Slashdot Mirror
No, We're Not Headed For a New Ice Age
purkinje writes "Unusual calm in the solar cycle — called a solar activity minimum — has sparked claims that the Sun will cool the Earth, leading us into a new ice age. While Europe did experience a Little Ice Age during a solar activity minimum three centuries ago, the connection between sunspots and climate is a lot more complicated, and it's unlikely this change in the Sun's activity will cool Earth down — or even affect the climate at all. Plus, any cooling that might come from this would be less than the global warming that's been going on. So don't pull out that parka yet; a new ice age seems more than unlikely."
Unlikely or politically undesirable? Hmm...
We're currently in an interglacial period of the current ice age, so it's not a matter of moving towards another one, but how long the interglacial period will last, and how if we're moving into a glaciation period will humanity be effecting that.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
Probably the biggest thing sparking skepticism about man-made global warming are articles like these. "Please ignore that fiery nuclear furnace behind the curtain."
Just admit you don't have everything figured out. I know that may give rise to healthy skepticism. People may not want to spend trillions in dollars to fix a problem you aren't certain about.
As an aside, it is interesting that the other time of cold temperatures (late 18th century) corresponds to lower sun spot activity.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
there is no consensus on global cooling?
I bet you're sorry now you spent all that money and effort on battling global warming.
Of course we are not headed for a new ice age. You can't have an ice age without mammoths.
Nobody is working on cloning mammoths, right?
Do you know what proven actually means? Nothing has been proven or dis-proven, it's still a theory in the middle of being tested. The relationship between climate and sun spots is still a fairly infantile science. Don't be stupid.
That we've been in a cooling period since 1998 that has reversed ALL of the observed warming that took place previously in the early 20th Century and more.
The assertion that the calm Sun activity won't reverse the warming is true only in that there is no longer any warming to reverse.
As a child of the 80s, this is what we were being told in schools growing up - not that the earth would die from global warming, but rather that the hole in the ozone layer and other environmental disasters would cause us to be plunged into a new ice age.
I guess the term "climate change" is a lot more useful than "global warming", if a few decade late.
Who needs science when we have your unedchumicated opinion that ya just spew out. Lets just all ignore the sun's effect on heating and lighting the planet when we have your computer models that can't predict the past, present, future, or weather next week. Thanks for clearing it all up for us.
I've always found people who go on and on about global warming extremely annoying. They talk about saving the earth and the environment but the bottom line is it's about saving the status quo. There have been times in earths history when it was much hotter than it is now and much colder. Humans will survive and so will the earth. If or when the last man bites the dirt the earth will still be here live in kicking unless we managed to do something really bad like strip away the atmosphere.
Denialists are the only ones who have "everything figured out". Their adherence to their pet theory is immune to any criticism and when was the last time you saw error bars on a trend line from a denialist?
But if you look at the IPCC reports, you'll find that the climate science IS saying "We haven't figured it all out", but since you STILL insist that this isn't the case, rather proves that your statement is, in bald fact, false.
NOTE: They DO say "we've figured out enough to know what we ought to do". That's not "we know it all" by any stretch. A barking dog snarling at you is evidence that you should retreat backwards, but it doesn't mean you know all about canine psychology.
They are extremely pro AWG. They may be right but they only show one side of the picture. There is no room for debate in their eyes. I wonder if they are heavy invested in carbon dioxide credits.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
I'm not believing anything until Al Gore says it's so.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
is there anything they can agree on?
People will believe facts that bolster their preconceived opinions. They will disregard or twist facts that do not.
I used to believe that CO2 could cause global warming but didn't think too deeply about it. Then they tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period. That got my attention and 'Global Warming' has become a bit of a hobby for me.
What I can say is that there is junk science on both sides of the debate. There is also good science on both sides of the debate.
There is plenty of historical evidence that, when there is a long period with few sunspots, there is global cooling. In fact, IMHO, the evidence is a lot more robust for that than is the evidence that CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming.
History is clear that when the temperature is as warm as it is now, or warmer, people have thrived. When the temperature was much cooler that it is now, humanity has suffered many calamities. I would far prefer a warmer planet to a colder one.
I would hope he actually meant LESS than unlikely. I would also hope that next time the editors spot the mistake and correct it.
Ice Age 4 coming in July 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age_4
The writer of TFA is a well-known AGW advocate who routinely trolls everyone who isn't as pro-AGW as him, with all the charm and humor of a drunk fratboy. If you want to have serious discussion about this, find someone else to link to.
