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.
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 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?
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.
Unpredictable events due to an increase in the overall energy of a chaotic system? Global warming!
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
They need money for levies to hold water back, not money for Carbon Tax to be paid to the UN's banksters
The data is available. Anyone can attempt to replicate the temperature series. As a matter of fact, skeptic Richard Mueller did just that recently with the Berkeley Earth Surface temperature project. He found that warming had actually been under reported by Phil Jones. Being a true skeptic he was persuaded by the facts and now accepts that the rate of warming is very well understood. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/10/20/breaking-news-the-earth-still-goes-around-the-sun-and-its-still-warming-up/
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
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.
True enough. There are other papers that show the causality. The response to those papers will undoubtedly be "This only shows that man is responsible. It does not show that there are any negative consequences to a warming world"
I see only one explanation for the recent warming -- increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to humans burning fossil fuels. Do you think there's another plausible explanation? I've heard increased solar output, and a change in the flux of cosmic rays, neither of which we seem to have observed. On the other hand, increased temperatures due to excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels was predicted over 100 years ago, long before it ever happened. It sounds like the best explanation available to me.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
A few dishonest conservative nutcases call it "global redistribution scam", but potato, potahto.
FTFY.
If it were true, then I'd have to change my lifestyle and I don't want to, therefore global warming is a scam.
I thought the whole idea of the scientific method was that the method was above and beyond whether any individual scientist was right or wrong either by good luck or good management. If Phil Jones puts being right above the rough and tumble of surviving criticism, he's not doing what I recognize as science. My version of science does not limit criticism to authorized lab coats.
Richard Mueller, doing science, out in the open under scrutiny from all comers, came up with the same answer, and did the entire debate a huge favour. If Jones turns out to be as brilliant as Srinivasa Ramanujan (and as lacking in mainstream convention), I might cut him more slack. Hardy nearly had a coronary demanding proofs from Ramanujan that he couldn't supply in the form Hardy desired. Nevertheless, Ramanujan risked everything to join Hardy in collaboration to bridge the divide.
What was Jones' excuse? He's hardly the first scientist faced with the prospect that nearly 100% of his peers (to say nothing of the gadfly rabble) are mainly motivated by the finding of fault. He should have a brief conversation with Daniel Shechtman about the reality of his chosen profession.
Why are people commenting on this story as though it made a case for Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming?
It doesn't.
What was NOT said by the Mueller report, but is true nevertheless: Mueller simply confirmed the historical temperature record. His study had absolutely nothing to do with any difference between natural causes and man-made causes, nor (unlike the Jones, Mann et al.) does it pretend to make any predictions about future trends.
So in fact, the Mueller report is not even remotely evidence of, or confirmation for, AGW.
We're not "calling" results positive. The results *are* positive. Warming was predicted over 100 years ago. We keep confirming that we're observing the warming, again and again and again. Let me know of a study that shows no warming or cooling, and that would be a negative result.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
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.
And what about Richard Muller's study? It didn't use Phil Jones' data.
Your exclamation points speak more eloquently than your words. They tell us everything we need to know about how carefully you have considered your position.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The best explanation available is often a result of not considering certain variables. "The earth is flat and resides on the back of a giant turtle" was the best available explanation at some point. It was based on observing the world with tools available at the time. The turtle bit was probably a failure to separate observation from fantasy, but not the "flat" bit. Just, please, don't use "I don't know of anything else" as a reason to assume causality. "I don't know" is not an argument. "This is the only possibly explanation I can think of" is not a proof of causality. It's a proof that it's a good place to look for causality.
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.
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.
Because something as simple as AGW needs a /single/ paper that encapsulates the entire phenomena in no more than an abstract, so that it can fit between two commercials. Would you believe it then?
Nahhhh =0
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The problem is that, in America, the extremists who don't believe in global warming are well-connected to the levers of power and are doing a masterful job of obstructionism and obfuscation. My slight paraphrasing which you exaggerated considerably was made not long ago by a US congressman or senator. The doomsday scenario of global warming are still decades off into the future. The concern is if there's a tipping-point ( widely believed ), how much warming it'll take to get us there and when we'll reach it. Some believe we may have already crossed that point - trouble is that we won't be sure for a long time. You make it sound as though there just a bunch of ordinary people who disagree, with some wingnuts on the edges but there are powerful companies lined up to defend their interests. I hear a lot of talk, especially after Climategate that Gore is just doing this so he can make a billion dollars in carbon credits and that there is a rich cabal behind the greens and the IPCC and we should just "follow the money", overlooking the $1 TRILLION in US oil corp PROFITS in the last 10 years - a trillion reasons to support the status quo for some folks, no?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
If you increase the concentration of CO2 in a mixture of gases like the atmosphere with infrared radiation passing through it it will warm up by capturing more of that IR. That's simple physics. Human burning of fossil fuels has put more than twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as it takes to raise the level from 280 ppmv in 1830 to 390 ppmv in 2011. You're going to need some pretty extraordinary evidence to show the increase in CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming and humans are not the primary cause of the increase in CO2. Good luck with that.
It's statistical variability. Just because you experience an outlier doesn't mean the world is falling apart.
Yeah, that's also what that thimblerigger told me after I complained that losing every time for twenty games means the game must have been manipulated.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
First off, they would not reveal all the sources of their data. Some of it was public, true, but some of it was arranged via private business arrangement with international sources, not all of which they would name. And they would not release those data, precisely because of their claim that the sources wanted confidentiality.
The sources were governments who wanted money, not confidentiality. You don't need to use the exact same weather stations to replicate the results. Roy Spencer didn't even use weather stations for UAH. He used satellite data. The BEST team didn't go to CRU for data, they went to the sources (and likely payed). NASA didn't go to CRU for the data, they went to the sources. Hobbyist gathered publicly available data. All performed an independent analysis and came up with the same answer. The fact that they all came to the same answer using different data and different methods means that we can trust the result. This is science. Very highly corroborated science.
Simply running the same code against the same data proves nothing. This is what the skeptics seem interested in. They are not interested in science, only on casting doubt on science.