Slashdot Mirror
NASA Says 2010 Tied For Warmest Year On Record
An anonymous reader writes "It may not seem like it, but 2010 has tied 2005 as the warmest year since people have been keeping records, according to data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. That difference is so small that it puts them in a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880." Adds jamie: "This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average — 0.62 +/- 0.07 C above, to be precise. It was the wettest year on record too, according to the Global Historical Climatology Network."
Let the flamewar begin!
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
So that's the most recent 1.3% of the time that's passed since the end of the last ice age.
NASA also put out a piece comparing different findings by different organizations, explaining the differences and why they aren't a big deal. The articles also states that year-to-year measures aren't particularly useful - not only are 2010 and 2005 very close, but the next six are also very similar to each other - but looking at it decade by decade (i.e. a larger sample size) gives far more meaning:
On that time scale, the three records are unequivocal: the last decade has been the warmest on record. “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” said Hansen. "It is the underlying trend that is important."
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Couldn't have anything to do with the urbanization that occurred between 1880 and 2011 could it?
Warmest on record where they keep the thermometers over blacktop as well. LOL Where is global warming when we need it. Snow in every state except Florida.
It gets hot, steamy, wet and wild!!!
Doesn't seem like that, here in Norway, with our 8 degrees celcius below average in December! How about sending a little of that warmth up north?
it's skimpy data because you're not reading the actual study, you're reading an article that's talking about the study. say what you want about whether there should have been a link to those numbers or if they should have been given, but you can't expect every article that's focusing on a specific point of the study to include every single data point from the study as well. That would be extremely ridiculous. Don't fault an article for not giving you unnecessary details. It's an article about a study, not the study itself. I'm unsure about the actual study, but given that they're comparing recorded data and not extrapolated data, I'm fairly certain your accusations don't hold water.
You think man can destroy the earth? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the complex creatures in the sea, on the land.
...
When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time.
A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.
--Michael Crichton, Prologue to Jurassic Park, 1990
Where is the heat going???! The point is not enough of it *IS* going.
No detectable change in weather or climate? Where the fuck are you living? Not Australia right now for a start.
It was the wettest year on record. There you have it folks, Global Warming is an answer to our Fresh Water needs.
Your house is not the world. Sometimes it snows over your house, but that doesn't mean it's snowing over my house. It might even be sunny over my house.
Frankly you'd have to be a special kind of stupid to claim that global temperature averages aren't on the increase. That it's all our fault and we're all going to die? I'm still waiting to be convinced.
Luckily few people without some kind of vested interest in this believes a word of this any more.
Frankly you'd have to be a special kind of stupid to after so many years and no evidence whatsoever.
You'd have to be an absolute fucking imbecile to say there is no evidence whatsoever.
Here's the temperature plotted over the last 32 years http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/06/global-temperature-trend-upate not as dramatic as you might think.
Mods, before you mod me down simply because you don't like what I have to say, consider this: I have a friend with, among other things, a Masters in Statistical Inference. I ran this idea past him, recently, and he agreed. I'm not just throwing mud, or trying to confuse the issue, I'm pointing out a legitimate flaw in their methodology.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
without some idea of the error in the measurments, hard to tell what a change of x deg F means
I keep seeing people saying that temperatures have not risen since 1998, but nobody ever cites any real data to back up that assertion. Care to step up?
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
Summary is wrong: the difference was actually 0.018 degrees Rankine, not Fahrenheit.
Sheesh, don't these article-summary writers know anything about Science...?
Humans have had an undeniable impact on the global environment -- there is really no point in questioning that anymore. As for dying, well, nobody is claiming that our doom is near at hand, just that things are going to get a lot different and that we should be prepared for it, and perhaps taking steps to slow or halt the rate at which we emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We are already over the edge; it is a question of whether or not we want to worsen things for ourselves (or at least make things change more significantly than they are already destined to change).
Palm trees and 8
Whether it's our fault or not, greenhouse-gas caused or not, doesn't matter as much. The more important question is, can we do something about it before even bigger catastrophes occur?
When people say, "global warming is a myth", they can't prove it with any certainty, but they would still choose to do nothing. If they're wrong, Millions or Billions of people die.
If we choose to do what we can to try and keep it from getting worse, and in the end all the climate scientists were wrong, what are the consequences? We spent more money than we had to?
To me it's kind of like car insurance, you pay money and hope the worst doesn't happen.
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
Do these people have any idea how old the Earth actually is?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You might want read this link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/4436934/Snow-is-consistent-with-global-warming-say-scientists.html
In short: Do not confuse weather with climate change. weather is a short term event. like this winter. climate is the global trend over a long period of time.
On the good side. scientists are expecting big changes to happen within our life time. So you should see with your own eyes if you were correct or wrong. Hint: Rising seas, famine and large human migrations.
BSD licensed software can't be stolen....
"Money" is just a medium here; it's a matter of where it makes sense to focus our efforts and resources. You're endorsing misallocation on an unprecedented scale.
Thank God man-made global warming was proven to be a hoax. Just imagine what the world might have looked like now if those conspiring scientists had been telling the truth. No doubt Nasa would be telling us that this year is now the hottest since humans began keeping records. The weather satellites would show that even when heat from the sun significantly dipped earlier this year, the world still got hotter. Russia's vast forests would be burning to the ground in the fiercest drought they have ever seen, turning the air black in Moscow, killing 15,000 people, and forcing foreign embassies to evacuate. Because warm air holds more water vapour, the world's storms would be hugely increasing in intensity and violence – drowning one fifth of Pakistan, and causing giant mudslides in China.
The world's ice sheets would be sloughing off massive melting chunks four times the size of Manhattan. The cost of bread would be soaring across the world as heat shrivelled the wheat crops. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be fizzing into the oceans, making them more acidic and so killing 40 per cent of the phytoplankton that make up the irreplaceable base of the oceanic food chain.
Oh, wait.....
