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

[dachshund]

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.)

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

[OYAHHH]

Per the "prototype dashboard", rather than tout data only back to 1950, why don't we look backwards 5 million years, because as we know more data means better predictions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[AnonymousClown]

Who is this "we"? Oh I get it, you're playing one of those little hyperbolic games where you ascribe malevolence to researchers, sort of like how the IDers do. I'm afraid, Cinderella, the shoe fits on your foot.

It's TRUE! Where do you think the stereotype of "EVIL SCIENTIST" came from?

I am certain that Global Warming is an evil plot that the entire International Scientific community created in order to .... in order to...control the World! That's it! And to cause higher taxes!

Scientists want higher taxes and that's why they invented this whole global warming myth! And the reason why they want higher taxes is because.....because....um.......haven't gotten that far yet. But when I do, BEWARE! I will blow all of the Global Warming believers' arguments out of the water with my water tight logic!

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Nursie]

I'll always vote appropriately... but yeah, otherwise I guess they've won, I stopped caring.

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]

1. humans are causing it

Read the report. I'm not going to keep posting the same damned thing over and over. It's all over there with convincing evidence that man-made or "anthropogenic" changes are attributing to this in serious ways. No, it does not account for 100% of all the warming but certainly some of it.

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

And where the hell did anyone propose that? Huh? You think energy star ratings are drastic? You think that putting a date 30 years out to curb our countries carbon emissions is drastic? Do you know what drastic means? Do you know what rationing is? Apparently not.

Here's the only place I'd like to get to: agreeing that 1) climate is warming to a point of unnatural irreversible damage and 2) man made factors are contributing to it. You don't even have to change anything right now. Just make your base agreements and then lets start voting on how much we should react to it and keep a measurable pace of results if possible.

This is why I hate commenting on this shit. It upsets me, it makes me swear and lash out at complete strangers who don't have the time to read the material they are commenting on.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Tangential]

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.

The real (and unanswered) question is whether or not the current global warming is anthropogenic. Since past global warmings were not, there's not a lot of reason to believe that this one is. CO2 levels have been higher in the past, atmospheric water vapor has been higher in the past, etc..

If the climate models that indicate anthropogenic causes were correct and rigorous, we could run them retrograde and accurately model the climate of the planet for the past few millennia. Then events like the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder Minimum would show up. To my knowledge, no one has bothered to create such a model.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Nursie]

How else would you propose to cut emissions and make ecologically friendly technology attractive for investment, other than by making it expensive to do so?

I'm genuinely interested rather than preparing to flame. That bit comes further down the post.

As for the liberal slurs... one can equally say that the other side is historically selfish and in the pockets of big business, the folks who have most to lose if any progress is made on the matter.

And what the fuck is the liberal agenda? (excuse my french) It's the same in the UK and in the US, people going on about liberals screwing everything up all the time, all the while there are few liberals in power in either country. The Democrats in the US sure as hell aren't liberal, they don't have the ethics for it. And the liberal party in the UK has only just become a minor member in a coalition. Yet people have been whining about 'liberals' for a decade now.

The problems I see with current western democracy is nothing to with liberalism. It's the damned authoritarians in charge. The opposite of 'liberal'.

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

[Colin Smith]

This is why I hate commenting on this shit.

And yet you managed to get in so early too.

 

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

[samkass]

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

It is nice we've made progress on this front. 15 years ago the argument REALLY WAS that Global Warming didn't exist at all. 10 years ago they were still trying to manipulate the data to make it seem like there was a localized "cooling trend" beginning. Now we've FINALLY reached the point where we at least acknowledge it's happening and start to examine why.

The case for anthropogenic causes is pretty strong. By scientific standards, it's stronger than many things people take for granted in astronomy or particle physics. But because politics has gotten involved and it's inconvenient, there's a natural reaction to try to explain it away with natural causes.

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

I haven't seen any bills before my Congress to do anything drastic or immediate. Right now we're having a hard enough time convincing everyone that we SHOULD do something REASONABLE over DECADES to slow it down. It's worth noting that doing nothing, by many reasonable estimates, is going to be much more expensive than taking action now. We're once again mortgaging our kids' future to pay for our laziness today.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Anonymous Coward]

The link you are looking for is:
http://www.surfacestations.org/about.htm
and pretty much the worst sites they found are listed here:
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Garbage-In, Garbage-Out, anyone?

