Why Groundwater Use May Not Explain Half of Sea-Level Rise

New submitter Sir Realist writes "A recent Slashdot scoop pointed us at a scientific study that claimed 42% of global sea-level rises could be due to groundwater use. It was a good story. But as is often the way with science, there are folks who interpret the data differently. Scott Johnson at Ars Technica has a good writeup which includes two recent studies that came to remarkably different conclusions from mostly the same data, and an explanation of the assumptions the authors were making that led to those differences. Essentially, there is some reason to think that the groundwater estimates used in the first study were too high. However, that's still under debate, so it's worth reading the whole argument. Scientific review in action!"

Comments

Scientific review

[x0]

So, we can review groundwater/sea-level scientific studies, but 'Climate Change' is a done deal.

Got it...

m

Re:Scientific review

[wisnoskij]

Or maybe it is simply that all peered reviewed papers get reviewed. And it is simply that climate change is a fact and it is happening ~ like we believe it is so all reviews of those papers turn up no problems.

Re:Scientific review

[Mindcontrolled]

If you'd care to have a look at the literature, you'd see constant reviewing of all models, of all parameters, of all proxies. In contrast to just repeating the same old talking points, that would take effort, though, wouldn't it?

Re:Scientific review

[girlintraining]

So, we can review groundwater/sea-level scientific studies, but 'Climate Change' is a done deal.

It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy, there. We've got too many satellites confirming it, along with thousands of ground stations and the upward trend is undeniable.

It's still up for discussion why it's happening or what it will eventually mean for us. Ethical scientists generally take the side of "Until we can predict with some confidence what will happen, we should do what we can to limit the impact," similar to the ideal behind the Hippocratic oath. Our present models, understanding, and theories point to rising sea levels, melting ice caps, and heating to the point where much of the ariable land along the equator will no longer be able to sustain industrial farming.

We're already seeing some of the effects of this rapid heating (in geological terms); In Japan, native moss is no longer used at several Zen shrines because it's become too warm for them to survive. Coral reefs are undergoing a mass-extinction event, and we are seeing weather patterns which roughly correspond to modelling predictions for a warmer Earth. If these trends continue, life will become increasingly inhospitable to humans. While long-term predictions aren't reliable, it is almost certain the Earth of 200 years from now will have a radically different climate than the Earth of today; We are directly responsible for this planet entering a new geological age with as much speed and force as the Cretaceousâ"Paleogene extinction event.

The debate really doesn't center on whether or not these things happen; The choice faced by our generation is not whether or not life after climate change is possible, but what kind of life it will be.

Re:Scientific review

[x0]

The choice faced by our generation is not whether or not life after climate change is possible, but what kind of life it will be.

QED

m

Re:Scientific review

[Ginger Unicorn]

Any individual study can be reviewed at any time. This rarely has any significant impact on the consensus formed by the weight of all other existing related studies. If there are two interpretations of a study based on two different sets of assumptions, the question can be resolved by testing the assumptions. The fact that a single study is ambiguous does nothing to cast doubt on the remaining vast preponderance of scientific studies which unambiguously indicate that climate change is both real and man made.

'Climate Change' is a done deal

The scientific community has overwhelmingly agreed that Climate Change is occuring, and that there is a greater than 90% chance it is man-made.

That this is the consensus is a cold, hard, unambiguous fact. If you want to believe that climate change is not real, or not man-made, the only remaining avenue of rationalisation is that the scientific community a wrong or lying for some reason. This puts climate change deniers on the same ground as creationists.

Re:Scientific review

[MozeeToby]

It's still up for discussion why it's happening

Personally, I feel it's a bit disingenuous to say that without adding something along the lines of "but the most widely accepted and scientifically supported explanation is man made CO2 emissions". The plain fact of the matter is that there isn't much discussion amongst scientists as to the cause and that there's virtually no debate amongst climate scientists. Solar variation isn't enough to explain the changes we've seen and CO2 from other sources is a tiny fraction of human output (despite what many people would tell you online). Having a group of laymen trotting out the same tired arguments again and again while the experts explain why they are wrong isn't a debate, if it were then evolution would be up for debate as well!