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
I keep seeing people saying that temperatures have not risen since 1998, but nobody ever cites any real data to back up that assertion. Care to step up?
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/06/global-temperature-trend-upate
Depending which cycle you believe, 2010 was also predicted (I dont' think official numbers are out yet) to be a peak year in solar activity for not only this decade, but for the last 80 years. No matter which model you believe, the sun runs on an 11 year cycle, and we are at the peak of the current cycle right now. As I recall, that was a motivating factor for getting some of the more recent satellites up into orbit that have been monitoring the sun's activity the last few years.
Pretty cool insight into Solar Variation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
NOAA said "tied". Japan said "second highest". UAH says "tied" with 1998.
That's not what the media wants. When you need a really good headline you go to Hanson. He never hesitates to hand-wave statistical error and say "hottest" on cue.
The data from NASA is located here http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/.
The global average temperature went down from 2005 to 2008. It has gone up from 2008 to 2010. The nature of the data over the last hundred years shows an upward trend.
There are important questions that I wish everyone would consider when reading this. They are,
Is the cause is man made? (Consider volcanoes as a major CO2 source, sun energy output, etc)
Is the change significant?
Is the change preventable? (this is related to environmental factors that we have little control over, such as sun energy output)
What major sources of energy can we make available to replace oil and coal? One way or another, we have to answer this question eventually. Remember that we use close to the energy that the sun delivers to the Earth, so the combination of solar, hydro, bio fuel, and other sun energy sources will not be enough.
These questions are rarely answered, and will lead to a solution better than just using electric cars (which don't solve any problems since most power plants use coal).
Weather and climate are not the same thing. It's stupid to even bring them up in the same sentence.
I dare say we didn't have a proper summer... and may indeed be having a proper winter.
Beavers have had an undeniable impact on the global environment -- there is really no point in questioning that anymore. As for dying, well, nobody is claiming that our doom is near at hand, just that things are going to get a lot different and that we should be prepared for it, and perhaps taking steps to slow or halt the rate at which we beaver about. We are already over the edge; it is a question of whether or not we want to worsen things for ourselves (or at least make things change more significantly than they are already destined to change).
Also, bees, termites, algae, wrens, jellyfish, rats, trees, etc.
How about this from the NOAA?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100915_globalstats.html
Hansen is known for tweaking the data, anything that comes out of his mouth is suspect.
But . . . But . . . drudgereport keeps pointing out stories all year long about how it's the coldest on record for a particular city here and there or how it's really cold today and how there's going to be snow tomorrow and, therefore, the weather this month proves a pattern over the last half million years and disproves all theories asserting otherwise!
None of them have had as profound an effect as human beings.
It's is now "global climate change". That way it doesn't matter if the planet is getting warmer or colder. As long as it is changing the "global climate change" proponents will be correct. Sort of like betting on both black and red on the roulette table. You only lose if 0 (or 00) comes up.
Thank you for your attention. You may now return to the "yes it is/no it isn't/its fucking cold out/weather is not climate you moron" flame war.
Antarctic ice is high, over the 30 year average. Up north, the trend is down, but the total is about constant for over 30 years.
The sea level has been rising for hundreds of years, and the rate is NOT accelerating.
The hottest year game is of little use, the hottest year (until Hansen starting adjusting the old data down) was in the 1930s.
I can supply urls for all this, or you can dig a bit, there is no catastrophic climate change, just mother nature doing what she has been doing for millions of years.
Yeah and when life was the most abundant on earth, it was between 4-7C warmer and the CO2 was in the 20 times as much as today.
Agreed, life will adapt. Even we can probably adjust to hotter climates in a few hundred thousand years if the cull rate is high enough (but of course not too high.) Of course, there's a limit to how hot mammals can tolerate and still produce viable sperm but evolution has done wonders in the past.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Well that does it. Please government, double my taxes! Send the extra to the scientific elites. They know what's best for me.
(Frankly, I don't give a piss about the climate as long as I have gas for my Chevy Tahoe!)
an ill wind that blows no good
NASA, GISS and James Hansen have been busted before (by amateurs) for being wrong several times :
Deja Vu All Over Again: Blogger Again Finds Error in NASA Climate Data
NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is one of the world's primary sources for climate data. GISS issues regular updates on world temperatures based on their analysis of temperature readings from thousands of monitoring stations over the globe.
GISS’ most recent data release originally reported last October as being extraordinarily warm-- a full 0.78C above normal. This would have made it the warmest October on record; a huge increase over the previous month's data.
Those results set off alarm bells with Steve McIntyre and his gang of Baker Street irregulars at Climateaudit.org. They noted that NASA's data didn't agree at all with the satellite temperature record, which showed October to be very mild, continuing the same trend of slight cooling that has persisted since 1998. So they dug a little deeper.
An alert reader on McIntyre's blog revealed that there was a very large problem. Looking at the actual readings from individual stations in Russia showed a curious anomaly. The locations had all been assigned the exact temperatures from a month earlier-- the much warmer month of September. Russia cools very rapidly in the fall months, so recycling the data from the earlier month had led to a massive temperature increase.
A few locations in Ireland were also found to be using September data..
Steve McIntyre informed GISS (run by Hansen) of the error by email. According to McIntyre, there was no response, but within "about an hour", GISS pulled down the erroneous data, citing a "mishap" and pointing the finger of blame upstream to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)."
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13410&red=y#366381
NOAA has been singled out for calling 2010 the warmest year using faulty data
NOAA’s Jan-Jun 2010 Warmest Ever: Missing Data, False Impressions
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/noaas-jan-jun-2010-warmest-ever-missing-data-false-impressions/
I'm not endorsing anything except that action needs to be taken. But if you look at the reasons why people don't want to take ANY action, it mostly comes down to having to spend more money (better filtration systems, less air/water pollution, cleaner but more expensive power plants, etc.)
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
This is exactly right. If we swamp the world economy by the amount demanded by the AGWers then the impact on the third world from that will result in millions dying. Under no scenarios will billions die (other than the usual get old and die that everyone does.)