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

[bunratty]

The current rate of warming is 0.2 degrees Celcius. On any graph of temperatures going back millions of years, the temperature increase over the past several decades appears as a vertical line. To predict the rate of warming over the next century, it would be more informative to use a graph of the past century or so.

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

[hsthompson69]

You think that putting a date 30 years out to curb our countries carbon emissions is drastic?

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.

Here's the only place I'd like to get to: agreeing that 1) climate is warming to a point of unnatural irreversible damage and 2) man made factors are contributing to it

#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.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Anonymous Coward]

"300 brainwashed or dishonest "scientists" [citation needed] "wouldn't be very hard to find. [citation needed] Personally, I find it hilarious that 300 scientists and a government agency with a vested interest [citation needed] are supposed to convince me of a problem that's been proven false on every accord. [citation needed] The amount of scientists suing the climate change crowd for fraud [citation needed] is more than this puny 300. [citation needed] Give me a break. If I want to buy some snake oil, at least spare me the doomsday shtick."

"Want to buy a bridge?"

Got buyer's remorse, don't you.

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

[Have Brain Will Rent]

This is why I hate commenting on this shit. It upsets me, it makes me swear and lash out at complete strangers who don't have the time to read the material they are commenting on.

Ummm, well if you can't control yourself enough to stop swearing and lashing out then maybe you could control yourself enough to just not post.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Caviller]

And this comment:

1) climate is warming to a point of unnatural irreversible damage

is the reason people don't want to listen to the 'climate' scientists.

1) Unnatural - What the hell gives them the right to decide what is natural or unnatural? Thew world has been MUCH MUCH hotter and MUCH MUCH colder then it is today. So where do you draw the line between natural and unnatural?

2) Irreversible - Once again, see above...the planet has been on both ends of the spectrium and, if you look out a window today, it has reversed.

3) Damage - To apply the word damage means that something is out of norms. Consider the planet has been both hotter and colder then it is today...I say that no 'damage' has occurred...

Global warming and cooling is a natural cycle that our planet goes through; study after study shows that. The problem for us, is that our species evolved at this, roughly, current level. If it goes too far in either direction, we have two choices... Adapt or die! Every other animal or plant on this planet has to do this so why do we think we are special?

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

[Rei]

You do realize that the rate of warming at the end of the last glaciation is about two orders of magnitude than the rate of warming we're experiencing today, right?

Yes, the current rate has been experienced before -- the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was the last analogous period. But that was 56mya. And anyway, I don't think we want to repeat it. It changed the world so much that we give the subsequent era a new name (the Eocene).

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[gorzek]

The science of all this is pretty settled by now. If you don't accept it, that's your problem.

I love how everybody thinks they're a climate scientist now, though. I am not. If the broader community of climate scientists says anthropogenic global warming is happening, I am inclined to believe them. Even the scandals that have come out (Climategate, etc.) have done very little to poke holes in the underlying science.

I'll start to question the whole thing if and when it looks like climate science has fractured and the community is disintegrating. Instead, the consensus is only building and skeptics are coming into the fold, convinced by the evidence.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[hexghost]

So...you point to the now completely debunked 'climategate' bull, and a book on amazon.

You must have a Ph. D. from liberty university!

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[PopeRatzo]

No one is doubting Global Warming.

Actually, you only have to turn on your AM radio and go up and down the dial anywhere in the United States to hear global warming doubted every day.

We have better pollution issues to solve. Like Why east houston stinks.

Are you certain that it's not all part of the same problem?

Personally my business model would be screwed up if someone could prove causation, So I'm not likely to buy it unless shown undeniable proof.

I suspect that when someone says they need "undeniable proof" they are really saying that there is no proof that they would find sufficient because their very worldview depends on denying the undeniable.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[PopeRatzo]

I'd be all in favor of a reasonable, fact-based debate

Well, that makes one of us.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Adrian Lopez]

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."

The little humanitarian inside you appears rather weak and malnourished. Indeed, you're probably breaking a number of international treaties concerning the humane treatment of inner humanitarians.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Ben4jammin]

Well it would appear that all contrary views are being modded down, but here is another: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html Once again, I'm not saying whose right or wrong, simply that there is still debate.

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

[Rei]

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.

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

[flitty]

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.

If you think that monetary costs are the only cost of energy, you've missed the point. The reason why we are artificially increasing the price of energy is because we are going to start charging for the social costs of "cheap" energy. Processing of oil/coal is toxic and/or dangerous. Most of these costs are paid by the poorest of the poor already by their proximity to the processing plants. If there is a company out there who can create energy cleaner than anybody else, why not reward them? Currently, in the "market-based economy" that we have, there is NO reason to make your coal plant cleaner, other than keeping within the EPA standards. The cleanest companies should be rewarded monitarily as well, why does this escape so many people?