...or even affect the climate at all.
Not going to cause an ice age? OK, fine, that I believe. A significant drop in the source of nearly all heat for the planet not causing a change at all? Well now.
In the summary (emphasis mine):
...has sparked claims that the Sun will cool the Earth...
The Sun does not cool the Earth, nor did anyone claim that such was a possibility. It may simply warm it less, should the recent concerns pan out, but cooling it is out of the question. It's a giant ball of fire in the sky, not a giant A/C unit in the sky.
worst case scenario is the natural cooling will mask the manmade warming, lull unless into false complacency, and at some point in a century or so, we'll be dealing with a much warmer/ violent atmosphere
we're also beginning to push up against the limits of agriculture in terms of economically supporting the worlds population. combine that with climate hijinks, i figure somwhere in the next century, we're going to have some serious problems
of course, we can have less kids and control our carbon output, but this of course requires foresight and will power. so we're doomed. or rather, a whole lot of poor people ("screw 'em! their poor!" they said, as if they are immune to effects of that instability)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
From the linked article:
Note: a lot of this is taken from my book ... where I interviewed approximately a bazillion people.
This man is not a serious writer.
Winter is not coming.
Climate and weather, two different things.
I myself work off the average temperature that was recording during the period of Lake Missoula. So everything is warmer than it once was
""About 12,000 years ago, the valleys of western Montana lay beneath a lake nearly 2,000 feet deep. Glacial Lake Missoula formed as the Cordilleran Ice Sheet dammed the Clark Fork River just as it entered Idaho. The rising water behind the glacial dam weakened it until water burst through in a catastrophic flood that raced across Idaho, Oregon, and Washington toward the Pacific Ocean. Thundering waves and chunks of ice tore away soils and mountainsides, deposited giant ripple marks, created the scablands of eastern Washington and carved the Columbia River Gorge. Over the course of centuries, Glacial Lake Missoula filled and emptied in repeated cycles, leaving its story embedded in the land.""
There are very few Scientific fact, but a lot of well supported theories. I kinda wish that scientist wouldn't just ignore crazy theories (Leaving people to think, that they are just making it up) that are popular but come up with tests that can prove or disprove them. And show them the results.
For global warming don't just show us a graph that shows a line shooting up. When we come up with different things show it off, prove to us that is wrong. Science had been lucky in the past, the average Joe took everything face value. But with rapid media, and some big mistakes in "Science" people are more distrusting. It is time for the Science Institution to change and regain peoples trust again.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Red on the inside (as in communist red for those of you who don't know your history which is most liberals).
The notion of AGW is nothing more than an attempt to control all aspects of everyone's lives; the ultimate boogey man to mandate top down regulation of everything you do. There is no evidence for man made global warming. To ignore the sun's immense impact on earth's climate and then suggest that CO2 is a pollutant shows your amazing lacking of common sense let alone critical thinking.
One way or the other or neither. Time will tell, not political science.
So an author (not a solar scientist) of a book writes a blurb for an online story with his opinion and refers to his book as proof?
Some of the NASA and other solar scientists are saying their is some probability of a lull in Solar Output based on the science evidence and models they form. Proof, no, not yet. But there are reasons to consider it possible.
More science observations and correlations will come in the next few years.
Why does this always have to fall into politics.Frankly the global warming faithful are getting annoying. Before anyone has a freaking stroke let me lay out the facts as I seem them.
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Over all we have been seeing a warming trend.
Conclusion: even if the warming trend is not caused solely by the increase in CO2 gases reducing emissions is a good thing.
There is is minus the politics and religion. I would even bet that CO2 is the primary cause of the warming trend.
It is really that simple.
Now for the true believers that are blaming global warming for everything from Hurricane Katrina to it snowing in Iran... Please learn the difference between climate and weather.
This article sounds as bad in it's way as crap from FOX news does the other way.
Here is nice little bow for yourself.
"1) Claims of an imminent global ice age are at best exaggerated."
Probably but that is opinion and not science. But then I have seen heard some pretty stupid things from the Church of Global Warming.