It's a lot easier to effect carbon-capture in power stations than it is to do so in cars. Regardless of whether it's man or nature that's heating the Earth, clearly it's in our best interests, and the interests of future generations, to try to do all we can at minimising it. We can't stop volcanoes from erupting, but we sure as hell can curb our emissions as a species.
Worse then stupid. A liar and spreader of misinformation based on ignorance. I would rather deal with stupid then deal with people who not only insist on being ignorant, but insistent on making everyone ignorant.
It's a special kind of evil.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Global Cooling!!!
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
is the dollar per degree of temperature effectiveness given the state of green tech? Really, how many trillions do we have to spend to affect each .1 degree K?
Shouldn't be too hard to calculate, given that this is science we are talking about, right?
damaged by dogma
Well here for instance is a bit of understanding for that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc
You have to look at the global TOTAL amount of heat. Rather than just "It's cold near me, therefore it must be cold everywhere"
...temperatures have not risen since 1998.
Simply wrong.
when we know that this is a lie, and temperatures have not risen since 1998.
You've been claiming this for years even though it's been shown to be bullshit the entire time. Why don't you just post it again a little later. The more you post it the truer it becomes, right?
Support SETI@home
I heard that CO2 level have been dropping for a very, very long time and look to continue to decline as carbon is sequestered at the bottom of the ocean. I ask because this is not my area of expertise, and I was hoping that someone who is more of an authority might be able to comment. The researcher whose perspective I am parroting here used Hawaii as an example, pointing out how the massive rainfall and runoff causes carbon to be washed deep into the ocean. It was enough to cause one to wonder about the future of plants! LOL! This might all be more junk science, but I thought that it was ironic. Ah well, let's have some pie.
That looks like an upwards trend since 1979 to me. You can also see seasonal variations in it which means it's not well averaged you should ignore anything less than a couple years in duration. That 13 month moving average should be replaced with a 36 month moving average.
Support SETI@home
What, you mean the page that says "2010 tied with 2005 for hottest year on record"? That seems to agree entirely with TFA.
Support SETI@home
The Polar Ice packs are breaking apart and that formerly collected and frozen moisture bound in Salt and more is being recycled into the Atmosphere and Global Heat Redistribution is running amuck in it's extremes [beyond acceptable tolerance ranges of historic data] and thus one day you have floods and massive snow storms followed by massive drought in areas that normally have none of these behaviors.
about how you can accept Jesus into your life. oops, wrong thread. I'd like to talk to you about the (reality|deceptiveness) of climate change. Funny how both raise the hackles the same way. Why is that?
I keep seeing people saying that temperatures have not risen since 1998, but nobody ever cites any real data to back up that assertion. Care to step up?
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/06/global-temperature-trend-upate
Both sides of this debate _outside_ of the scientific community are disturbingly simplistic. On the one hand we've got the chicken littles who blame _every_ major weather event on global warming. The flooding here in Australia is point-in-case - we are in the grip of a very strong La Nina event, climatologists might argue that it is particularly strong because of an underlying warming trend but the floods themselves are due solely to La Nina. On the other hand we have the "temperatures haven't risen since 1998 crowd", well the graph provided here shows a clear upward _trend_ in temperatures since 2000 and when you take into account the local minima and maxima (Mt. Pinatubo and El Nino) there is an obvious upwards trend over the whole graph. Come on people, this is basic high school math.
News for nerds... I don't think so.
Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
Regardless, don't live at or especially below, sea level and it won't be a problem.
And Global Warming means less people will freeze and there will be more places that plants can grow.
More plants=more veggies=more food=less starvation (assuming that dictators feed their subjects...but I digress)
> ... before even bigger catastrophes occur?
Bigger than what, exactly? Given that all the gloom and doom predictions haven't come true, I don't see where one could even argue that any of the big weather things that have happened are related to GW. And once you consider major historical events, there's nothing there.
> If they're wrong, Millions or Billions of people die.
Whoa there... Millions or billions, really? That's three orders of magnitude there, and a significant three at that. "Millions" (about 2) die every _month_, and billions? There are only 7 billion people on the planet, so that would be pretty much the apocalypse I guess.
And while I'm calling you on this vague emotional threat, what's the time scale here exactly? Is there just going to be a giant tidal wave that kills everyone instantly, or is it going to happen over the next hundred years? Which brings me to my real point:
> Whether it's our fault or not, greenhouse-gas caused or not, doesn't matter as much. The more
> important question is, can we do something about it...
O rly? Paraphrased: It doesn't matter what is happening or why, we just have to stop it.
How, exactly, do you propose we stop it then, if it doesn't matter what's causing it? I mean, are you proposing that we install giant air conditioners, or are you really just spouting BS and hope that some people will support draconian actions taken in the name of stopping it? It's "think of the children" all over again, it seems.
So, here's a thought. How about we actually approach this like a real problem, and not just some vague cause to fight for. The problem is complicated: For one, the world getting hotter _isn't_ a problem; it's the effects of it that are.
And then, you have to evaluate the effectiveness of your solution. If human created green house gases are contributing 10% of the warming effect, and the ocean levels will rise 1 m in 100 years, is humanity cutting emissions by half (which would be rather devastating), worth prolonging the 1m rise by 5 years? Answer: no
And this is why I have global warming: There is no real analysis. It's just this "don't ask why, but if you don't agree with me billions will die" crap over and over. And every time I look at the figures, even the worst case ones (though based in reality), I just can't help but find it to be anything but a minor detail that can be solved in due time.
Have you maybe read the huge reams of scientific research that have been published over the course of the last fifty years or so on the topic? That's a pretty good way to get convinced.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf
Page 244
(warning: the pdf is 24 MB, so it takes a significant amount of time to download)
Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). ... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.
