than driving headlong into the wall and somehow hoping we would all pick up the pieces.

At some point in the next fifty to a hundred years that's going to happen, global warming or not, and then maybe not us, but our kids and grandkids, are going to be left the horrible mess that we could have dealt with, if we hadn't been dominated by greedy oil companies who don't give a flying fuck how things go down the shits when the flow of cheap hydrocarbons comes to an end.

The USA Versus The World

[damn_registrars]

While the notion that

There is decreasing amounts of doubt that the world is warming up

May be true in across this planet in general, it is sadly not true in the USA. In the USA there is still a very substantial number of people who deny global warming outright for various reasons (often nothing more than political - just wait for this story to be tagged "manbearpig" on the front page).

(especially in the United States) liberals are ONLY concerned with the man-made "portion" of the effect

It is almost impossible to be concerned "only" with that portion - assuming it to be significant. That would be like being concerned about second hand smoke but not lung cancer in smokers, the two are directly connected matters. Whether global warming is caused by activities of humans doesn't change the fact that global warming is having dramatic affects on all life around the world.

Weather is not Climate

[Tailhook]

So far, it's been a scorcher for folks all around the world.

released a report revealing 2010 having the record for warmest June, warmest April to June and warmest year to date

I thought weather is not climate.

I remember hearing that a lot in 2009. Don't hear it so much this year, for some reason.

Re:This research is FALSE!

[spun]

You don't understand the difference between weather and climate? Really? That's been a huge part of the debate for decades now, because every moron out there thought he could debunk climate research with weather anecdotes, and so other people have had to explain the difference, again, for decades now. So I'm surprised you have not had this explained to you before now.

Take a pot of water. Put it on a hot stove. Given that you know the temperature of the stove, the water, the air, the material of the pan, the humidity, and the altitude, you can predict exactly when the pan will boil (climate) but you will not be able to predict the location of the first bubble to break the surface (weather).

If that explanation helps, please take some of the burden off the rest of us and pass it on the next time you hear someone saying "But we can't predict the weather." Thanks.

Re:Here's the only place I'd like to get to:

[Count Fenring]

Ah, but we only give a good goddamn about thriving ecosystems that are livable for humankind. Furthermore, we'd be pretty pissed about a thriving ecosystem where most of the former coastal regions were under the sea.

Irreversible damage to us is the worst kind of irreversible damage ;-)

Re:"Undeniable"

[Culture20]

There isn't an intelligent person the planet who denies that global warming is real.

And there isn't an intelligent person on the planet who can't see the Emperor's new clothes. Please don't appeal to vanity as a method of argument.