"2) The link of global cooling to an extended solar magnetic minimum is tenuous, and almost certainly needs something else to force it to occur (like lots of volcanoes)," Gee that sounds just like what the anti climate change people are saying. Yet when there are fewer sun spots the earths climate does cool. "This is from the very same piece"
"Having said all that, the sunspot cycle may have a very small effect on climate. You might think that since the spots are cooler than the solar surface we’d see a drop in light from the Sun and a corresponding cooling of the Earth during solar max. However, it’s actually the opposite! Sunspots are surrounded by a rim called faculae, and in this region the temperatures are actually higher than the average solar surface. This more than compensates for the cooler area of the spot; sunspots are about 1% dimmer than the solar surface, but faculae are 1.1 to 1.5% brighter. On top of that, faculae emit more UV than the solar surface does, and that wavelength of light is preferentially absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere, increasing the efficiency of heating.
So, bizarrely, sunspots tend to warm the Earth. That jibes with the idea of a cooling trend during solar minimum; fewer spots means fewer faculae, so the Sun emits less Earth-warming radiation.
But when you look at the numbers, again, it’s not so simple. The effect from faculae is very small, not enough to significantly change the Earth’s temperature on their own."
Except that little ice age did seem happen during that time. That is a fact. They may be unrelated but a change in the sun and the climate being unrelated seems like a very bad bet in my book.
You see the conclusion I find odd. We have seeing a MASSIVE decrease in sunspot activity. We have never seen such an change in modern times. I really question just strongly he is pushing that conclusion. We are also seeing other changes in the suns magnetosphere as well. Since we have never seen such such a thing when we could study it as well I think he is making some massive leaps and throwing in "probables" here and there.
This actually seems like a knee jerk reaction. It is probably a reasonable fear that some people will say "well lets burn more coal to stop this" but that doesn't stop it from being bad science. I think we are going to learn a not about the Sun in the next few years and I wouldn't be so sure about the outcome as this author seems to be.
I wouldn't panic but then I never do.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
As my wife likes to say to folks who say "Global Warming is a Hoax!" and go off a parrot some opinion they've heard from the pundits, why not clean up the air (we've been having smog warnings for weeks now)? Hoax or not, the things that will stop Global Warming will also clean up the air, why can't we do that? They usually agree.
Now before someone posts something about my parroting comment, unless you analyzed the scientific data yourself, you are parroting another's opinion too - granted, parroting a climate scientist's opinion is a bit more valid than a pundit's opinion who is nothing more than a college dropout, but you're still regurgitating another's opinion.
I'm VERY SKEPTICAL of those computer modelers who claim to have sufficient climate data to validate their models!!!
dave
I kinda wish that scientist wouldn't just ignore crazy theories (Leaving people to think, that they are just making it up) that are popular but come up with tests that can prove or disprove them. And show them the results.
For global warming don't just show us a graph that shows a line shooting up. When we come up with different things show it off, prove to us that is wrong. Science had been lucky in the past, the average Joe took everything face value. But with rapid media, and some big mistakes in "Science" people are more distrusting. It is time for the Science Institution to change and regain peoples trust again.
What? No. I don't think you have a good grasp of how science works.
Scientists should be doing science. If your theory isn't falsifiable then it isn't science and therefore not their field at all. If your theory is falsifiable but does not match the current data, then it may have already been disproved and there is no need to waste time on it unless you can show that the data is wrong somehow. In the instance of global warming, scientists have disproved a few crazy theories and they have shown the data, but crackpots do not listen to evidence; that's why they are crackpots in the first place. The fact that you either haven't sought out or accepted the available proof shows that you're not really much interested in the truth yourself. This is not the fault of scientists; they've upheld their half of the bargain. You have to be open to the evidence.
As for science making mistakes: that's an important part of the process. Science is all about trying things, making mistakes and correcting them. It's a slow progress toward the real truth, not a pre-determined truth to which facts are shaped to fit. Admitted mistakes aren't a sign that science isn't working; quite the opposite! That's how you know that science is trustworthy. Anyone who claims to have all the answers and never be wrong is the one you should be distrusting. Whether people recognize this is not the fault of, nor a problem for, scientists; willfully ignorant people will remain so, by definition, and it is entirely their own fault.
Is this just a setup for the upcoming Asylum film "2012: Ice Age"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbiNWSNPTk
Now that made me laugh. How did that get past the editors?
How about "less than likely" rather than "more than unlikely"?
This whole line of reasoning seems plausible on the surface, until you actually do some research into it.
It's not a matter of optimal, it's a matter of what we're used to. Radical, rapid change in climate (such as we're already experiencing, and it'll get much worse) changes rainfall patterns and other factors that will force us to change where we build our cities, where we grow our food, etc. That kind of adjustment is incredibly expensive, much more expensive than taking reasonable mitigation steps now.