Re:Scientific review

[C_amiga_fan]

>>>It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy

How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)

Re:Scientific review

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still up for discussion why it's happening or what it will eventually mean for us. Ethical scientists generally take the side of "Until we can predict with some confidence what will happen, we should do what we can to limit the impact," similar to the ideal behind the Hippocratic oath.

My concern here is that without being able to predict the outcome with confidence it is not possible to determine what action will "limit the impact". What we need to do is to verify the models by predicting a future change and see if it happens as predicted. If so the model used is "good enough" and we can see if limiting carbon emission makes things better or worse.
We also have to get ridf of the myth that climate is something stable. The earth is on a journey from creation to end. No year will ever be the same as the last one. The distance to the moon changes, the distance to the Sun changes, the solar output changes. The cyclic model is just a model that works well enough. What we need to find is not a state that is "natural". What we need to determine is what kind of climate we want and do whatever it takes to get that climate, even if the this includes increasing gas emissions. Until we are willing to do this we are playing with the planet for the sake of politics rather than doing what is scientifically sound. (Also, it might be a better idea to experiment with Mars rather than to try to fix the production system while we still depends on it.)

Re:Scientific review

[geekoid]

One is one paper, the other is scientific consensus. Please troll elsewhere.

Re:Scientific review

[Bigby]

I followed and agreed with your first two paragraphs. Even the first couple sentences of the 3rd paragraph. Then you went crazy.

Inhospitable? You know the earth has been much warmer with humans living on it? Earth had a radically different climate 200 years ago, and 200 years before that, and 200 years before that. Define "radical" please.

Then you finish with "we are directly responsible". That is the part being questioned. Not that the earth is warming, but the cause. You conveniently failed to bring that part up in your first two paragraphs. You even say "it's still up for discussion why it's happening". Did you come to the conclusion while writing the paragraphs in between?

Then you finish by saying earth will not be inhospitable. What is your opinion here???

Re:Scientific review

[Gaygirlie]

>>>It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy

How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)

Over here in Finland it is actually getting a lot warmer than it used to. For several years now the temperature can be above zero even in January, but when I was a child that would have been totally unheard of; back then the temperature could drop as low as -35 degrees Celsius where I lived in.

Re:Scientific review

[C_amiga_fan]

At one time it was the scientific consensus that light was a wave, and that it traveled through a medium called "ether" that filled the gap between the sun and the earth. 99% of scientists believed this.
They were wrong.
Consensus doesn't really mean much..... read "Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Learn about paradigm shift; how an entire generation of scientists can believe with absolute certainty a false fact.

Re:Scientific review

[andy16666]

>>>It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy

How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)

They don't. Global temperatures continue to show a rise, despite certain local climate variations.

Re:Scientific review

[Mindcontrolled]

The "O-Zone layer", yes? I'd refrain from talking about what constitutes science, if I were you...

Re:Scientific review

[MozeeToby]

Define "radical" please.

The rate of change is important. Toss me a baseball and I'll catch it, whip it at my head and I probably won't.

We generally don't know the rate of change that previous global climate changes had, but the rates that we're seeing today would be equivilent to the ice age ending in a matter of decades or at most a couple centuries. 1.5 degrees so far might not sound like much but when look at the global scale that is a big change.

Re:Scientific review

[Mindcontrolled]

Well, within a period of 120 years, no one has brought up sufficient empirical data to challenge the hypothesis that the radiative balance of Earth deviates from the expected blackbody values due to greenhouse gases, as put forth by Arrhenius - it gets "touchable" once you provide data instead of talking points.

Re:Scientific review

[Grayhand]

Wow. That Kool-aid must taste great.

