Slashdot Mirror
Droughts Linked To Global Warming
Layzej writes "Two new papers indicate that we are likely already seeing some of the predicted impacts of global warming. The first used Monte Carlo simulations to analyze how many new record events you expect to see in a time series with a trend. They applied the technique to the unprecedented Russian heat wave of July 2010, which killed 700 people and contributed to soaring wheat prices. According to the analysis, there's an 80 percent chance that climate change was responsible. The authors have described their methods and how they improved on previous studies. The second group studied wintertime droughts in the Mediterranean region. They found that 'the magnitude and frequency of the drying that has occurred is too great to be explained by natural variability alone. This is not encouraging news for a region that already experiences water stress, because it implies natural variability alone is unlikely to return the region's climate to normal.'"
I first read that as "Doughnuts Linked to Global Warming".
Stands to reason I suppose.
Evil people are out to get you.
droughts? Global Warming!
cold weather? Global Warming!
average temperature dropping? Global Warming!
The unusual weather events we've been seeing around the world the last year aren't proof that global climate change is real... at least not yet. Weather != Climate and all that, not over the period of a single year anyways. But eventually if the trend continues and we continue to see more and bigger weather related disasters over the coming years then eventually even the non-scientist deniers will have to admit there is a problem. When that does happen, i wonder if any of the deniers will actually step forward and admit they were wrong? Every time i see a denier post on Slashdot that seems to come from someone who sincerely believes what they're saying i'm tempted to write their name down and ask them about it when that time comes, but i'm far too lazy to actually follow through on that.
(And turnabout is fair play. If ten or twenty years from now the temperature hasn't gone up any more and the weird weather events go away without us taking any action about it i'll be willing to stand up and say i was wrong. In fact i'd be quite happy to have that event come about.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Critics of the first paper have questioned why a 100 year period was used and implied that this is cherry picking. These critics are ignoring the fact that the paper examined 100 years, 100 years excluding the last (very hot) year, and also the entire record since 1880 - each time coming to the same result http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/roger-pielke-jr-just-cant-help-himself/
It's called "climate change" NOT "global warming".
It doesn't matter a bit. Until the consequences reach such catastrophic, region-depopulating proportions that the changes occurring can't possibly be ignored the denalism will continue to be sponsored (because that's convenient for certain big businesses in the short term, and they're too stupid to see they're shooting themselves in the face in the medium and long term).
By then it'll almost certainly be too late to do anything, either to prepare or attempt to moderate the changes. But I have no doubt that when that time comes, the denalists will pretend they are innocent and will continue to defend the handful of corporate interests that manipulated them. Remember how long the tobacco-sponsored lies about how smoking doesn't cause cancer kept up?
There is no global warming, it's just a liberal conspiracy theory to further their nanny state dreams. If there was global warming then how do you explain the October snow in New England this year?
Stop protecting Al Gore and start thinking for yourselves before the government comes to tell you how to think.
President Perry 2016 or else.
Stop with the hot air about trying to push the less threatening term "climate change" - you're contributing to global warming.
is how the Earth's temperature has remained essentially static (with a slight downward trend) for the last 12 years. That's from figures that everyone agrees.
If the temperature is static/slightly decreasing while the CO2 levels keep rising, then the CO2 hypothesis CAN'T be right. You can do clever stats as much as you like - the fact remains that the theory and model predictions say that the temperature should be increasing rapidly - and it just isn't. That really is the elephant in the room...
It's called "climate change" NOT "global warming".
It's called both. It is anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions of CO2 causing global warming of mean land, sea, and lower atmosphere temperatures which is causing global climate change.
Seriously, cap-n-trade works IFF all nations participate. Well, Not only is USA not participating, but the worst polluter, china, will not either. In fact, if USA does, then it is CERTAIN that China and 3rd world nations will actually make a grab for American businesses by quickly building up electricity (probably following the chinese model of illegally subsidizing it and then dumping the goods on international market). And what is the fastest way to build up CHEAP electricity? Coal plants without ANY pollution control (in fact, china has nearly all, if not all, of their pollution controls turned off).