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Rei]

Furthermore:

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.

Yes, about 3% of active, publishing climatologists disagree (Doran, 2009; EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union)

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

[Red Flayer]

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.

Your facts are stale. Humans have consumed more food than we've produced for the last several years. Our global reserves of food are very low, and getting lower every year.

This will be exacerbated when we run out of cheap fossil fuels we use for fertilizer.

We'll see if Malthus can be held off another generation or two... but things aren't looking very rosy for the global food supply-demand equation right now.

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

[Draek]

Yeah! screw the Man, and screw their godless commie "universities"! I never went to one myself, never even finished high-school and I can tell you all this "global warming" bullshit is nothing but a commie liberal scheme to steal our trucks away and ruin everything America stands for.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Culture20]

I love how everybody thinks they're a climate scientist now,

Yeah, I love how scientists in other fields are always telling FOO scientists that their FOO studies weren't done following standard scientific procedure with proper controls and data collection. What do BAR scientists know about FOO science? It's completely different! ~

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[IICV]

It's funny because that's how religion works, but not how science works. The difference is that each priest hears a different voice of God talking to him, but every scientist looks at the same underlying reality. (That's why science converges and religion diverges, but that's an argument for another day)

Long story short: if you are a truthful climate scientist, you acknowledge that the Earth is getting warmer and it is at least in part due to us. Almost every piece of evidence is consistent with this conclusion, and there is almost no evidence against it.

If you don't acknowledge the the Earth is getting warmer, you're either untruthful, misled, not a climate scientist or all of the above.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[DamienRBlack]

Two questions then:

1) What can we actively do to mitigate risk that isn't "drastic"? Just give me an example, any example. If a few taxes, are "drastic" then every day we take "drastic" actions to keep the roads maintained, fund public schools and do a variety of mundane jobs that don't require drastic action. By Webster: Drastic: acting rapidly or violently; extreme in effect or action. Taxes are extreme? Jailing people who use gasoline is extreme, a tax isn't.

2) What is realistically necessary to provide you with "convincing evidence"? Obviously, changing the CO2 levels on an earth clone isn't possible, so what -could- realistically be sufficient evidence for you? If there exist no intersection between realistically possible evidence and evidence you will except as sufficient, that leads to a problem... don't you think? Everyone should have such a intersection for any non-faith belief they have. And global warming defiantly counts as non-faith.

Don't you see difficulty of conversing in a meaningful fashion with you? It seems impossible to provide you with evidence. Without that evidence you call any action at all "drastic". So why don't you tell me, what do you need as evidence, and what action can we then take that meets your approval? Surly you concede that there is the _possibly_ of some situation which would provide you with enough evidence to feel confidant to act, and even without that evidence, surely there must be _something_ we can do to mitigate risk that isn't "drastic". Let me know what those are.

You said "anything that is being advocated may be meaningless and have no effect at all". Yes, that's true. But that is also true with many precautions we take every day. We buy insurance even though we "may" never use it. We still take the precaution because it makes sense. If we're speculating in possibilities you can also say "anything that is being advocated may be the only thing that saves mankind from extinction". What makes us rational creatures is that we don't think that anything that "may" happen is equally likely. We examine evidence, we consider the possibilities and we come to potential conclusions. We do this even when the evidence isn't 100%. I don't have 100% proof that gravity isn't going to give out any moment, but I make a ration decision based I the evidence I do have, which is strong. Therefor, I decide not to walk around in velcro. I don't have 100% proof that locking my doors deters burglars, in fact it "may" deter present-givers, or encourage burglars. Alas, I lock my doors. So tell me, what evidence do you need to take reasonable action given the potential risk? Let me know where your thresholds of belief are so that we can begin to have a meaningful conversation. What is you criterion of sufficiency, and is it realistically possible? As it currently stands, your statements make you out to be an irrational person, because you will take no action whatsoever without a untenable criterion of sufficiency. A rational discourse simply can't be had with someone like that. I'm sure you are in fact rational, so please, explain what evidence and actions you'll be OK with.