It's the other side that is chugging Kool-Aide. On one side you have climatologist and environmental scientists that have all agreed for a decade or more that we are seeing a major shift in the climate and we are the cause. On the other side are pundits that have an agenda to avoid changes that will affect lifestyle or corporate profits that have no formal education in climate science that say we can't affect weather no matter what we do to the Earth. Now which side sounds like the Kool-aide drinkers, the scientists or corporate America who are making a fortune off releasing CO2? I've heard claims all my life that we can't seriously affect the environment yet I've seen a massive change in the world over the last 50 years. Cities themselves cause heating because of all the dark roofs and roads so it's obvious we are having an affect on the environment. FYI the pundits are lying about all the experts that deny climate change. There was even a major study by a climate change denial group that had the same results as the climate scientist. Their reaction was to say that there is change but we can't be the cause. There was no proof that we weren't the cause it was their opinion. The carbon we are releasing predates the dinosaurs so it's insane to assume that it can't affect the environment. It took tens of millions of years to store it and we're releasing it in a couple of hundred years. To put it into perspective imagine a 1,000 years worth of your trash, you know those bags you leave out front for the garbage man. Now pile that thousand years of trash bags around your house. The pile would be hundreds of feet high. That's what we are doing when we release 400 million year old stored carbon. Think that ridiculous? Imagine ten million years of your garbage and you are getting closer to the truth. It's not the same thing obviously but it illustrates how extreme the release of CO2 has been over the last 200 years.

Re:Scientific review

[gura]

It makes me really sad that someone actually believes this.

Re:Scientific review

[Ironchew]

So where are the reviews that actually challenge the hypothesis - or is that untouchable?

Reviews don't do that; competing hypotheses do. In the world of science, a competing hypothesis overtakes the consensus if and only if it explains everything the old system could and more that it couldn't. Science demands alternative explanations that solve inconsistencies; finding a problem with the consensus is only the first step, and denialists are stuck there.

Re:Scientific review

[icensnow]

The idea that light was a wave moving through the ether was consistent with all available data, especially given the limitations of 19th century measurement, until the Michelson-Morley experiments. Maxwell's equations are still consistent with pre-relativity understanding, and I certainly had to learn how to work with them. The old way of thinking is not so much wrong as limited to a certain level of measurement, just as with Newton's laws and pretty much everything else before relativity and quantum mechanics. The old ways of thinking are still useful and generally correct within their assumptions. I begin to think that we need some kind of Godwin's Law against bringing up Kuhn and paradigms in an actual scientific discussion -- it seldom leads anywhere useful but usually is used just like this post to say "just because everyone who knows something thinks so doesn't mean it's right."

Re:Scientific review

[Sparticus789]

Sorry, some of us were not yet conceived when the ozone layer fiasco was going on. Criticizing only makes you look like a crotchety old man.

Re:Scientific review

[Mindcontrolled]

"if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression."

See also: Svante Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, Svante Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.

Now, if you clean up your act and stop simply spouting lies, we might have a discussion.

Re:Scientific review

[Ironchew]

These points have been refuted so many times that it honestly isn't worth listing them again.

I sure as hell hope that no scientist has to work under these ludicrous standards you demand of the climatology field. They've demonstrated on several occasions that they have nothing to hide, and denialists just keep piling on them with more cherry-picked quotes. It's sickening to watch.

Re:Scientific review

[Mindcontrolled]

You surely mean the "O-Zone" layer, yes? Exactly what fiasco are you talking about? The fact that actions against emitting more CFCs lead to the shrinking of the ozone hole? Color me unimpressed.

Re:Scientific review

[girlintraining]

Inhospitable? You know the earth has been much warmer with humans living on it? Earth had a radically different climate 200 years ago, and 200 years before that, and 200 years before that. Define "radical" please.

No, the Earth has NOT had radically different climate change since the end of the last ice age... that's about 20,000 years of a pretty steady and unchanging climate. There have been a few glitches caused by volcanic eruption and the like, but it's always returned to baseline. Climate change has only really accelerated in the past 50--100 years, which is a drop in the bucket compared to that amount of time. Scientists are already pointing to climate changes observable within a single person's lifetime. In geological terms, that's massively fast. I would even say... radically so.

Then you finish with "we are directly responsible". That is the part being questioned.

It's the most likely possibility given the facts presently available. But like all new discoveries, it takes time to fully explore and document the relationships between so many complex variables and distill it into a simple truth. I'll start saying we aren't the cause when the body of assembled evidence weighs in the other direction. I can't say it has been settled with certainty, but then I also can't say prove the existance of the higgs-boson, yet I'm not about to discount the entire standard model because of it, anymore than I'm going to discount evolution because we're missing one fossil in a series of 100. Anyone can argue "There's not enough evidence!" for an infinity, but reasonable people draw conclusions based on available evidence, and if it's insufficient to do the responsible thing and gather more. You will never hear a scientist utter the phrase "But we have too much evidence!" If you truly feel there's another explanation then go find the evidence for it. This is the one field of inquiry where its participants are often heard to say "Why that's a very convincing argument. I must have been mistaken." I look forward to reading your peer-reviewed study on how humans have played a minority role in global warming.