So, what is the best solution? Have nations tax ALL goods (local and imported) based on the CO2 that comes from the nation where the final assembly and the primary sub-components (depending on size of item, much even want several of the largest sub-components). Ideally, we would tax based on CO2 emissions from a nation on a per sq km basis. With that approach, it forces ALL major nations to lower their emissions, while nearly all 3rd world nations are all ready at low levels. However, with this approach, it will reward those nations that actually take the initiative to drop their emissions, while punishing those that choose to ignore it. That includes the nation that invokes the tax itself.
America is to launch OCO2 in 2012. It measures CO2 emissions. Rather than playing guessing games, this would simply measure CO2 into a nation's border, as well as CO2 OUT of the nation. That approach would allow us to find exactly how much CO2 a nation generates and not worry about the source. That is up to the nation to solve. They may wish to kill coal plants. Or they may elect to kill cars. etc. However, this approach combined with per sq km basis, allows a nation to decide if the issue is a business issue or a ppl issue and then adjust accordingly. However cap-n-trade and combined with per capita is about the worst idea going. It is already failing in EU. They are losing businesses to China who will continue to cheat all the way through this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We have nothing to be worried about, just live your everyday fully and happily. http://www.impressiveshow.org/ Nike Free Run
Since the Russian heat wave was determined by NOAA to not be related to Glowbull Warming, that makes real proof that this "new" analysis is just more of the same old political panic-mongering bullshit.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/19/noaa-on-the-russian-heat-wave-blocking-high/
I was on the fence on AGW until I read that, now I can only conclude that AGW is a fraud. AGW cannot be falsified and is therefore not science. I'm certain I'll be modded flamebait or troll or whatever, but that inconvenient fact remains, AGW cannot be falsified. When the rules of science changed to allow people to "prove" things without even trying to falsify them? The way I learned the scientific method is you must try to falsify, not present anecdotal data to "prove your theory". If your theory cannot be falsified than you're not even dealing with a scientific theory.
The lies must stop! This is not science! It lessens the impact that real scientific research will have on the general public because now they'll say "oh ya, just like global warming" and science will begin to loose the respect it deserves.
Hot shots.
This only shows the consequences of an earth that heats up. It does not show that man is responsible for the earth heating up or that man has any control over it.
Work Safe Porn
Mmmmm.... doughnuts!
If doughnuts are wrong, then I don't want to be right.
They need money for levies to hold water back, not money for Carbon Tax to be paid to the UN's banksters
Most people call it "global redistribution scam", but potato, potahto.
As the unlimited power is at our disposal (CO2 free), the Cold Fusion test wildly discussed yesterday is declared "success" (by Rossi), it has made Wired frontpage in the UK already. Scam artist or a messiah?
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success
interesting video about the subject by CBS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OabYImeDSc
A few dishonest conservative nutcases call it "global redistribution scam", but potato, potahto.
FTFY.
I strongly disagree with the premise. The only observable change large and proximate enough to the problem is deforestation not "global warming".
It kills O2 generation which increases CO2 a disproportionate amount given it also is a soil issue and a population dislocation issue.
Please reforest. In the mean time put tourist venues on the north coast of Russia, Norway and Canada. We need the money.
Replace hydrocarbons with algae. Do all transportation of end users by electric means. Done.
irvineeconometrics.com :( (governments only please)
It's statistical variability. Just because you experience an outlier doesn't mean the world is falling apart.
Posting from the Northeast where we are supposed to get a foot of snow...it's not even November yet!
Every one knows that the lack of pirates cause global warming.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
If it were true, then I'd have to change my lifestyle and I don't want to, therefore global warming is a scam.
Thought experiment: if we're still in an ice age (due to ice still being in the artic and greenland) then if we're seeing droughts now, then what will happen when we get out of this ice age? More water in the environment means more available water everywhere, therefore less drought?