You want to move people out of areas that might be affected? OK, then start with the entire continental US, which is projected to experience severe drops in precipitation that will make the dustbowl look like a monsoon. And that's just one dimension of the probable impacts.
See this article, "Real adaptation is as politically tough as real mitigation, but much more expensive and not as effective in reducing future misery":
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/08/27/206596/adaptation-mitigation-climate-chang/
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Come on, an article about an ice age would've been the only appropriate time to refer to a first post at frosty piss.
That global warming (increased CO2 in the atmosphere greenhouse effect) could cause a new ice age. The melting of greenland and other arctic ice could upset the salinity of the north atlantic current and if that current stopped northern europe would freeze.
Do we actually know that global warming has been affected by our use of fossil fuels? No we don't, we have a great deal of evidence supporting that we do have some kind of effect though. If the current climate concerns turn out to not exist, have we wasted money trying to understand it? Absolutely not. We have tremendous evidence supporting that the earth has gone through some pretty crazy climate swings and even more exotic changes like polar direction variations and dramatic magnetic field fluctuations. We also know that very small shifts in temperature can produce huge shifts in ocean levels and weather patterns.
The earth's climate and specifically what effects it is something we need to understand. We need to be able to consciously alter our environment to produce the neccessary changes to maintain the conditions we require. If Human beings survive on this planet for more than a couple thousand years, The geological record shows that we are likely to experience something catastrophic. Be it an event like the Yellowstone caldera, temperature rises that melt the ice caps, or even an Meteorite, we must learn how to tailor our environment to suit us.
For this reason I just don't get anyone being critical of climate change research. Are the current concerns possibly not real? Ofcourse! But if you think this planet will continue to suit us well without our being able to actively alter it in the future, that is just plain naive.
I'm tired of seeing that stupid squirrel anyway.
Why can't we discuss the risk of a coming ice age without it having to be a refutation of an unstated argument about its impact on global warming? Can't we just discuss it on its own merits?
Sunspot activity has picked up and caught up with predictions. Here are some statistics taken from spaceweather.com: We did have a longer than usual minima period but there has never been any direct evidence to support a connection with the earths climate. In fact sunspots are cool spots, reducing the total incident energy striking the earth. I do not see how a lack of them can be interpreted to cause cooling.
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2011 total: 1 day (1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Since 2004: 820 days
Typical Solar Min: 486 days
Updated 16 Jun 2011
(where do I send the $11.88 to avoid being modded down to the floor?)
From the Wikipedia entry on greenhouse effect:
This seems to be a hand waving rejection that increased cloud cover would reduce global temperatures. Since cloud formation can be initiated by con-trails, this seems to me a nontrival thing, but they reject it. If you look at the article on pan evaporation rates, they also downplay (ignore) the fact that sunlight is the primary driver of the evaporation rate - even though some of the references indicate that - and make it sound like a complex dependence on ground level atmospheric conditions. Hence global dimming isn't a real phenomenon.
Bottom line is that real data gets thrown out whenever a topic gets infected by politics.
The fact of the matter is that if every human on the planet paved one acre of their land, and killed all the plants in that area, it would only amount to less than 1% of the total land mass of the earth. And this would only be so for approximately 5 to 10 years, (nature always finds a way). So to think that humans have significantly affected the atmosphere in the last 100-150 years with greenhouse gases is ludicrous. Do the math, it's always right
21st Century Renaissance Man
So we don't know what effect sunspots have, but we're absolutely, positively, 100% confident that human caused global warming is happening and would counteract it anyway, because we've completely proven that's true.
Here's the thing, it's not that I don't believe it, because there is evidence _something_ is happening. It's that one, no matter what, the attitude of warmers is 'it can't be disproved.' The red light in my head for 'apply critical thinking here' is going off, but the minute I open my mouth to ask a question I'm berated.
In conclusion, I don't feel sorry for your cause and I'm buying a Ford Explorer on the way home. If supporters would change their attitude, maybe they'd win a few more. I'm completely turned off by the polarizing, cliquish, elitist, school-girl attitude.
not so fast. You give the global warming scare story too much credit by calling it a theory. It doesn't even have that status as the data (and let's make it clear that computer model output does NOT equal data) does not support the hypothesis. To date, the null hypothesis has yet to be ruled out. Until it is, the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis will never be a theory.