Personally, my threshold of belief is as follows: when a preponderance of scientists around the globe warn that human action has a fair-to-midsized chance of causing a cataclysmic event, I'm alright with playing a little bit more for gas and electricity, even if it has only small-to-fair chance of helping. Let me know where you disagree with my threshold, and what your threshold is.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Mr. Slippery]

Let them move or die? Why do you have to DO anything with those populations?

Because even if you're a sociopath with no compassion, you have to deal with the fact that people don't just sit down and die when food runs out. They often pick up weapons and go to where there is food. They'll move, all right, but without the benefit of real estate transactions recorded by governments.

And many of them will be highly pissed at the nation most responsible for setting off the climate change that ruined their old homeland. You think the U.S. faces a terrorist threat now? Just wait until some third-world rabble rousers starts telling people that we're responsbile for turning their farms into desert.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[captainbeardo]

I'm sick of all the stork delivery birth deniers. TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!

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

[sorak]

I hate the argument that AGW policies are all too drastic. We've known about this for half a century, and have responded by dragging our feet. If you want a more subtle solution, blame the AGW deniers who came before you. If you want to see drastic, then oppose cap and trade as much as possible, and see where it leaves us in ten years.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[VJ42]

Even if it is 100% caused by man I don't see what they expect us to do about it.

Simple, in the short term, save energy (remember to turn the lights off, insulate your house etc.) and recycle, this has the added benefits of saving you money and conserving land fill space. In the medium term, society needs to move from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and build nuclear power plants; this also has added benefits - it lengthens the life of our limited supply of oil and creates jobs in new industries. In short, theses are things we should probably be doing whether man made climate change exists or not; the controversy around the subject is just dumb. Personally I don't know enough about the minutiae of climate change to engage in the scientific debate, but I know that the results of the people asking me to "do my bit" is I get more money in my pocket, and society moves on the results of the people who tell me "don't bother" is I get nothing and society stagnates.

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.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[daver00]

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.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[Michael Kristopeit]

if climate scientists are using applied physics to make their forecasts, then why is absolutely no one absolutely sure what specifically is causing the warming or what specifically could stop it?

oh, that's right, because they aren't applying physics, they are guessing.

Re:More Info & Dashboard

[epine]

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.

Unless you're a climate scientist who confers with hard core statisticians and even then the climate record suffers an appalling lack of homogeneous data. It's not been until the satellite era that anything resembling a homogeneous record has come into existence. Different times, different instruments, different measurement densities. Go a little further back, it's tree rings in a teacup.

I think the global warming hypothesis is somewhere around "preponderance of evidence" (civil standard) and nowhere close to "beyond a reasonable doubt" (criminal standard). It's almost certainly probably true.

I'm not a climate denier. I just think it's a darn hard to build a definitive case on a data set that's thin on the back end. If we had satellite climate data dating back to 1900, it'd be a slam dunk. Within another two or three decades, it'll be a slam dunk. Urgency != certainty.

It'll be interesting to look back in 2050, if civilization still exists, to see which point in history is regarded as having successfully proven the global warming thesis. Will half the data from 2010 have been shot full of holes in retrospect? Or not? As compared against the standards of scientific proof in other branches of science not bearing the weight of the survival of planet earth and life as we know it.

Here's a question. Let's imagine a world where AGW is taking place, but the paucity of data makes this fact scientifically unprovable, until underlying agents of AGW are far advanced (far more so than earth presently). Would the scientific consensus in this world be that the AGW thesis is unprovable as the data stands, or would they busy themselves with squeezing blood from a rock?

Is an ambitious scientist convinced of the future outcome not vulnerable to the thought process "it doesn't matter if I stretch the data a little bit, I'll soon be vindicated anyway"?

Economics as a discipline usually tells you what you needed to know long after you needed to know it. Why is it not possible that climate science also dabbles in dismal? And on what planet is the dismal realist rewarded with the largest study grant?

Neither am I sure I buy the strategy "safety in numbers". Isn't that just a good way to dissipate the painful fact that nobody understands the elephant as a whole?

On the other side of the fence, proof that the planet is *not* warming consists of lies, fabrications, distortions, and bupkus. In a prudent world, one would want to see that proof before conducting a grand experiment on the whole ball of water.

Global Warming eh?

[oldmac31310]

I thought they were using the less specific term 'climate change' these days.

Good

[Wonko the Sane]

It's been pretty cold recently.