So isnt the answer simple? We purposely go and melt as much ice as possible and fix all our deserts in 1 go. I think that is the answer, following the logic of this article and study. Drastic things need to happen to fix this imaginary problem because the computer simulations never lie.
Global warming can never be disproved because everything is caused by global warming. Summer too hot? Global Warming. Winter too cold? Global Warming. Floods? Global Warming. Droughts? Yep, global warming. More big hurricanes? Global Warming. Less big hurricanes? Global Warming.
Why are people commenting on this story as though it made a case for Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming?
It doesn't.
So, in a scientific paper one computes "alpha", which is the probability that the results are due to chance rather than a true relationship. Thousands of papers are published each year, so we simply accept that 5% of them happen to be wrong by convention*. (Plus, alpha is inversely correlated with "beta", the chance that a relationship can be found if it truly exists, set at 80% usually.) The summary implies that these researches have an alpha level of 0.2, which supports the null hypothesis (no relationship). A one in five chance of being wrong is not acceptable.
IOW, how is global warming falsifiable if you're just going to call everything a positive result? Or is it that you release sensational information to the media if you can't get published in journals? (OTOH, I have no idea what level of evidence climatology journals accept, obviously randomized controlled double-blind trials are impossible, so the level of evidence is going to be quite low just by the nature of the field...)
* Technically, most studies aren't even reproducible if people later try (kinda rare given expense). Bias creeps in despite the many safeguards. Much of it results from researchers being passionate about their theory, not so great at math, and forced to "publish or perish". Researchers tend to be fairly smart, so even their bias may reflect reality, so this problem is somewhat masked.
With all that ice melting we should have even more water available
According to a survey, 90% of scientists from the relevant fields and 90% of all scientists ascribe to anthropogenic climate change. That is what we call a "scientific consensus", and you don't get a consensus that strong without an awful lot of data to back it up. I know, I know, the good pro-science guys at FOX News and on the Rush Limbaugh show and from the rightist think tanks keep saying this is "bad science", but let's take a look at the "science" the rightists use to make their arguments, shall we?
The most prominent, most cited, and most published climate change skeptic scientist is one Ross McKitrick, who is either an amazingly sloppy scientist, or someone deliberately engaging in fraud in order to promote a purely ideological view. I'll let you read for yourself: http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up/.
This guy who either literally doesn't know a degree from a radian or is deliberately doing bad science in order to deceive people is the best of the bunch. The others are even worse. It is on the basis of work by men of this caliber that you conclude that 90% of the scientists on the planet, representing people from every conceivable walk of life, economic status, nationality, set of political views, etc. is part of a vast international conspiracy to... what? Make American rightists feel bad? I was never entirely clear on what this vast, incomprehensibly complex conspiracy is actually supposed to do.
There is no scientific evidence to support Global Warming
"natural variability alone is unlikely to return the region's climate to normal"
Where "normal" is defined as "what it was 10 years ago". I wonder if the descendants of Ice Age megafauna are wondering when the climate will return to their normal.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
LIBERAL BIAS LIBERAL BIAS LIBERAL BIAS
Just wanted to get that out of the way, not my actual opinion an all that.
The ORBIT of the Earth around the Sun is not static. Sometimes the orbit is closer, other times is farther away. The change in distance is more than just the difference in Earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun
As time passes, the planet will get closer to the Sun (just like satellites do around Earth orbit) causing a increase in temperatures. Then if/when another mass causes a change in the gravitational field, it may move away from the Sun causing the temperatures to drop (ie: another ice age), People should realize that it only takes a slightly small change (as low as 1.5 degrees) in the orbit around the Sun to drastically change the temperature of the planet.
The problem I have with the GW alarmists is that they completely ignore basic facts in favor of unproven theories. And the worst part of all is that all the bs COMPLETE DIVERTS THE ATTENTION FROM THE REAL PROBLEM ..... POLLUTION. In fact, ever since the "carbon credit" scam was created, the pollution levels of the most polluting companies around the world have LEGALLY increased ..... with the excuse that the fees paid for "carbon credits" will negate the extra pollution as an investment in some some "green" projects in other countries (projects that for the most part aren't new or starving for money).