:(){
Year-to-year?
http://www.surfacestations.org/
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
You are confusing "Humans have had an undeniable impact on the global environment" with "global temperature averages [are] on the increase...[and] it's all our fault". It's like saying we know that people are killing plants by walking on them so we can safely assume that massive deforestation is due to people walking on plants. It completely ignores magnitude and uses a general concept of "we have an effect on the environment" to infer a claim "we cause all/most current global warming".
By all means.
That's UAH. That's not ground temperature data. That's atmosphere temperature data.
1998 in particular had a rather strong El Nino that year. And aside from having a large impact on ground temperature data, it had a huge effect on atmospheric temperature.
Despite that, El Nino events only last a fews months at a time. So trying to drag them out into some decades long "trend" would be the height of naivety or malevolence.
And considering the author of that graph is trying to make it look as flat as possible, seems they are trying to be "intentionally misleading" to me.
_
Or I guess one might be talking about the slight difference between GISS and HadCRU for that year. (But that's not the case this year)
Is the cause is man made? (Consider volcanoes as a major CO2 source, sun energy output, etc)
Yes. That it is predominantly man made has been conclusively shown.
Is the change significant?
Yes it is, and will be getting even more significant as time progresses.
Is the change preventable? (this is related to environmental factors that we have little control over, such as sun energy output)
Theoretically, yes. It is even economically feasible to do so. But I highly doubt that humanity has the collective brains to do anything about it. So no, the future changes will not be prevented. When things get bad enough, humanity will start doing stupid and dangerous things to try to repair the damage.
What major sources of energy can we make available to replace oil and coal? One way or another, we have to answer this question eventually. Remember that we use close to the energy that the sun delivers to the Earth, so the combination of solar, hydro, bio fuel, and other sun energy sources will not be enough.
What? Someone is giving you bad information. Incoming solar radiation (correcting for cloud losses) is 2.8 Million exajoules per year. Current human consumption is 484 exajoules per year, or about 0.017% of the solar input. So solar, wind, wave, hydroelectric, geothermal, bio, and nuclear will be fine.
Support SETI@home
Well since humans are not natural, did not evolve here, were placed her by a (fill in myth du jours), it is only proper that we slaughter a zillion of us, then place the rest in peasantry under the Climate Lords. Excuse me...is that a glacier bearing down on the eco green house?
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
or are they still taking reading off of stations that are too close to AC vents, blacktop parking lots or similar things that would alter the temperature readings?
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/weather_stations/
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Would you mind cutting it out with those science-free strawman arguments?
And I know exactly where you got them from, since that volcano bit is unique to that science-free documentrary.
Cliffnotes debunk
http://greyfalcon.net/swindle3
Cross referenced list debunk
http://greyfalcon.net/climate
Line by line debunk (If you are some sort of sadist for detail)
http://greyfalcon.net/swindle
The Earth, dear old Terra, is around 4 billion years old. That is about 114,000 times older than modern humans. If one were to scale that time to an average human lifetime, modern humans have been around for the last 5 days of the Terra's life.
People looking at the last 100, 1,000 or even 100,000 years of climate aren't looking at a statistically significant sample of data. When one gets a statistically significant amount of data, one sees that we are living in a remarkably stable period and for most Terra's history, there have been massive climate changes.
What people are really saying is that they want things to continue on in a way favorable for themselves. The simple fact is that while climate change might kill off a lot of species including humans, but it won't end all life, let alone destroy the Earth.
There will life here again. It just won't be you and that pisses you off. This entire thing is about the over-sized collective ego of the human race.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Hippie eukaryote lover! We should never believe you!
Interesting.
Maybe the whole strategy of explaining was wrong. Instead of telling the scientific facts, they should have claimed: "God doesn't want us to burn so much fossil fuel. If we don't stop, He will send us a new flood." Make up an "explanation" from the bible. Find a charismatic person to tell that, and you might get enough followers to make a difference. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
the earth is 4,500,000,000 years old. We have only been keeping track for 100 years of that, or 0.00000002% of the time! Warmest year on record, please....... who cares, just live and wonder why. damn....
I don't think we can get rid of all the idiots in our governments in time to save ourselves.
And I used to NOT be a doomsayer, I was sure we'd get through this.
But we are watching a (an almost beautifully classic) chaotic system do what chaotic systems - those with strange attractors - do.
Temperature rise, acidic oceans, warm oceans powering giant storms, upset ocean currents causing droughts here and floods/freezes there, melting sea ice introducing more liquid water into the system, melting land ice slowly raising ocean levels - these are all parameters. In a chaotic system, one never knows when the right (wrong) parameter will be pushed just that bit too far and the system will jump to a new stable attractor. One we probably won't like.
For instance
Atmospheric temperature records
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps2.png
Surface temperature records
http://greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png
All the temperature records compared.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
But I guess if you want to play games with surface temperatures. HadCRU said 1998 was warmer than 2005, by the tiniest fraction. GISS said 2005 was warmer than 1998 by the tiniest fraction.
Either way, 2010 is basically tied for the hottest it's ever been this past iceage.
Everyone says that being more green or what have you would utterly destroy the world economy, sending us into a terrible depression, sky afire, cats and dogs getting along; have you seen any numbers... you know, anywhere, from any side?
The most reasonable I've heard is 1% of global wealth spent on environmental activities (mostly shouldered by wealth countries, so (0.01 / 0.90) * national GDP for wealthy countries). I'm no economist, but if 1% of the world's wealth suddenly vanished, would the economy spiral downward and destroy modern civilization?
Example. Compare the U.S. Iraq War (Operation Enduring Freedom), estimated at $1.9 trillion (admittedly, over several years), compared to the current estimate of world GDP, ~$58 trillion.
Interesting.
I like warm weather. I like water. Sounds like a win-win situation.
Wow. It takes balls to post a link whose primary support is a statement from the UK MET Office.
Yeah, they're really trustworthy.