For the record, I am not some right-wing talking head. I am just a supporter of actually employing the scientific method.
In the instance of global warming, scientists have disproved a few crazy theories and they have shown the data, but crackpots do not listen to evidence; that's why they are crackpots in the first place. The fact that you either haven't sought out or accepted the available proof shows that you're not really much interested in the truth yourself. This is not the fault of scientists; they've upheld their half of the bargain. You have to be open to the evidence.
Be careful to not confuse computer model output with data. The two are not the same thing. Also don't forget about a fundamental pillar of the scientific method, the null hypothesis.
"No we're not" != "unlikely"
More repetition of paid shill talking points!
I guess the 1000+ years of temperature data from the northern hemisphere isn't enough Before your reply think about the what the idiots call the little ice age (700-900AD)
science understanding -1/10
computer science understanding -1/10
putting your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA I don't believe in facts 12/10
Cleaning the air of polluted area really IS a major issue. The thing is, this "Global Warming Hoax" as you say, might well make us forget the important bit, which is all the other types of pollutions (if only CO2 is a pollutant, which is currently the debate...). One of the major argument really is that we should focus on water supply and air quality, and waste management, which we aren't doing at all.
The real damage from "climate change" or whatever the leaders are calling it these days, is done.
We've already wasted so much effort on "carbon neutral" stupidity, that REAL environmental problems like gas fracking and artisanal gold mining have flown right under the radar.
That the people up at Hadley aren't much chops with Math or ComSci either if the leaks are anything to go by. Crap code done by people who are crap at Math doesn't inspire confidence in their models. Worse, similar code from other parts seem to "work" the same way.
Maybe they could "do the right thing" and get some folk who know Math and ComSci (modelling) on the case. Maybe then I'd give them some credibility. After all, it's not as though the current "wonder models" got the last 5-10 years anything like "tagged, bagged, understood" etc.
Maybe I'm getting more cynical, bitter, twisted and such because the older I get the more crap I see being passed off as conclusive science.
Posting AC as I just modded you up
The idiots who modded this Troll don't understand the definition.
Especially when their computer models can not properly predict the past.
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Over all we have been seeing a warming trend.
Conclusion: even if the warming trend is not caused solely by the increase in CO2 gases reducing emissions is a good thing.
You're missing the parts that say any increase in warming is necessarily bad, any decrease in warming is necessarily good, and any greenhouse gas will necessarily only increase warming, with no side-effects which might decrease warming or otherwise be desirable.
One thing people don't talk about much is the cold, hard fact that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has increased crop yields due to the direct effect on plant metabolism. There is no controversy whatsoever on this point: higher CO2 concentration = faster-growing, more productive crops.
Not to mention that any warming would almost certainly increase global crop yields even if it causes some local decreases in production... and that simply dredging material off the ocean floor and onto land or into artificial islands (especially building offshore baffles to sap the energy of hurricanes and tsunamis before they hit populated coasts) is an industrially feasible method of preventing any increase in sea level due to glacial melting.
This doesn't answer concerns about (for instance) ocean acidification, clathrate decomposition, political disruption, or extreme weather, but by no means is the issue as simple as "Warming bad! CO2 bad!"
I just spent $100 on a jacket @ Burlington...BECAUSE I LIVE IN PUERTO RICO!!!
GET IT?!
(crickets chirping)
I've noticed that some people who want to reject CO2 as a cause of global warming seem to become very obsessed with the "Medieval Warm Period."
Thinking about it rationally, it is an odd obsession. After all, even if some other cause produced warming back during the medieval period, that does not disprove that CO2 could produce warming today. Indeed, it would make a rational person even more concerned about climate change. We know that CO2 can warm climate, but what if there is some other unknown cause other than CO2 that could warm the climate? Then we have to worry that the mysterious medieval warming factor could unexpectedly kick in on top of CO2 induced warming, causing temperatures to shoot up even higher than projected from models that only consider CO2 as a cause of warming during the next century or so. That could be a real disaster. So a rational person who believed in unexplained global warming during the medieval period should be even more anxious to stop the rise in CO2. Yet somehow, the Medieval Warmists always seem to end up concluding that CO2 is nothing to worry about it.