Good old self-serving greed is one. That is no small part of why I work to conserve. Use less, have more, more usually being money. I'm a big fan of LED bulbs for that reason. Ya they cost more up front but they use way less energy and you have to replace them literally like once every decade or two. In the long run, I spend less money which means I have more money.
Same even with small things like turning off lights in rooms I'm not in, having a remote controlled power strip on my home theater setup (Home Depot sells them, they are great) and so on. Doesn't make a big difference, but it adds up.
A bigger one is biking to work. I save a ton on gas, and even more on parking (I work for a university and they charge everyone, including staff, for parking). Not something that is feasible for everyone, but often more feasible than you think and if you can pull it off the savings are significant.
I always work to try and make my usage of things more efficient. It isn't towards any particular end goal, because I believe some huge catastrophe will happen if I don't, it is because I believe in conservation as a general rule of life. Use less, have more. There are a great many reasons why conservation is a good thing and it generally makes economic sense too so why the hell not?
The global redistribution scam has been going on for a while but wasn't linked to climate change. Now those who benefited most from the previous decades of the scam are crying foul because they may not be on top of the heap this time round.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Ooh, look's like I am gonna get done for heresy, no more cult meetings for me!
Where I live we (Long Island, NY) are experiencing record rain fall. In fact August was the wettest we have had in recorded history! We could use a drought right about now!!!
Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Celsius as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF)). Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising.
We can't accurately predict the weather but now we claim to accurately attribute it causally on a grand scale? Seriously?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Global Warming is dumping 8 inches of snow on me right now.
Methane is twenty times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, according to the EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/
Even assuming the methane originates from a "carbon neutral" source (such as grass), most animal feed lots produce a large amount of excess methane which increases the effect of global warming. That is why preexisting farms, such as this one in Brazil, are eligible to receive "carbon credits" by capturing the methane from their animal waste and burning it before returning it to the atmosphere. (As a side effect, this "methane capture" system produces a significant amount of electrical power, it nearly eliminates the risk of environmental pollution due to animal waste run-off, the "digested" animal waste can be used as high-quality and environmentally-friendly fertilizer, and the rancid stench that usually permeates and surrounds an animal feed lot is greatly reduced. The system is also financially solvent and according to the workers at Preto farm, it actually reduces the amount of labor required to run the farm.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fFIg5WLnm0
China and 3rd world nations will actually make a grab for American businesses
Not sure about "American businesses", but certainly they would make a grab for the natural resources. If we make it artificially expensive for ourselves to use our fossil fuels, it will make it cheaper for China to buy them. And they won't restrict their use. In fact, given that EVERY country subsidizes international campaigns which favor their own business interests, for all you know, the AGW campaign could be sponsored by China behind the scenes.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Hence the reason why I oppose Cap-n-trade, but support a tax on ALL goods predicated on the amount of CO2 that came from where the good was produced.
And I seriously doubt that China was anything to do with AGW other than generating it faster.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We already know that you are not interested in the truth, so why should anyone continue to waste time with you?
The fact that human activity is the source of most of the CO2 increase has been documented. CO2 outputs can and have been measured, and there is no doubt that human activity is the cause of the increase. That *you* can doubt this shows that you are being influenced by the denialists.
We are rapidly approaching the point where we will be unable to prevent global temperatures from rising higher than they have ever been during the existence of humans. Do you really think it likely that we will do *better* in an environment that we did not evolve to live in?
"If we make it artificially expensive for ourselves to use our fossil fuels, "
You know all that oil in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia and the other arab states doesn't exactly belong to US.
There is a simple solution -- put a tariff on goods produced in countries that pollute. Fair's fair.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
US is #1 producer of coal and natural gas in the world. China is on its to becoming a #1 consumer of coal.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Obviously we need to repopulate the seas with enough pirates to stop these droughts.