No doubt its been getting warmer for the past 200 years. But, as an engineer, I question our ability to measure average global surface temperature to +/- 0.07 C. Such a measurement system would be an amazing engineering accomplishment. I don't question that the temperature anomaly for 2010 was 0.62, what I question is the asserted measurement error of +/- 0.07. I would accept a number of something like 0.62 +/- 0.50 with only a bit of skepticism. At +/- 0.25 my BS detector goes off. At +/-0.07 my rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-that-people-could-be-so-gullible reaction takes over.
Yeah anyone who does that must be stupid!
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
I may be confused, but the page that I linked to does have the string "2005" anywhere on it. The title is "NOAA: 2010 Tied with 1998 as Warmest Global Temperature on Record".
Regardless, my response was to provide a source that says 1998 is as hot as it's been (which is debatable since Hansen keeps manually adjusting the data until it supports his narrative.)
Now, where on the page I linked to does it say anything about 2005? My guess is you're arguing in bad faith.
I only live 80 years, so I don't really care about 400, 11,000, or 400,000. It's getting warmer. It's affecting things. This is bad.
You're saying that it will eventually swing back to cold... in a few hundred to thousand years. Well, I guess I'll just wait it out then....
Look, everyone... We all have "that friend who says X". Ya know what? People form their opinions first, then find data to support it. Meanwhile, it's getting warmer. This is rather undeniable.
...does not have the string "2005"...
That's not how our effect on global warming was determined, so you building a straw man. I believe that the latest CO2 balance calculations indicate that we are responsible for at least 80% of the change in CO2 since preindustrial times is man made. (Although I'm not finding it on line right now, maybe because my subscription to Science has expired.) Analysis of recent data indicates higher percentages in the 20th century. So we're causing the CO2 increase. The CO2 increase is causing the warming. Ergo, we're causing the warming.
Support SETI@home
Oh wait. I guess we said it ended sooner.. Well, at least we can celebrate for our ancestors that had to suffered through the coldest years, not recorded with a thermometer. At least we will have more drinking water, thank you evaporation.
Frankly you'd have to be a special kind of stupid to claim that global temperature averages aren't on the increase.
It is about scale and perspective. Statements like yours indicate a lack of such. See here.
Seriously, aren't we overdue for an Ice Age? Maybe we've indirectly saved ourselves from thousands of years of frozen tundra!
This is one scenario. Here's another.
1. pine beetles (highly specialized insects that prey on one species of tree) attack pine trees (to be more accurate, they attack the species of conifer that they specialize in).
2. Many pine trees die
3. Another species of tree moves in to take their place. The ecosystem adjusts.
- aj
Sorry, I meant to post 1998, but other than that it is in full agreement with TFA. The 1998 had a strong El Nino event, so atmospheric temperatures are higher in this data than in the NASA data. So you could say 2010 is tied with 2005 and 1998. In any rate the trend has definitely been upward since 1998.
Support SETI@home
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/05/antony-watts-and-surface-stations-wait.html
Fandroids hate facts.
The sun did not dramatically decrease the amount of heat it sends toward the earth. The sun's heat output is remarkably constant. What has been happening is a lack of sunspots. Because that corresponds with a change in the sun's magnetic field, the amount of gamma rays reaching the earth has changed. That, in turn, changes the clouds which influences the earth's temperature. It is complicated but Piers Corbyn has pointed out that the conditions now wrt to the sun's activity and the phase of the moon are the same as they were 132 years ago and the weather is remarkably similar.
Something has been happening with the sun and it might (or might not) be influencing the earth's climate, but the sun isn't significantly cooler.
Well it's pretty clear that wealthy people are normal human beings and wouldn't spend a dollar to save the life of someone they don't know or, even worse, someone who hasn't been born yet. Money and who has it, that's all the argument has ever been about.
Support SETI@home
WE'RE GONNA ALL DIE!!!!111 WAH!
Vote Democrat to stop global warming...
Yep, a very special kind of stupid. And then they post graphs they don't even understand.
Support SETI@home
"Please, Mister Obama, give us back our budget."
Strange how all those temperature records, despite very slight variations, are all in agreement.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
Almost as if there was only 1 version of reality. (Or some worldwide CONSPIRACY!!!1)
http://greyfalcon.net/ideology.png
If/when this happens surely few prophets will pop out; denouncing our evil ways and enforcing a less technological age...
BSD licensed software can't be stolen....
But when people start migrating to new places to avoid the rising waters, or to find new farm land because their old farm land is now a desert, what do you think the people already living there are going to do?
There will be wars and genocide that make WW1 and WW2 look tame.
That's an extremely dishonest way to describe it. You make it sound like they threw out the less reliable data set and kept the good one, wow! what a great idea huh?!?!
In fact they used that tree ring data without caveat for most of the chart, then silently omitted it near the end of the sequence, substituting data from the other set only for those years where the data from the first set didnt fit their hypothesis. Then they labeled the chart so it looked like a single, reliable data set produced the whole sequence, and presented it to the world as such.
I find this line deliciously ironic. Perhaps you are not acquainted with the phenomenon of psychological projection?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
the same "climatologists" predicted that snow will become extremely rare and children would need to be taught about it so that they understand its cultural importance, all those old pictures of people skiing, skating, etc.:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
"Climate scientists" and journalists who listen to them must be "stupid people".
And I clearly remember when it was called "Global Warming", not "Global Climate Change", thank you very much :)
Under no scenarios will billions die
On the contrary. There are scenarios where everyone and everything dies. Usually they involve an unknown or underestimated reservoir of greenhouse gases (usually methane) being released due to melting permafrost or undersea ices resulting in a runaway greenhouse effect. The oceans boil and the solar system gets a Venus look alike.
It's very unlikely, of course, or someone would be yelling about it. But it would be a great time to say "I told you so" to all the denialists.
Support SETI@home
I just don't care what year is the warmest, coldest, wettest or driest. I'm tired of hearing about what the problem is and am now craving for people to talk about what we are going to do about it. Most of the time the "solutions" involve taxing me more so that the government can give that money to someone else. How about some real solutions.