Re:Good

[johnlcallaway]

You mean how people might be affected by the Arctic Ocean would be open all year and decrease shipping costs?? Or how growing seasons could shift so that some areas that can't grow much food will now have longer growing seasons, and in areas where people live so transportation costs could decrease? Or how winters would be less severe so fewer people might die?? Or how many low lying areas could be reasonably protected (increasing employment no less), there are already several examples where cities are below sea level. You mean those reasons?? Or how a new NOAA study say that hurricanes will be less severe if the oceans get warmer, so the Gulf of Mexico just might become a safer place to live.

It's funny how everyone concentrates on the bad effects, but fail to mention the positive effects. One might think they are just trying to push the argument their way instead of getting an unbiased look at ALL the issues.

Ok .. for the sake of argument, let's say the earth is warming. Now the question is 'Why?'. If one is is to assume the 'man caused global warming' theory is correct, then decreasing CO2 production might help, but at a very high cost and life style change that will be forced upon people. If they are wrong, and it is just natural, then we might do all this for nothing, and still have to face all the issues.

The seas are not going to rise over night. The growing seasons are not going to shift next year. We can use reasonable measures to decrease CO2 production that won't destroy economies, and at the same time examine and prepare for the changes that could occur no matter what we do. Just stop all the fanatical fear mongering.

BTW -- I live in Phoenix and ride my motorcycle all year. Global warming?? Bring it on!!!! I'd love for it to be about 3-4 degrees warmer in the 'winter' here, and extend my pool season.

As a great man once said

[Pojut]

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

Re:As a great man once said

[Hinhule]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg

And this is going to help?

[Just_Say_Duhhh]

Why do I get that sick feeling that the heat from this discussion will only make the global warming problem worse?

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:Well

[easterberry]

I'm somewhat curious about why we got mentioned myself. I mean, I know us Canadians love any acknowledgment that the rest of the world remembers we exist above the states but really? Is it because we're stereotypically cold?

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:Global warming != anthropogenic

[stagg]

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?

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.

Re:Global warming != anthropogenic

[afabbro]

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?

If it's nonanthropogenic, there probably is not a way to stop it.

Re:But is it caused by humans?

[hardburn]

This particular report doesn't specify causes. It just goes over the temperature data and factors directly related to it (like humidity and glaciation). Even if the deniers could pick out one of these datasets and show that's its problematic, there would still be 9 others going the other direction--a textbook case of the Strawman.

Anthropogenic factors are proven out in other studies. There isn't a legitimate debate about that anymore, either.

The debate that's left is in the exact effects and what we can do about it. Low levels of extra CO2 in the atmosphere may actually be beneficial, but we've almost certainly blown way beyond that. Then there are large scale geoengineering projects (like putting a solar shield at L1), which are both expensive and may have unknown consequences. They're being discussed because there aren't a lot of better ideas.

Re:Two Different Thoughts

[afabbro]

No, the camps are:

• Believes climate change is occurring and it's anthropogenic.
• Believes climate change is occurring but it's nonanthropogenic.
• Does not believe climate change is occurring.

The flood is coming! NOAA save us!

[wealthychef]

Am I the only one who thinks news of an impending rise in sea level is brought to us by a group called "NOAA?"

Environmental dumping has never been good

[RichMan]

The study does not address the cause of the warming.

We know no we have caused acid rain and the ozone hole by releasing different materials into the air.

We know that when we mess around with our environment whether it be with lead, pcbs, dioxins or really another chemical it causes problems.

Why do people find it so hard to believe that the incredible increase in atmospheric CO2 is not a problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

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:"Undeniable" Skews the Discussion

[Wonko the Sane]

After all, the Earth has been warming globally for over WELL OVER 10,000 years during the time the last Ice Age receeded until the present.

When you look at it from a longer timescale the ice age isn't completely over yet.

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

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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

We are, as far as we know, the only species on the planet capable of doing the physics and chemistry to understand how CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere. That's a place to start.

Fear of hubris is for barbarians. We're better than that now.

Re:Global warming != anthropogenic

[stagg]

Of course, we might not be able to stop it if it's anthropogenic either. I choose to believe that we have enormous tools and resources at our disposal, and could achieve quite significant change if we wanted to. Modern science is pretty damn impressive. Strictly speaking it is possible to affect the climate globally, whether or not you think it's realistic. And at this point, we'd better be seriously considering trying. Best that current trends not continue.

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.

Re:Global warming != anthropogenic

[eldavojohn]

The data as presented indicates a recent warming trend, but does not say anything about whether this is man-made or not; a 0.5deg rise in 50 years is extremely small in the scheme of things, and drawing the usual alarmist conclusions from this is quite unfounded.

