Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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 [slashdot.org].
I think, unfortunately, that's the goal of a lot of the posting you refer to --- to frustrate reasonable people and make them get out of the business of commenting. I'd be all in favor of a reasonable, fact-based debate, but the comments on Slashdot rarely make it to that level. (I also tend to think there's a lot of multiple-account posting/moderation nonsense going on, but only the Slashdot editors themselves could prove that.)
Does it matter if it's anthropogenic? I'm against a hot world with rising seas, melting ice caps and global drought. I'm against all of the other terrible nastiness associated with it. I don't give a damn who we blame, but let's find a way to halt/fix it, shall we?
Pretty much.
I have found that apathy is the best approach anyway. Personally, I can make virtually no difference. I limit my trash, try to compost what I can, buy what appears to be more environmentally friendly products (although I'm sure half the things that are marketed so are just lying about it or meet some EPA loophole) and cut my driving down as much as possible. (I don't own a hybrid or anything, but I figure the amount of energy used to create and ultimately dispose of a new car makes my old car energy neutral.)
I do these things because I don't want my own environment to be a dump. I don't want the air in my valley to be smog-ridden. It's that simple.
Is global warming man made? Is it natural? Is it both? Don't know. Don't care. If it's man made it will be solved ONLY when its effects damage the bottom lines of the governments and large businesses the pump out most of the pollution. Until then, a couple people like me trying to live cleaner and more environmentally friendly within our means won't do shit and neither will all the screaming and yelling about the eventual devastation it will cause.
While I believe humans certainly do contribute, what's to be done? Get the government involved? You mean the government that's bought and paid for by polluting companies to do something about it? Ha! If that's your solution, global warming sure as shit isn't your biggest problem. Not even close.
So... focus on your broken political systems, then worry about saving the planet. Global warming will effectively take care of itself when it begins to become costly. Heading it off at the pass will involve reasonable nations, governments and people... none of which actually exist.
Yes. Artificially increasing the price of energy will harm the poorest of the poor, and increase poverty and misery throughout the world. Cheap energy means better lives for humanity, period. Telling a family in Africa that they have to watch their children die of malnourishment, exposure to the elements and disease because we're going to make it too expensive for them to afford energy is pretty drastic.
#2 might be a reasonable assertion, but #1 is falsified by the historical record. A warmer planet is a better planet for life, period. We've had warmer periods in the past that were not "irreversible", and humanity has flourished during warm periods.
Which Earth was used to conduct these experiments that provided the evidence?
The same Earth that was used to "conduct these experiments" which showed us that dinosaurs used to roam the Earth, that huge asteroids have hit our planet in the past, and that our planet is 4 1/2 billion years old. All fake too, I suppose?
You don't have to personally experience something to have compelling data that it exists. I didn't witness my own conception, but I'm pretty darned sure it actually happened and that I wasn't carried here by a stork or grew out of a head of cabbage. Why? Because all of the available data suggests that's how humans are born.
To go back to this case: there are many causes of climate change (all spelled out in the IPCC AR4, if you care to read it). The studies on each of them are presented, each with their own level of forcings and the confidence interval for each study. There are a wide variety of studies for each type of forcing -- for example, one paper might involve a physics model, while another might involve measurements using a satellite, another might involve a measurement using ground stations, another measurement using balloons with different instruments, and so forth. So you have multiple completely independent lines of evidence for the strength of each forcing. A consensus level of forcing and confidence interval is reached from each forcing. The consensus level shows that GHGs dominate the climate change forcings.
The other leading climate change forcings, such as land use changes, are clearly anthropogenic. But what about GHGs? There are several different approaches that study this. One is "old carbon versus new carbon"; carbon from coal, oil, etc has a different isotopic signature than carbon from decay and the like. Mind you, it's the same signature as with volcanism, but volcanism emissions are readily studied and are utterly dwarfed by manmade emissions. We catalog manmade emissions from different sources (with confidence intervals, of course), and that also shows that the overwhelming amount of carbon contributing to the relentless and steady rise is also anthropogenic and matches the rise very well in terms of magnitude over time. We look at changes in natural carbon sources and sinks and likewise quantify them. Furthermore, we not only look at totals, but where they're coming from; our latest satellites how have the resolution to see new carbon being added to the atmosphere and where it's coming from, and watch the anthropogenic plumes diffuse into the broader atmosphere. When you look at the numbers, there's no doubt where this new carbon is coming from; it's overwhelmingly anthropogenic, with nothing else even close.
Beyond all of this, we use a wide variety of physics models -- both global models and models for specific components. A model can be something as simple as a calculation of radiative heat transfer under different gas mixtures, or as complicated as something that models the sources and sinks over the entire planet and covers all of the various feedback mechanisms. Models are nearly all based on first principles in large part or entirity. Depending on the type of model, they're either validated with lab data or historic climate data.
All in all, the conclusion is the result of literally many thousands of peer-reviewed papers covering a wide variety of disciplines.
I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
This, for me, is THE issue, and the goddamn climate deniers are such a bunch of morons that have pissed off so many people with their stupid arguments that a thinking person cannot be openly skeptical about the popular theories anymore. The elephant in the room as I see it is that the theory of anthropogenic climate change skirts dangerously close to being completely unfalsifiable. We have no means, other than computer simulation, of teasing out whether the human contribution to CO2 emissions is tipping the system into instability, or simply being damped out and absorbed into the whole process. We won't even know in 200 years, you can't do a controlled experiment on this one. To top it off, the predictions made by the climate community are so random that its difficult to see whether you can falsify the main theory as well, the earth warms up: climate change, the earth cools down: climate change, more storms: climate change, drought: climate change. There are two truly falsifiable predictions as far as I can tell, firstly that the mean temperature is increasing (verified), and secondly that the sea levels are rising/will rise (not verified). With the former, how do you tease out the earth's natural cycle from the man-made part? The second, well we are going to have to wait a while yet, but the same question will remain when we know.
I'm not denying climate change, far from it, I am saying that there are aspects of it that smell of bad science, and the demonisation of skepticism is a very dangerous precedent. I'm sick of the whole debate honestly, but one thing I know for certain: climate scientists, a while ago and ever since, bought into the politics of the debate, and as far as I'm concerned they can go fuck themselves if they think this is a battle that should be fought in the 'hearts and minds' of the community, or one which should be fought with and against politicians. Politics and consensus are not aspects of good science, the fact that the majority of scientists believe the theories says absolutely nothing about the science. There was a time when the majority of scientists believed the earth to be flat, there was once a consensus that we won't find particles smaller than an atom. Science has nothing to do with consensus! This is a dangerous idea.
There is one more thing I am wholly certain of: There are far more pressing environmental issues than climate change, ones which we understand far more clearly, and have infinitely more capacity to reverse. That these issues have fallen to the wayside troubles me far more than the idea of living in a significantly more volatile climate.