First, the climate will change. The sea levels will rise and fall, ice will freeze and thaw. We need to develop the means to deal with that. It might be as simple as NOT doing something. Just don't rebuild in the part of the city that keeps getting flooded. Turn it into a park, a swamp, a cranberry bog, whatever. Just don't be stupid in city planning.
Next we need to come up with real solutions for not burning so much foreign oil. I personally think all this global warming rhetoric is a steaming pile of bullshit. What I can agree on is the need to become energy independent out of a need to grow our economy and avoid getting entangled in foreign matters that should not involve us.
If we are going to stop pumping so much CO2 into the air then we need to focus on the energy sources that are low in CO2. The energy sources in order of least CO2 output to highest are:
- Hydro-electric
- Nuclear
- Geothermal
- Wind
- Natural gas
- Solar (PV or thermal)
- Other fossil fuels
We've already dammed all the rivers worth a dam. Geothermal is very sensitive to location and cannot be useful everywhere. Iceland is full of good spots, the American Midwest is not so much. Nuclear reactors can be built just about anywhere and are safe, powerful, and reliable. New designs produce next to nothing for waste and can run off cheap thorium.
Wind and solar are not reliable, are expensive, and not really all that low on the CO2 output compared to other sources. They are also very sensitive to location. There is a lot of wind in the American Midwest and a lot of sun in the American Southwest, which is good for Chicago and Dallas but not so much for New York or Miami. With such long power lines there would be much lost in just the transmission lines. The materials for efficient wind and solar power requires highly refined materials such as silicon and aluminum which means a lot of energy in the front end to gain it back later. That means plenty of CO2 expelled to produce these energy sources. The CO2 output for the energy produced might be improved in time but RIGHT NOW nuclear power really outshines them all.
Some sources claim that even natural gas beat out solar power for CO2/energy ratio. Some claim it is a parity. Solar might beat out natural gas in CO2 produced but the cost of solar power is somewhere around double that of natural gas. Another great thing about natural gas is that we, in the USA, have plenty of it. We don't need anyone's permission to get it, we just need to go get it.
All the problems here are political. The government needs to do their damned job at let Americans produce power here so we aren't shipping our jobs and dollars to countries that don't like us so much. I don't give a fuck about global warming. I'm tired of hearing about global warming. We need people to shut up about global warming and start working on solutions.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
This tied as the warmest since records have been kept. 130 years worth of records, and the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old, which is about NOTHING compared to the age of the earth. Couple that with stories of retreating ice melts revealing abandoned settlements which means it was WARMER then, than now. This man made global warming is nothing but a bunch of hogwash.
Wow, it takes shit for brains to ignore the evidence from multiple sources, miss the point of the video (Carter "found" the trend using a horribly naive and wrong method) and then focus on one source to post a link to the well-known denialist web site "wattsupwiththat".
You've been claiming this for years ...
Like since 1998?
I'd still argue that the pyramids have that beat
He's probably just reading Professor Phil Jones ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
We are all going to die. Over 50 million people die each year.
That's catastrophic by any measure. Something must be done.
The fact that we have kept records since 1880 might seem like a long time to us but to the earth 130 years is like maybe 1 second to us.
Ouch, that bullet in your foot must hurt!
Yeah.. I guess. If car insurance cost billions of dollars a day and there was a good chance that the insurance carrier wouldn't pay out in the event of an accident. (Oh wait, the second part is true)
Retooling the entire planet's infrastructure won't be cheap, isn't guaranteed to prevent a catastrophe (and a catastrophe isn't even guaranteed to occur), and while we only "spent more money that we had to" we're consuming funds and resources that could've been applied to other human endeavors. Like health care, so people don't die of disease. Or energy efficiency so that people who currently can't afford electrical infrastructure may be able to afford power so that they don't freeze to death in winter or heat stroke in summer. Or maybe we spend some money on cleaning up manufacturing processes (or just spending it on proper post-manufacture disposal of waste) so that they don't require so many nasty toxic chemicals which get dumped into waterways and seep into aquifers, poisoning people.
But yeah, you're right. Its only money.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
If we choose to do what we can to try and keep it from getting worse, and in the end all the climate scientists were wrong, what are the consequences? We spent more money than we had to?
Let's destroy the world economy and the Western civilization just in case!
The problem is that we have about as much chance at getting developing countries to reduce GHG emissions as we do of making them "democracies" - or stopping them from producing illegal drugs.
Weather and climate are not the same thing. It's stupid to even bring them up in the same sentence.
No they are not the same. However you obviously don't understand what the distinction is.
What do you suggest, then? We manage with "average incomes increase" and "average health" too. So why is it OK when sampling a large number (but still a small subset) of humans but not when doing so for temperatures?
Temperatures have been rising since the peak of the last ice age, ~12,500 years ago.
It has been conclusively shown that global warming is manmade by proved-to-be-corrupted scietific entity called EPA. They intentionally reported wrong numbersv and they are supported by large corporations and governements. The result is that taxpayers are being robbed massively and the big corporations profit hugely!
Funny how the 2 warmest years followed by the next 5 warmest years are all within the last 10 years or so....global warming DOES EXIST, and whether because of all the methane from cows, or the cars people drive, or the hairspray...or even natural occurrence in the earth's climate system, it is here, and we now have to start realizing we need to figure out how to deal or live with it..
I'm going to try to inject as little politics into this as I can.
If there are 80,000,000 single family homes in the US, wouldn't it have been a far better use of that non-sense stimulus money (if it was to be spent at all) to buy a net metered solar system for all those homes? The US spent 1.2 T dollars on nothing. If you re-routed existing solar related federal funds to this program as well the feasibility gets even better. This would have created 'green' 'high tech' jobs while which makes everyone happy. This would have cut our 400,000,000,000 dollar oil trade deficit over time since energy demands would decline and domestic sources would make up more of a percentage of what we use. This would also please the global warming crowd by reducing C02 over time. Conservative minded people would not like the money being spent at all, but if it were to be spent this would be the most palatable (you could also tie in some opening of oil fields in currently locked out places to sweeten the deal). If people are still uncertain about the math, we spent 5.xx T in the past 2 years total so it's not like there isn't a piggy bank, but I think the stimulus and related funds would be enough.