So read the report itself:

The NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) shows radiative forcing relative to 1750, of all the long-lived greenhouse gases indexed to 1 for the year 1990. Since 1990, radiative forcing from greenhouse gases has increased 27.5%.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are important atmospheric trace gases with significant man-made sources. Nitrous oxide has the third strongest anthropogenic climate forcing after CO2 and CH4 and is considered a major greenhouse gas (Butler 2009).

The atmospheric N2O budget is out of balance by one-third as a result of man-made emissions, primarily through emissions from nitrogen fertilizers (Crutzen et al. 2007).

Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continued to rise, with CO2 increasing at a rate above the 1978 to 2008 average. The global ocean CO2 uptake flux for 2008, the most recent year for which analyzed data are available, is estimated to have been 1.23 Pg C yr-1, which is 0.25 Pg C yr-1 smaller than the long-term average and the lowest estimated ocean uptake in the last 27 years. At the same time, the total global ocean inventory of anthropogenic carbon stored in the ocean interior as of 2008 suggests an uptake and storage of anthropogenic CO2 at rates of 2.0 and 2.3 ±0.6 Pg C yr-1 for the decades of the 1990s and 2000s, respectively.

In the tropics this increase has been formally attributed to anthropogenic change over the 1988–2006 period (Santer et al. 2007).

all the time series show an underlying rise in OHC consistent with our understanding of anthropogenic climate change.

I mean, the evidence is all over the report. The only thing stopping them from saying that it is conclusively man made is that 1) it's probably impossible to prove it and 2) there might always be some evidence of non anthropogenic warming contributing to the cause but not accounting for all of it.

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:Does it matter?

[Wonko the Sane]

cost-effective nuclear

We developed that back in the 1960s! Go look up the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment.

The same assholes who have blocked further development of "4th generation" nuclear power which forced us to built a bunch of coal power plants instead are the ones pushing for cap and trade.

Because it's always been about control.

This research is FALSE!

[spun]

I can easily disprove the claims of these so called "scientists." They claim that global warming is undeniable, and yet we see people denying it right here in the comments. Ha HA!

Now, if they had said something along the lines of "At this point, the proof is so overwhelming that only mentally deficient conservative hippie-hating anti-environmentalist shills for big business will attempt to deny it," well, that is just self evidently true.

Re:This research is FALSE!

[spun]

I can easily disprove the claims of these so called "scientists." They claim that global warming is undeniable, and yet we see people denying it right here in the comments.

Cute, but it's implied that it's undeniable by people who actually understand the science and look at it objectively. They really don't care what morons and jebus freaks "think" about their work..

You don't say...

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: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:"Undeniable"

[binary paladin]

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.

sure there is

[Chirs]

If it's nonanthropogenic, it just means we might not be able to stop it by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are lots of other options. I seem to remember someone suggesting that it would be relatively cheap to just blast large amounts of titanium dioxide particles into the upper atmosphere in order to increase the albedo of the earth and reflect some of the incoming solar radiation, thus reducing temperatures on earth. The scary part of this is that it's supposedly cheap enough that a single country could decide to do it unilaterally.

That's just one possible option, there are others.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the only place I'd like to get to: agreeing that 1) climate is warming to a point of unnatural irreversible damage and 2) man made factors are contributing to it.

I think you might succeed on point #2. But point #1 sets an impossibly high bar. Natural CO2 levels have been much higher in the geologic past and thriving ecosystems existed when there was no ice anywhere on the planet.

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: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:"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.

Re:I question some of their conclusions.

[Abcd1234]

How about either finding a way to MOVE those people to a place where their yearly food supply WON'T be wiped out in 5 minutes during a drought, or alternatively build serious water pipelines to mitigate the problems in those areas.

Okay, sure, let's do that.

Wait, first, *who* is going to do that?

Next, who is going to pay for doing that?

Third, how do you convince them to do that when it's very likely a good portion of their people a) don't believe GW is happening at all, or b) think it's a good thing because, hey, they get to play in their Phoenix swimming pool for a little while longer!

The point is, I don't disagree with you. Not at all. We *should* be doing all we can to mitigate the effects of GW before it really screws with us. But there's simply *no political will to do anything about GW*. Which is why a report like this is import. It flat out points out that a) GW is happening, and b) it's gonna fuck people up. And that includes catastrophic drought, *unless we do something about it*, either to deal with GW itself (alas, probably too late for that), or to deal with the effects (as you propose).