Then you finish by saying earth will not be inhospitable. What is your opinion here???

At least in the United States, the majority of our water supply is derived from ground water sources. Most rivers are too polluted to be drinkable, and the quantity of fresh water existing in lakes is, and will continue, to decrease as a result of global warming. Considering that right now, today, at this moment there are states in the southern United States that are facing major water shortages, it's not hard to see how some areas could become uninhabitable due to a lack of drinkable water -- let alone have enough to farm the land.

In science, we form conclusions based on the available data. Now I'm only an amateur scientist, and I freely admit I am not a specialist in climate change. If there is a climatologist in the audience I would gladly yield to their authority; But I've read all the data in many journals, and there's two facts about this that are inescapable: First, that climate change is happening, and second that we're the most likely cause of it. At this point, it would take a significant new discovery to reverse that conclusion, and no such discoveries have been forthcoming -- every new piece of data I read about just further confirms that human beings are the cause. So I believe that what I've said is scientifically accurate. As to what to do about it... well, that's a lot more complicated and I'll just leave off by saying I think of all the available options, "do nothing" is the only one I'm firmly against.

Re:Scientific review

[tlhIngan]

How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)

Weather != climate. In fact, global warming has been shown to make weather more extreme - more hurricanes (a nice big hurricane can cool the ocean by a couple of degrees - it is a big heat engine after all). Summers will be hotter, drier, winters will be colder, snowier, etc. In fact, the melting ice cap has an interesting observation that winter wind patterns could push south bringing more cold air down with it.

So summers get hotter and drier, which makes farming much more difficult. Sure the northern areas get more arable land, but their growing periods are far shorter because of lesser sunlight.

The only real predictions are colder winters, hotter summers, and more hurricants/tornadoes (which is the natural way the oceans cool off).

Re:Scientific review

[thegreatemu]

When I read your second paragraph, I was really ecstatic for a minute there. You hit the nail on the head that so many climate change prophets are attacking with screwdrivers. There is a huge difference between the very well-demonstrated rising temperature and the significantly hazier predictions of future states based on extremely complicated and chaotic models. But based on very simple arguments, our actions are _likely_ to have an effect, and so doing what we can to minimize that possible effect is rational. (Unfortunately, the haze predictors are being used as justification for the degree of the response, which is not really justified.)

And then you negate all your rationality with the statement "We are directly responsible for this planet entering a new geological age with as much speed and force as the Cretaceousâ"Paleogene extinction event". It was a good job trying to sound rational, but you really need to keep your discourse consistent.

Re:Scientific review

[Mindcontrolled]

Got some more trivialities that actually have nothing to do with the state of the science? If you want to put the current warming trend down to natural and, in particular, solar influences, please present a model with more explanatory power than the current anthropogenic global warming models. I'm waiting. I am very patient.

Re:Scientific review

[tbannist]

Global warming is neither of the above. In the 1970's, it was all about global cooling. In the 1980's, it was the O-Zone layer. Now it is global warming.

You seem to be confused. In 1970s some reporters made a big deal about global cooling, however, most scientists still believed the world would warm. It was about 60% warming and 10% cooling. The ozone layer was a different issue having to do with skin cancer, not climate change. In the 1980s the scientists continued to research global warming and most of the 10% who predicted cooling were won over by the evidence supporting global warming. That's how science is supposed to work.

There's data to prove global warming, and data to disprove it.

There's evidence to prove global warming, but there really isn't any to disprove it. Like most established theories, evidence that at first seems counter to the theory, often ends up incorporated into the theory as nuance.

For every article about the moss not growing in Japan, there's one about icebergs blocking the Bearing Strait.

I'm not sure how an iceberg peeling off the Arctic ice cap and blocking the Bering Strait would constitute evidence against global warming. I would think that was the expected behaviour if the polar ice cap was breaking apart due to global warming.