Any thoughts?
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
The fact is, that everybody is looking to America to change our behaviours and supposedly, lead the way for others esp. China. There is zero chance of that happening. The reason is that Cap/Trade will not work here and will be economic suicide. Worse, it would actually INCREASE CO2, not lower it. The reason is that other 3rd world nations will try to grab business by developing like CHina does. That will lead to increased emissions, not lower.
In addition, the goal of dropping emissions PER CAPITA has to be one of the worst measures possible. That approach actually encourages more ppl per nation, not less. Instead, we need to limit the emissions on a per sq km basis. The amount of land is fixed in size, so, that takes into account environment, ppl, economy, etc. Basically, it allows a gov. to handle things directly.
With that in mind, there is a minimal number of solutions. Probably the best is for nations to tax goods based on where they come from and the emissions from those locations. And it has to include both local and imported goods. If America starts doing that, it will force ALL nations to seriously look at controlling their emissions. The reason is that America is the largest buyer of goods.
Few other solutions have the possibility of getting all nations on-board, helping 3rd world nations (nearly all have the lowest emissions on a per sq km basis), and keeping it low regardless of their economy.
windbourne
Citation needed because Otzi was not at home when he froze and the settlements in the north settle down in the tundra when it melts, to be frozen underneath the permafrost when it forms.
Neither case show human habitation was overtaken by glaciers which are now melting.
Regardless of whether it's man or nature that's heating the Earth, clearly it's in our best interests, and the interests of future generations, to try to do all we can at minimising it.
Does 'do all we can' include the obvious front-loaded solution of reducing emissions by reducing the number of emitters? An active program of preemptively reducing CO2 emissions by 'aggressive' population reduction not only eliminates the CO2 emissions that would have been produced in support of their lifestyle, but their metabolic CO2 emissions as well.
And, in other news, there's snow on the ground in 49 of 50 states. Florida being the exception
And yet, human CO2 contribution accounts for about 1% of global CO2 content.
You're telling me that humans are responsible for raising the CO2 levels to the highest level in 800,000 years?
Why don't we tackle real pollution that poisons everything from fish in the water to birds in the air, and let's start addressing the destruction of the environment, before we start addressing CO2...
I deny your "fact" on the basis that average temperature only makes sense for systems in thermal equilibrium. It may have meaning for systems not in thermal equilibrium, but it cannot be measured, no matter how advanced the technology used to attempt it.
The earth, does it really need to be said, is not in thermal equilibrium. It only has an average temperature in theory, but not in practice.
(the problem with non-equilibrium measurements is that they're always skipping parts of the system measured. Take the example of "how long is Britain's coastline". You might think this has a simple answer. But measure with a 1m ruler, and you get less than a tenth of the value when measured with a 0.5m stick. Measure before the tides comes in and Britain is almost 5% larger, ... With more accureate measurement, the athmosphere's measured "average" temperature may grow, or shrink, and dramatically so)
Global warming is a best-guess based on a LOT of assumptions, several of which are known to be wrong, like for example the basic statement that global (or local) temperatures can be reasoned about using statistics, even when it is known, since the 1950's that they don't obey the law of large numbers (if you measure the temperature +- 1 degree, then +- 0.5, then 0.25 and so on you do NOT get a converging series. Highly counterintuitive ... but known for a long while. Whoops ... so please any time you use any form of summarization, know that you are wrong. Global warming is a concept that cannot, not even in theory, be measured. Average temperature - likewise).
The only thing that is statistically somewhat approaching reasonable is the claim that, historically CO2 and Temperature increases are very likely linked. It is not reasonable, given the available theories, to assume either that this is still the case today, or that this trend will continue into the future.
Science does not have the answer to the question "how will chaotic system *x* behave ?", because that's impossible. We do not know this now, and we have proof that we will *never* know it. In 3500 A.D. they will STILL not be able to predict the climate, nor in 35000 A.D. We do NOT know what will happen to the climate, we only know what has happened historically, and we know that there can be no theory allows you to extrapolate the history of any chaotic system into the future.
But don't let the fact that you're wrongly interpreting basic mathematics, making claims *much* grander than what can possibly be considered reasonable, ignoring a LOT of problems, stand in the way of calling others dumb, okay ?
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png
pretty scary.
Bigger Catastrophes, hmm, let's see . . . More and bigger hurricanes? More flooding like what is going on in Brazil and Australia, and what happened in China last year. Even more massive amounts of snow dropped on Atlanta, New York, Washington D.C., until people are buried alive in it? Yeah, more of those.
O rly? Paraphrased: It doesn't matter what is happening or why, we just have to stop it.
Where did I say it doesn't matter what is happening, and I never said we have to stop it. It doesn't matter as much what is causing the Earth to warm up, but we need to do something about it. Should that "something" be move all coastal areas further inland, evacuate all islands smaller than Ireland, and find a better way to deal with all the floods and hurricanes that will continue to increase? I'm guessing there might be better solutions, including ones that don't involve ONLY reducing CO2.
The problem is complicated: For one, the world getting hotter _isn't_ a problem; it's the effects of it that are.
So we should treat the symptoms, and ignore the cause?
And then, you have to evaluate the effectiveness of your solution.
I never suggested a solution, I'm saying we look for some solutions and implement them, instead of fighting over whether it's happening or not.
And this is why I have global warming: There is no real analysis. It's just this "don't ask why, but if you don't agree with me billions will die" crap over and over. And every time I look at the figures, even the worst case ones (though based in reality), I just can't help but find it to be anything but a minor detail that can be solved in due time.
I don't know why you have global warming. But since climate change is gradual, how long do you think countermeasures will take? And as to it being a "minor detail" that can be solved in due time, it's much more difficult to solve a problem if people say it doesn't exist, and therefore fight all measures to counteract it.