Yeah, the global warming is hitting the NorthEast pretty hard right now. They're supposed to get a few feet of global-warming before the storm is over. Thank god we've got the eco-terrorists to remind us that Cold = Weather, Heat = Global Warming, Drought = Global Warming-induced Weather Changes. Sure, they can't tell you what the temperature or the weather will be like 2 weeks from now. But what it will be like a hundred years from now? No problem. We've got that one nailed. ;)
There is an old line about you might not believe in the Devil but he believes in you. Saying it isn't human induced climate change doesn't change the facts. I find it assuming that people on the site make fun of people for denying the science of Evolution but find the science of make made climate change unconvincing. It started out with the deniers claiming there was absolutely no change which is insane because the climate is always in flux. Most of the mainstream deniers have started to admit there's change but they are now claiming we can't possibly be the cause. Saying it isn't so has no affect on the world and the climate it will continue to change no matter what people think. Why is it such a stretch believing that billions of tons of man made CO2 is affecting the environment when people accepted we were destroying the Ozone layer? Unless you live in the extreme southern hemisphere most have had little impact from the declining ozone where as the climate shift is already having a major affect on everyone's lives. We had record heat this summer in Arizona and even the north had record temperatures all summer long. Even the sudden winter storm is likely caused by it. A late hot summer often causes a backlash of sudden cooling in the winter since there's a delayed cooling. I wouldn't care about people sticking their heads in the sand if it it didn't have such an impact on my future. It's likely too late to reverse the worse of the problems but that just means we are facing degrees of bad. Since there has been virtually no effort made to drop the CO2 down to a reasonable level we are facing the worse case scenario. Severe temperature increases and major sea level rise. What we are seeing now with the droughts and heat waves is NOTHING! Nature is barely clearing her throat. I've never heard anyone yet make a case for the obvious. It's been known for decades we are supposed to be in a cooling trend no a warming trend. That's what is natural. That in of itself is the strongest case for it being man made. Billions of tons of CO2 and methane have an affect. People used to think we couldn't fish out the Grand Banks but we did a century ago. The Great Plains were turned into a corn field and only a percent or two of the original Great Plains grasslands still exist. It's actually considered the ecological devastation caused by man. An entire ecosystem was wiped out. Lake Eric, a Great Lake was effectively dead for decades but they reversed a lot of the pollution and it's come back so we can have an affect.
as in "never-seen-this-time-of-year-since-the-1860s" freaky. I am sure sooner or later someone will write a paper that this one is caused by global warming too. BTW, what happened to that scary ozone whole over Antarctica? Weren't we all supposed to die or something?
Grand scales are broad and generalized - we can't accurately predict the weather because that is really complex and extremely chaotic. We predict winter and summer despite our inability to predict the weather-- how is that possible??!
Over the long term with a broader stroke you can see emerging patterns; see the forest instead of just the trees.
Individuals can't accurately predict how many marbles are in the jar. The more people you average into the prediction the more it approximates the actual number of marbles in the jar. You may have heard "wisdom of the masses" well, this actually quantified it a long time ago. (I leave it to you to wonder why I mentioned this.)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights---science---what-s-it-up-to-
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
> oil companies are funding little if any of the serious research on global warming
FTFY
The oil cartel is not interested in actual science on this issue. But they do spend 7- and 8-figure sums on propaganda campaigns and lobbyists, including hefty donations to conservative think-tank "institutes" which, in turn, do fund a fair amount of "fake science" which is favorable to the industry.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Please provide me with links to at least two examples of actual research on global warming that was funded by the oil industry.
Never mind. In your next paragraph you acknowledge my point, and contradict your own "FTFY".
I did not ask about propaganda; my point was about research. Both "sides" of the issue are guilty of large amounts of propaganda containing large amounts of bullshit. I won't deny that. But it wasn't what the conversation was about.
"there's an 80 percent chance that climate change was responsible"
What the hell does that even mean? It's just a way to get the attention of laymen, anyone who understands a shred of statistics will laugh at this meaningless suggestion.