To say that Global Warming is indisputable fact that should not be debated is a disgrace to Newton, Einstein, Tesla, and every other real and empirical scientist who has ever lived.

Scientists don't debate facts. Facts are facts. Global average temperatures continue to rise, that's a fact and that fact means global warming is occurring. You can argue about the consequences of global warming, or about details within the theory, but the theories explaining the phenomenon have been tested for decades and still hold strong.

Real scientists would say "I think this is happening, now somebody prove me wrong so society as a whole can learn and grow."

That would put you back in the 1970s when there was still some controversy on the basics. Real scientists don't say "prove to me that evolution doesn't exist" or "prove to me that physics is all a hoax" or "prove to me tectonic plates exist". That sort of thing is wasted on theory that is older than the scientist. That's how you treat new theories rather than theories that are more than 30 years old.

Re:Scientific review

[Lisias]

It's a scientific fact that global warming is real.

As the Earth being the center of the Universe was, once, another scientific fact.

Every single scientific fact is prone to scrutiny and refutal. Every single one.

We can assume that some scientific facts are insanely unlikely to be refuted (Gravity Law, for the sake of my balls and despair of my girlfriend's boobies, are one of them). But never, ever, assume any "scientific fact" above any controversy or debate.

Dogmas have no place here.

Re:Scientific review

[Mashiki]

Over here in Finland it is actually getting a lot warmer than it used to. For several years now the temperature can be above zero even in January, but when I was a child that would have been totally unheard of; back then the temperature could drop as low as -35 degrees Celsius where I lived in.

Over here in Canada, the temperature could drop like that too. It could also be much colder than that. And much warmer. In fact we had a much warmer winter than average, last winter we had a much colder winter than average. In fact 50 years ago, seeing 10m snowdrifts and 8m of snowfall in a 1 day period were very common where I live. Not so much now, but last year we had it too(Southern Ontario). People leaving from their second story windows? Yep that was common 60-70 years ago too, happened last year as well. Again not all that common, happened when I was a kid.

Then again, there's plenty of stories about the settlers landing in the americas that what *is* Washington DC and Virginia was so inhospitable that 80% of the settlers died in their first winter due to the cold. And that was only 200-350 years ago.

Re:Scientific review

[Sparticus789]

I'm not sure how an iceberg peeling off the Arctic ice cap and blocking the Bering Strait would constitute evidence against global warming. I would think that was the expected behaviour if the polar ice cap was breaking apart due to global warming.

The Bering Strait had a record amount of ice still in the ocean well into April, the longest it has ever been present. If this ice was present in December, your argument may be valid. April is not winter, and the ice should not have been there.

Scientists don't debate facts. Facts are facts. Global average temperatures continue to rise, that's a fact and that fact means global warming is occurring. You can argue about the consequences of global warming, or about details within the theory, but the theories explaining the phenomenon have been tested for decades and still hold strong.

And this is what every single global-warming alarmist says, "The facts are not up for discussion, it's already proven, just do what I tell you to do!" Remember when your parents would do that, you ask why and they say "Because I said so!" That's what you, and your global-warming buddies are doing. You all sound more like a Pope during the Crusades than "scientists."

That would put you back in the 1970s when there was still some controversy on the basics. Real scientists don't say "prove to me that evolution doesn't exist" or "prove to me that physics is all a hoax" or "prove to me tectonic plates exist". That sort of thing is wasted on theory that is older than the scientist. That's how you treat new theories rather than theories that are more than 30 years old.

Worth noting that theory of evolution was formed about 160 years ago, physics has been evolving for thousands of years, and tectonic plate theory is about 100 years old. Thirty years old for a scientific THEORY is nothing. And with people like you shooting down any critical review, of course there will be no peer review.

Re:Scientific review

[Doc Ruby]

We still review gravity studies, even though we've know that gravity is a done deal for centuries.

You don't know what science is. Stop talking about it in public.

Re:Scientific review

[Doc Ruby]

It's not "untouchable", it's demonstration that the hypothesis is correct.

You don't know what science is. Stop making snarky comments about it like you have some kind of standing to speak in public.