And then, why you look into it, you find out that the Medieval Warm Period is far less well clear than the Medieval Warmists seem to believe. After all, there were no thermometers back then, so estimates of the temperature back then are all based on indirect measures like tree rings and historical accounts of which plants were raised where, all of which are subject to huge uncertainty. And it becomes even more doubtful if you try to find evidence as to whether the medieval warming was just regional to those parts of the world were temperatures are strongly influenced by Atlantic ocean currents, or whether it was truly global. Yet the Medieval Warmists seem to regard the warmth of that period as more certain than the modern warming trend--which exceeds even the warmest medieval estimates, and is backed up by a huge number of different types of world-wide measurements. And if any new study suggests that medieval temperatures were a bit less than previously thought, the Medieval Warmists respond with outrage, insisting that "they" are trying to "erase" the Medieval warm period.
The models that predict such warming due to CO2 are ALL using an over estimation of the CO2 impact by likely a power of 2 or more.
The core of the models and impact estimation (multiplier effect) is based on a completely unsupported guess.
Any yet the money keeps flowing to these researchers.
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-co2-sensitivity-overestimated
The numbers being cited all assume that climate scientists are using correct models for how strong a component solar forcing is in their models. There has been some compelling and peer-reviewed research in recent months that suggests most climate models vastly under-estimate the contribution of solar forcing to the climate (by up to 6x). If this is correct then the temperature changes resulting from reduced solar activity would be far greater than those that are currently being cited on this topic.
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201016173&Itemid=129
The climate change debate has become somewhat absurd. Both sides ignore the fact that it is just plain good sense to refrain from squandering highly valuable natural resources that could benefit future generations.
The current state of affairs is akin to a man burning the dollar bills his children would otherwise inherit in order to heat his house, while at the same time refusing to wear clothes to keep himself warm.
This holds true whatever ones views are on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
related: The quants on Wall Street have 100% faith in their models and the data they use. They maintain that 'the market acted perversely' and that 'it could never happen again'.
One of the founding fathers of quant finance warned them of 'black swans' and 'thick tail' behavior for years but they chose to ignore his wisdom. They still do... unpunished, unregulated and back to 'printing money" every day.
R.I.P. B Mandelbrot
Fuck Volcker, re-enact the whole god-damned Glassâ"Steagall_Act already!
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
Glass-Steagall_Act
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
huh, who knew that stating facts regarding the scientific method on website with the tagline "news for nerds" would get modded down.
More than anything, that is sad.
No but stability is good.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Come on, an article about an ice age would've been the only appropriate time to refer to a first post at frosty piss.
http://edwindsyam.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/grylls.jpg
Wikipedia isn't a scientific journal.
Ice ages have been happening for millions of years but the sun spot cycles have likely been going on for a billion years or more. The general belief is that shifts in the jet stream cause ice ages and that newly created mountain ranges made the pattern possible, new as in the last 30 million years. The triggers are the only thing that isn't clearly understood. The ocean currents are an obvious cause but something causes the shut down in the ocean conveyor. Cold water from the arctic is believed to cause the shut down but why did the glaciers melt? There seem to be multiple causes that trigger an ice age but it is a cycle that has been going on consistently for millions of years so to expect it to stop because it would negatively affect our lives is unrealistic. What are the odds of another ice age happening soon? A 100%. Soon as in some time in the next 10,000 years but by that I don't mean "in" 10,000 years it's as likely to start in the next 100 years and in fact we are due for one now.
2 words, Piers Morgan http://www.weatheraction.com/
Astrophysicist who actually makes money predicting weather days, weeks and even months in the future. Yes the sun *is* the main factor in climate. People riot in the streets over a hockey game, people get all excited over some dodgy science, because that is all that is on TV.
A real quant is supposed to be a mathematician, and they should not have much faith in the models most "quants" use on Wallstreet. PS. It wasn't their fault that the economy collapsed. It was the bankers, sub-prime mortgage holders, and large financial firms. Quants give advice and trade small amounts of capital in comparison to the big boys. They don't get to manipulate markets and come up with scams like the big boys do.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Glacial Lake Missoula existed between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago.
You're a very poor proponent for your cause. You find people on the other side, and then write posts that make them seem better in comparison; it's happened several times in this thread.
Your side would be better served if you let a better writer respond, someone with a less insulting and juvenile style, and more able to calmly and clearly give facts.
"Denialist" is a really interesting turn of phrase. People started intentionally using it against global warming skeptics to directly call to mind Holocaust deniers. Yeah - by calling people "denialists," you're really calling them "Nazis."
Actually, I use it by analogy with "evolution deniers". I put global warming deniers in the same came as creationists, not Nazis.