So, are you just being stupid, or a jackass?
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
Why do you assume I suggested something to spend the money on? I said we do what we can.
Maybe we get the coal plants to stop polluting as much. Maybe we find ways to remove methane from the atmosphere, and prevent more of it from being released to begin with. I don't really have the all the solutions, and never said I did. But instead of fighting over whether Global Warming is happening, or whether it's mostly man-made causes, or only 20%, we do what we can.
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
Is anyone monitoring the global barometric pressure? Everyone who goes to college, including Democrats, typically learns that pressure and temperature are effectively the same thing. Anyone have the stats? preferably overlaid on temperature statistics? --edfardos
I believe that Hansen's is the ONLY one of the 3 or 4 tracking studies that shows this.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The how about we don't spend as much as "the AGWers" demand? How about we look for other solutions?
I haven't seen any proof that removing as much CO2 from the atmosphere as possible will have any effect, and while it wouldn't hurt to do so, there are probably better things to do.
What percentage of the population, do you think, live in coastal areas? More than 15%? You know, those coastal areas that are prone to flooding, and hurricanes, and massive storms that kill people? And then what about all those people that live in dry, arid areas, without much water? Higher temperatures can't be good for droughts, could it?
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
Thanks for proving me right. When I saw the header, I bet my coworker a cup of coffee that someone in 10 posts or less would try to use this data to attack 'deniers'.
You DO understand that the debate really centers on ANTHROPOGENIC global warming, right?
And GW != AGW, not by a long shot.
By the way, could you please point to a period in time when the climate DIDN'T change? Because I can point to several where it was significantly warmer than it is now...in fact, the vast majority of Earth's history. We're kind of in a cool-weather slump, so I challenge your implied assertion that this is abnormal for anything but modern man's conception of what the climate "should be".
-Styopa
Obviously installing scrubbers in a coal plant, or changing legislation for car emissions, or putting up a wind farm, or researching battery technologies, upgrading electrical infrastructure, rebates for locally grown food/greenhouses, green-houses, reducing water use, recycling e-waste properly, reclaiming tailing ponds, etc. will destroy the economy.
Nothing can be done! The only obvious solution is to OBLITERATE EVERYTHING!
I realize you see everyone else around you as an extremist. However, as others have eloquently pointed out, why not start somewhere and work to improve. Like middle ground, like every argument everywhere at any time. How many things that are complex are simply yes/no?
Interesting.
How many pro-AGW people have you heard on ; radio, TV, internet forums, blogs, magazines, journals, mail correspondence, e-mail, ... Twitter?, ...
advocate genocide as a viable solution? There are some environmentalists who advocate having a shrinking population would be a good thing (say gradual reduction through natural means down to 1 billion, or 3 or 5 or whatever), but how many actually say; grab your rifle and shoot your neighbour. Drink some locally grown organic yam juice to celebrate?
Compare; how many people who aren't pro-AGW, or deniers, or anti-AGW, or contrarians, or libertarians, or free-thinkers (or whatever group you/they/whoever wishes to associate with; rather than get into a semantic war) attribute this "solution" to the first group?
Interesting.
"The more you post it the truer it becomes, right?"
And how is your argument different? The pro Global Warming Climate Change Agenda and its proponents continue to practice masturbatory science and when called for the psuedo science it is, the researchers simply massage the data set to fit their conclusion and true believers like you continue to make excuses for them.
The very idea that the human race could affect a planetary ecosystem would mean we would have to conclude we are in possession of technology that could express energy equivalents that equal natural forces. If that would be true, you would be living in a far different world right now. We would be conquering the stars and beyond, mayeb to infinit Buzz Lighttard!
Dream the fuck on!
Why do you post as AC, surely someone with such strong views about the "pro Global Warming Climate Change Agena", masturbation, the human race and Buzz Lighttard would like to attract followers?
Interesting.
Your last link goes to a 404 page BTW.
Well.. firstly.. I didn't assume you suggested something to spend the money on. Nor did I assume, or state, that you had all the solutions.
You said "we do what we can" ... which I am saying "costs money" ..
If we spend money doing what we can and didn't need to .. what follows is what I said before. Spending more money than you need to on a problem causes a whole host of other problems that can and do degrade the quality and/or length of human lives. I am not unaware of the tradeoffs. You seem to have not even considered them.
I wouldn't have thought that I would need to explain the downsides of wasteful spending, or as you so eloquently called it spending "more money than we had to" ..
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
The very idea that the human race could affect a planetary ecosystem would mean we would have to conclude we are in possession of technology that could express energy equivalents that equal natural forces.
We don't have technologies that express the energy equivalents of natural forces. What we do have is the ability to reduce the efficiency of infrared radiation by the earth by a small amount. When you multiply that small amount by the energy of sunlight reach the earth and accumulate it over many years it becomes a very large amount.
In essence your argument is that because a nuclear explosion is much larger than the energy in a 9V battery, you can't trigger a nuclear bomb with a 9V battery. Which is both wrong and idiotic.
Support SETI@home
It has been conclusively shown that global warming is manmade by proved-to-be-corrupted scietific entity called EPA.
A plain and simple lie. The EPA doesn't do that sort of work. Where do you get this crap?
Support SETI@home
Sorry, I meant IPCC not EPA. But they are the same bunch. IPCC receives money from big corps who like global warming, even oil companies - do not get mistaken, people behind the corporations seek global governance and increased power, its not about short term profits. Global warming meme is an important theme they need to push on us because it is then easy to advocate food and water scarcity memes which they can of course solve by global governance. Just take a look at all the help the western world is sending to the poor countries - it doesn't help - the power is just spread through mercantilistic paractisies based on fiat money. Another thing about IPCC is the climategate scandal - you get the idea how does one manufacture data because unfortunataly we are heading probably for som 10 years of global cooling and it doesn't fit their plan.
"Climategate" was a non-scandal. Totally manufactured by the right wing media. You should choose more trustworthy sources.
Support SETI@home