Re:Scientific review

[Doc Ruby]

Because it's not.

Shut up already.

Re:Scientific review

[Doc Ruby]

Wrong. Climate scientists have clearly identified the rising CO2 (and its equivalents: GHGs) concentrations in the atmosphere as the mechanical cause of the climate change, driven by overall average warming. Climate scientists have further clearly identified a reduction in the GHG concentrations produced as industrial waste as a way to cause abatement of the recent changes.

That is the science. Politicians who scream and legislate mostly legislate based on bribes and threats from global polluters, when the accompanying propaganda is approved by climate deniers. There is far too little legislation in reaction to the science of GHG pollution and efforts to lower it. If there were, the pollution would be too expensive to continue at the rates we have.

Re:Scientific review

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to put it in perspective, yes, grand climate change has happened over Earth history. For example, the Earth has (geologically) recently experienced continental ice ages. If 100000 years ago there was over a kilometre of ice on top of a location that now a city, I'd call that a pretty "radical" change. Likewise, there were much older times (before about 40 million years ago) when there were no continental ice sheets at all, and places such as Greenland and Antarctica were ice-free. Sea level was close to 100m higher than it is now. Again, I'd call that "radical" change versus the situation now. But that assessment is only in magnitude. It does not consider time/rate.

Both of these extremes (hotter and colder) are NOT in the cards within the next century or two, even with the most extreme predictions. The climate system is not expected to change that much in the next couple of centuries. The total amount of change expected is far less.

This assessment means that I can reliably state that the Earth will not be "inhospitable". The Earth was not inhospitable 100000 years ago. In fact, humanity went through multiple ice ages and eventually spread over the entire Earth during multiple glaciations and interglacials. Humans weren't around back in the Paleocene or the Cretaceous Period, but life was quite diverse and successful in those times, so the Earth wasn't "inhospitable" then either.

On the other hand, human *civilization*, particularly agricultural systems, are far more fragile than humans in general. There is a long list of historical civilizations that have collapsed due to relatively mild climatic changes in their part of the world, ultimately leading to severe food shortages and often a whole lot of fighting while they were under stress. So, I think it is ridiculous to say that the Earth is expected to become inhospitable any time soon due to climate change, but human civilization could be put under severe stress with far less than the "radical" climate changes that the Earth has sometimes experienced in its past.

The relatively mild climate change expected in the next century is still legitimate cause for serious concern. For example, it wouldn't take "radical" climate change to turn most of the Midwest of North America into an arid dustbowl like it has been several times in recent geological history, but it would be pretty bad for food supply if it did. Is that within range of the climate change predictions? I'm honestly not sure, but it's a pretty small change, so I'd worry about it.

Re:Scientific review

[Doc Ruby]

Earth did not have a radically different climate 200, 400 or 600 years ago. It had a radically different climate 13-25 thousand years ago, when there were kilometer thick ice sheets across the places most populated today. That was inhospitable, even though humans lived through those millennia. We should do what we can to avoid returning to those bleak times.

Especially since the changes now will destabilize a world packed with people and WMD. Climate change today among modern humans could easily cause us to destroy each other, possibly completely, in a way that nature alone never could before.

Re:Scientific review

[Doc Ruby]

Wrong. Global warming is science. Thousands of climate scientists, who are scientists, who know what science is, say that it's science. You, who spell "ozone" as "O-Zone", do not know what science is. You say that "in the 1970s it was all about global cooling", but that's just something you heard on Rush Limbo's show, not what the climate scientists said was a consensus.

You do not speak for Newton, Einstein, Tesla or any of the other scientists whose names you've heard. You don't know what science is. Shut up already.

Re:Scientific review

[Doc Ruby]

So you're a 12 year old posting BS from your basement? Science from before your birth is OK for you to get wrong when you cite it about other science you get wrong, but others getting it right are "crotchety old men"?

You're an idiot. I don't care how old you are. Shut up.

Re:Scientific review

[Doc Ruby]

You are stupid. Shut up.

Re:Scientific review

[Doc Ruby]

Finally! Someone finally realized that since the climate has changed before, the fact that humans are changing it now into something we can't live in, and could stop changing and get all those other benefits, should all be ignored. There was an Ice Age! Dinosaurs! How come we never thought of that?