Hope that makes you fee better.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Stability is death.
Normalcy bias is standard, but it can be deadly. We have a cultural memory stretching back a few hundred years, and think that things have always been like that. SURPRISE! They haven't. Grapes once grew in both Canada and England. Our culture doesn't remember that, though it persists in names in England.
The reason why there is a violent difference of opinion is more than wishful thinking and groupthink. It is that these qualities cause data to be distorted by "believers" in both camps. A simple illustration. Do a web search on Global Warming and collect "data" about recent ice at the poles. Then do a search on Global Cooling and search for the same data. Both streams of responses will contain recognized scientific authorities, both individual and institutional, providing different factual measurements. The ice on Antarctica is now larger than in the last decade according to some sources that provide photos and measurements. Other sites show different pictures from the same time span and claim it is shrinking. What this has done to me, and presumably many others IMHO, is deprive us of honest evidence. "Spinning" scientific data is neither science nor data. It becomes only "Spin." Science, and humanity are made poorer by quasi-scientific Spin of people who want to get your mortgage loans....oops, I mean obtain research dollars for popular subjects.
The bad part of that is the same people who claim otherwise did it for the same reason - to try and consciously tie people who disagree with them to Nazis.
Now that you know how "global warming denier" and "AGW denier" really came to be, you can stop using the term. Unless, of course, you're still trying to do what those people did. And the people who disagree with you will know from the first moment you use the phrase that you're not going to argue honestly or fairly.
Be careful to not confuse computer model output with data. The two are not the same thing. Also don't forget about a fundamental pillar of the scientific method, the null hypothesis.
Yes, but the computer models have shown themselves to be pretty darned reliable so far. And what is the null hypothesis, really?
"the null hypothesis."
and don't you forget it has a flaw. It presume with side have equal chance of being true, even when one side has monumental proof.
If I were to do a study to see if the moon was made of oysters, Both sides would be valid. conclusions must also be weighed against other known data.
This is why I would like to see Bayesian inference included in studies.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No matter how much you hammer away at the narrative, it's still not true. /.ers....
Here is the truth: Any warming of this globe is caused by and only by the SUN. Also, speaking in a purely logical fashion; solar activity cannot cool the earth. The original post, if you read it carefully, did not mention a lack of solar activity, just a calming in sunspots. The post was extremely carefully written, well designed drivel designed only to keep up the drumbeat of: AGW, AGW, AGW. Don't let yourselves be led around,
This is why we use data and facts and not cultural memory.
Yes the Climate changes, you're a genius. Man made climate change is the effect on top of normal cycles.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
^^^^^^^^ This. Civilization needs stable climate. This rock has too many people.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
I suspect this will be about as successful as educating folks about the difference between "hacker" and "cracker".
And besides, if someone is denying global warming exists (without objectively examining the evidence for and against) isn't "global warming denier" a technically accurate description regardless - and even because of - of its allegorical links?
Welcome to slashdot! A quick primer on moderation:
Have fun on Slashdot!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Now that you know how "global warming denier" and "AGW denier" really came to be, you can stop using the term.
No, I only know how you think they came to be.
I use the term "denier" for both AGW deniers and evolution deniers, without regard to other things other people deny. And as I consider Nazis vile beyond human comprehension, I don't make a habit of tarring others with that name or other associations with them. I don't even like terms like "grammar Nazi".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why does this always have to fall into politics.
Because any time you're talking about a regional or global issue where arriving at certain conclusions means you'll have to do something it always ends up falling into politics, whether you're for or against it. It's just the way it works at the scale of societies.
The enemies of Democracy are
What a maroon.
Look, the talking point is what I said was dis-proven. If you run around claiming x + 1 = y and then we find out that you didn't even know the value of x, then we've dis-proven the talking point. It doesn't matter if the lie still has some random chance of being true. It's still a lie to claim it's value.
And yes, it is definitely "infantile science."
"Man made climate change is the effect on top of normal cycles."
Maybe.
Really we have such a small amount of accurate direct observation data to go on that to say that we know for sure it complete arrogance.
As I said we now that we are in a warming trend because we can see the data. We know that CO2 levels are higher than we have observed in the resent past.
So decreasing co2 emissions or reversing them should slow the change no matter the cause.
Stop. Science is science, what is driving me nuts is when people think it proof of their great rationality to make science into their religion. You can tell them right away when any of their great truths are questioned.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.