Improve at backgammon rapidly through addictive quickfire position quizzes: www.bgtrain.com
The humans can adapt and thrive in changing circumstances!
Now excuse me while I fend off the hordes of displaced people who showed up on my front door...
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
I grow tired of all the people trying to prove global warming without offering solutions. I understand that the solutions are outside the area of expertise of those doing the research in "climate change" but all the lobbyists and politicians that are trying to convince people of the existence of global warming caused by human activity rarely have anything to say about what we should do about it. When they do come up with solutions they typically involve more money being flushed down the toilet trying to prop up failed companies that for some reason cannot stay in business making solar panels, electric cars, or what ever, and then passing the bill onto the taxpayers.
How about we talk about some real solutions.
When it comes to "electric" cars those cars are powered by electricity produced by something. In most every case that "something" is coal. An "electric" car is really a coal powered car so long as we are burning coal to produce our electricity. Solar power might have a very small carbon footprint compared to coal but it is so outrageously expensive right now that no one has been able to turn a profit without heavy taxpayer subsidies. Solar has other problems, such as being unreliable as it only produces power when the sun shines.
Wind is relatively cheap, has a small carbon footprint, and can share the land with crops. (I suppose it could share land with solar panels but I've never seen it done. Might have something to do with putting too much expensive equipment in the same place. One storm will bust up the expensive mills but also the extremely expensive solar panels.) Wind power has the same problem as solar, it's unreliable. This problem must be solved with either backup power (usually natural gas) or over-sizing the mills and panels and have some sort of electric storage system. These storage systems are not cheap, this makes any significant usage of wind power very expensive.
If we use natural gas to back up the wind or solar power then we need to have domestic drilling for natural gas. Natural gas tends to be where the oil is located. Without domestic oil and gas we don't have wind or solar. Natural gas is very expensive to ship in, it is only viable if carried by pipes. Shipping in natural gas means not only very high prices but dependence on the willingness of a foreign nation to sell us this natural gas.
When it comes to the amount of energy produced compared to carbon output nothing beats hydroelectric power. Problem is that we've already dammed up all the rivers worth a dam. Next in line is nuclear power. If we build more nuclear power plants then these "electric" cars are not coal powered any more. Nuclear power is not dependent on the weather, does not require foreign sourced fuel, and it's as cheap as coal. The only problem with nuclear power is that the federal government has an effective ban on any new construction of nuclear power plants.
Okay, there is another problem with nuclear power. It cannot be ramped up and down like natural gas. We'd still have to have an expensive electric storage system and/or a natural gas backup for the peak loads. Hydroelectric dams can be a relatively cheap electric storage facility if only outfitted with pumps to pump the water up the hill when there is a surplus of electric capacity. This is only a partial solution as there are only so many dams to go around.
If we assume that human activity, from CO2 output, is causing global warming then we need to stop burning coal yesterday. They only things we have to replace that "dirty" power source is the not much cleaner natural gas or nuclear power. We can add in some wind and solar only so far as we have a means to store that power and/or provide a backup. This storage and backup solution means a mix of natural gas and hydroelectric. More natural gas means more domestic oil drilling, something else the federal government has effectively banned.
I've grown tired of all the talk of how we are destroying the planet with coal and oil. If coal and oil is the problem then we need a solution. The only solution I see in the here and now is nuclear power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Burning fossil fuels does great harm. There is no doubt of that. But covering the land with asphalt and concrete and removal of trees fro large areas as will as destruction of the oceans all are causes of warming. We are rather like a race car at full speed headed for a concrete wall. But that is not what our eyes tell us. It seems to be an issue with very slow consequences. Yet in fact the consequences are severe and a lot faster than they seem to be. In order to have much of a chance of surviving this emergency we need to stress population reduction, the end of urban sprawl, the restoration of natural areas, control of chemical pollution and a host of other things that are painful. For example a total ban on all salt water fishing would have an astounding effect on restoring fish in our seas. We also need to make use of invasive plant species in absorbing CO2. Plants such as kudzo can go a long way in helping restore our planet. Bamboo is fast growing and could eliminate a lot of softwood harvesting for paper and fabric fiber and bamboo grows almost everywhere.