Now all the climate scientists can quit and go do something fun for a change. You're a genius! How come you never said anything before?

Re:Scientific review

[Doc Ruby]

No, the geocentric theory was not science the way we practice it today. It was biblical theology, dressed up to look like what passed for science before science was science.

Yes, in the future we'll have even better science about climate. It will be more precise, but the accuracy of current climate science saying "human pollution is increasing the Greenhouse Effect, overall warming the Earth and changing the climate" will not be changed. Because current science is good enough to state facts, even if their precision can always be improved. We can tell the difference between -1, 0 and +1, even if we can't always tell the difference between +1 and +1.1 .

Of course we should also debate and challenge the science, especially science this important. That's how we make both the facts more precise and the science itself better at investigating. But there's not going to be any disproof of climate change science. This isn't 1955, when the science wasn't based in enough data and repeated studies to be reliable. It's reliable.

Saying that there shouldn't be controversy about whether humans are changing the climate with our pollution isn't dogma. It's merely recognizing scientific fact. And defending it from the people who will say anything to undermine it, though they can't say anything scientific.

Re:Scientific review

[Doc Ruby]

Right, so there's never anything that's a scientific fact, because in the past rudimentary science was prone to assertions. Wrong.

Re:Scientific review

[riverat1]

So, we can review groundwater/sea-level scientific studies, but 'Climate Change' is a done deal.

You're just behind the times. The sort of review the the groundwater/sea level studies are undergoing was occurring 20 or 30 years or more ago in regards to CO2's role in the climate.

Re:Scientific review

[Penguinisto]

From the summary of your own cite:

"Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly
suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global
warming,though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a
potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does
explicitly suggest this outcome in later work. ... (emphasis mine - the latter to point out a bit of weasel-wording by the summarizer).

In other words, as stated: No one was putting forth the theory that the Earth was warming due to mankind's actions 120 years ago.

Meanwhile, you either had to rely on a half-assed out-of-context quote to try and carry your water for you, or your literacy skills are deficient - you pick.

So, about that "spouting lies" bit... maybe you'd like to stop doing that now? ;)

Re:Scientific review

[bobbied]

It's still up for discussion why it's happening.

We are directly responsible for this planet entering a new geological age with as much speed and force as the Cretaceousâ"Paleogene extinction event.

I'm struck with the contradiction in what you posted. Why is still an open question yet you assume "We are directly responsible?"

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that Global warming is happening. However, we do NOT know, for sure, that man is the cause of it, or that we can do anything about it. It may be time to start planning for a warmer earth, but unless we KNOW that specific human activity is actually causing the issue we need to carefully consider all the impacts on what we do. Incomplete understanding of this will only lead to bad policy, and bad policy will only lead to more pain and suffering.

For example. There is a push to "reduce fossil fuel use" and use renewables here in the USA. The EPA has started mandating the use of Ethanol as motor fuel because it is a renewable resource. Sounds great right? Not so fast... Two things are now happening... First, grain and corn that was once used for food is now being used to make Ethanol instead. Prices for Corn have increased as demand rises and we turn food into fuel. Problem is, this makes it harder for poorer folks who depend on cheap corn to live and drives up the cost of eggs, chicken, pork, beef and all things based on Corn (and other grains) as feed. Further, it tends to raise the production of corn crops, at the expense of other food crops so almost ALL foods now get more expensive. What did we do to the poor when we started mandating we turn food into fuel? We actually made them more hungry... Not a good thing. Also, Ethanol is STILL more expensive than the standard fuel, so because it is mandated fuel prices went up too. Just what we needed, higher food and fuel prices....

What we really cannot afford is BAD policy which is based on half of the truth or misunderstanding what is really going on. I agree that the stakes are high in this debate but we MUST be correct or we will do more damage than if we just left it alone. At this point we simply do not understand why this is happening, nor can one say with assurance that human activity has caused it so it is not wise to start making sweeping policy changes in an attempt to deal with the problem.

Re:Scientific review

[girlintraining]

But never, ever, assume any "scientific fact" above any controversy or debate. Dogmas have no place here.