What do they mean "natural variability"? 20,000 years ago, New York state was under 2 kilometers of ice. Now that's variability. Seems to me any swing in temp is inside 'natural' variabiliy. I'm just hoping the current warming trend will forestall the next ice age, which would crush society.
"...because it implies natural variability alone is unlikely to return the region's climate to normal"
The whole notion that a "stable" climate is the "normal" condition is a gross misconception. Climate never has been stable. It has always been changing, and not just on timescales of tenthousands of years: also on (much) shorter timescales. And I am not talking about 'change' here in terms of: a statistical scatter around a mean. I am talking about real change: trends towards colder, trends towards warmer. Climate has always been trending.
So statements that include things like "return the region's climate to normal" are nonsense. It are statements made by people who have no clue about what climate and climate history entails.
We humans are inept to deal with change. We prefer to keep a status quo. Change upsets us. But the reality is, that climate doesn't care about a status quo. The fundamental character of climate is that it is always changing. There is no such things as "normal".
The real fear mongering neocons are the Humanity hating climate blamers that have condemned billions of children to a CO2 death just to make them more environmentally aware.
So these days Mediterranean snow-men melt early. Tuff titty. If you over-populate for 10,000 years a semi-desert you get all the water you deserve. Dry up and blow away medi-wogs.
this all sounds manufactured. we can't wait for proper data to come
in because it's such an emergency? really? that's your scientific
argument?
sounds more like manipulation to me.
don't get me wrong, it's likely that gw is real, but what is certain is that
people in general perfer gw to going without. the only way that might
change is if gw means going without.
so hastily slapping a label on something in an unscientific manner doesn't
help a thing.
If these Monte Carlo simulation predictions are so accurate that people around the world are willing to spend billions if not trillions of dollars (of someone else's money) as a result, why wouldn't these researchers use Monte Carlo simulations to predict...Monte Carlo and make a fortune in the casino and forever live a life of luxury?
Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community.[6] By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States' leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.[12] It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.[13]
By 1910, there was a large and dynamic network of scientists, reformers and professionals engaged in national eugenics projects and actively promoting eugenic legislation. The American Breederâ(TM)s Association was the first eugenic body in the U.S., established in 1906 under the direction of biologist Charles B. Davenport. The ABA was formed specifically to âoeinvestigate and report on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood.â Membership included Alexander Graham Bell, Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank.[14][15] The American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality was one of the first organizations to begin investigating infant mortality rates in terms of eugenics.[16] They promoted government intervention in attempts to promote the health of future citizens.[17]
Source.
Nope. Not a tariff. A tariff is applied ONLY to incoming or outgoing products. Instead, you put it on ALL products, including your own. That way, there is no discrimination.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
the evidence and truth has been out there for years. If you were honestly interested in the evidence then you would have already retrieved it. Of course, since we already know that you are not interested in actual truth, but rather slanted BS that allows you to pretend that your opinions have weight, you avoid actually seaking out this evidence. Instead, morally challenged individuals like you keep rehashing the same old lies and hope that you can waste so much time of your betters that they will leave, allowing you to pretend that you have won some wort if intellectual debate. Instead the truth is that we are simply fed up with wasting time with you. Just like when dealing with a young child who thinks he can get his way by constantly bothering the adults around him.
We are nearing the solar maximum for this ~11 year cycle. "Chill out" - exactly what's going to happen in a few years if some of the solar models based on long term declining magnetic field strength are accurate.
""It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources."
One keeps seeing so many who think that natural sources of carbon dioxide are small compared to human created carbon dioxide. All the volcanoes in the world produce about 220,000,000 mT of carbon dioxide annually. Humans produce about 30,000,000,000 mT of carbon dioxide annually, about 1,000 times that created by volcanoes. The amount of carbon going into and out of the environment due to respiration and decay must be very large, but because organisms die roughly in proportion to the number that are born, which should not be surprising given that no organism, save perhaps some bacteria, live forever, the net effect is largely close to zero on average from year to year.
When one stops to think that humans will raise global mean temperatures within 100 years between 4 and 6 degrees Celsius, and we haven't even yet started to burn the bulk of the oil in tar sands and the carbon based gasses trapped in rock that hasn't been in the atmosphere in the past several hundreds of millions of years of earth history, one thing is absolutely certain: its really going to get incredibly hot around here soon. Humans will have to begin to learn to adjust to an 8-12 degree Celsius raise in the mean global temperature in just a couple of hundred years. By the end of the first hundred, it will be over a hundred degrees F in Kansas City more than 100 days out of the year. Makes one wonder what they will do when it goes to 135-140 degrees F for 135 - 140 days out of the year. Certainly, a lot more praying in Texas.
Daily Mail and Georgia Tech point out that temperatures have not changed for last 11 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
If it increases the risk of cancer because it results in physical effects that often lead to cancer, what is really the difference other than sophism?
Besides there is about as much chance that carbon dioxide does not causes global warming as their is that smoking doesn't eventually cause cancer and HIV doesn't eventually cause AIDS.
about 30,000,000,000 mT of carbon dioxide produced by humans annually, entering into a system that otherwise would have seen only a 220,000,000 mT of carbon dioxide entering per year from natural sources (volcanoes).
Methane is about 30 times more capable than carbon dioxide in increasing global atmospheric temperatures and are known to be associated with major extinction events in the past, such as in the Permian. Your right we do have big problems, but ignoring the tremendous heat trapping effect of ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will only make them much worse. It is not as if we can simply blow off the effects because we find them inconvenient to our portfolios.
The only problem with your argument is that the Chinese recognize that it is in their interest to get off fossil fuels as fast as they can and are doing so by dramatically increasing their production and use of solar technology, while in the USA we have have to do battle with the fossil fuel industry operatives, who want to postpone the day of reckoning as long as possible. Last year China lost more soil to drought than the US so they have incentive to do something about it.
Suggesting that the US oppose China by making sure that we will not get out in front of them technologically to do what will be inevitably be required (get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible but instead cling to fossil fuels for as long as possible, is to make your concerns about China moot, since you seem more than willing to surrender the future to them in doing so.
Has it every occurred to you that if we could run the US entirely on solar and wind power then we wouldn't have to pay the Iranians, Iraqis Libyans, and Saudi Arabians for it and all that money would stay in the US?
If we make fossil fuels artificially expensive, not only will we burn less and reduce the amount of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere, but also it will save us a great deal of money and destruction to of our environment, not to mention stimulate our economy as it shift toward 21st century technologies rather than attempting to compete using 19th century technology. But heck we don't have to make it artificially expensive, we can just cut subsidies to the fossil fuels industry and save even more. Current subsidizes, such as the oil depletion allowance, actually make oil artificially inexpensive to the producers and distributors at taxpayer's expense.
The data has been (and continues to be) collected, analyzed by numerous researchers, and is to the point where even you or I can discern the trends after a few minutes with a spreadsheet. I'm done splitting hairs with the flat earthers and the shills for fossil fuel purveyors regarding the "reality" of climate change. It's pointless, and whether the parent realizes it or not, we're passed that.
Where we are is a struggle over what to do next. Granted, in a bad economy, it's a hard sell the sort of policies that would reduce and then stop the increase in atmospheric carbon. And, most of the likes of the parent's post really come down to that. For instance, compare Newt Gingrich c. 2011 with c. 2007.
The thing that's needed to get useful climate policies in place is to create catch up growth in the US economy, enabling the majority of voters to see beyond the next quarter. The private sector is already back to a historically normal growth rate, but we're shooting ourselves in the foot by continuing to shrink public employment. President Hoover would be so proud.
Luke, help me take this mask off
How about global warming being linked to droughts? All those rain forests being chopped down around the world in the past 60 years can't be helping the increasing CO2 problem.