There's no assumption, I just get tired of arguing with morons. I mean, yes, I could entertain the 'controversy' of evolution, but I would succeed only in wasting my own time, and adding not a lick of knowledge or wisdom to humanity in the process. Likewise, while there may be a debate to be had with climate change, I grow tired of dealing with morons who wish to argue every single nuance, because they've already made up their minds and now they're off on some big effort to assimilate everyone else into thinking the same way.

The earth is getting warmer, and it's most likely our fault. Ta-da, the end. I may be a scientist, but I'm also a human being -- when there is compelling evidence in a peer reviewed journal that humans are not the primary source of global warming, I will revisit the matter. And most scientists, amateur and professional, feel similarly: We're tired of arguing with people who refuse to acknowledge the fire even when it's burning their nose.

Re:Scientific review

[riverat1]

Way to cherry pick man!

Re:Scientific review

[C_amiga_fan]

>>>The idea that light was a wave moving through the ether was consistent with all available data, especially given the limitations of 19th century measurement

Well the same is true today, in regards to the limitations of globe-wide measurements. There is a ton of uncertainty there. (They can't even make-up their minds how much groundwater levels have dropped.)

Re:Scientific review

[roky99]

I think it is your literacy skills that are deficient. Arrhenius identified the mechanism but fossil fuel usage at that time was a fraction of what it is now. Hence the use of the word 'potentially'.

Re:Scientific review

[roky99]

So where are the reviews that actually challenge the hypothesis ...?

Presumably you have studied the scientific evidence of alternative hypotheses in order to arrive at your conclusions so it seems a bit odd that you are asking this question. Shouldn't you be pointing us to them?

Re:Scientific review

[ceswiedler]

I hate to defend geocentrism, but it certainly was science. Given the evidence of the sun, moon, planets, and starts pretty clearly moving across the sky in a revolving fashion, what scientific explanation would you come up with? Was every astronomer prior to Copernicus not actually a scientist?

When people proposed the heliocentric explanation, the church intervened and said that the Earth is the center of the universe for theological reasons, and that was certainly not scientific.

Re:Scientific review

[Chris Burke]

Any real scientist would put "Earth has always gone through massive climate changes due to its nature and that of the sun" as the hypothesis to take down.

No real scientists wouldn't, because you don't need to invalidate the hypothesis that climate change occurs without human input in order to entertain the hypothesis that a specific instance of climate change is due to human input. They're not exclusive.

The actual hypothesis that you would have to take down would be that the current trend in climate change can be explained solely by natural factors like the sun, volcanism, etc.

And hey, guess what? Hard as it is to believe, real scientists are aware of those natural factors and have investigated their role in the current warming trend and they are insufficient.

You wouldn't be so foolish as to say "Humans have died of non-murder related causes" to prove a given human's death wasn't from murder, would you? Yes that statement is true, but the coroner looked at the body and is pretty sure this person died from the multiple stab wounds to the back.

Re:Scientific review

[riverat1]

The Bering Strait had a record amount of ice still in the ocean well into April, the longest it has ever been present. If this ice was present in December, your argument may be valid. April is not winter, and the ice should not have been there.

And across the Arctic in the Barents and Kara Seas the ice levels have been extraordinarily low this year. Overall the level of ice in the Arctic has been slightly below average for this time of year. I have my doubts that "the longest it has ever been present." is accurate too.

Worth noting that theory of evolution was formed about 160 years ago, physics has been evolving for thousands of years, and tectonic plate theory is about 100 years old. Thirty years old for a scientific THEORY is nothing. And with people like you shooting down any critical review, of course there will be no peer review.

Fourier first noted that carbonic acid gas (CO2) absorbed infrared radiation in the 1820's. Tyndall quantified the effect in the 1850's. Arrhenius stated "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression." in the 1890's. Ever since then we're just filling in the details.

Re:Scientific review

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool groupthink, asshole.

Yeah, the "ludicrous" standards are the kind of unfair, hardline standards we hold children to in science fairs. If you cannot hold yourself to them, you are a storyteller, not a scientist -- therefore anyone in the climatology field who refuses to even consider such rigours as beneath them is not only full of bullshit, but they aren't even a fucking scientist -- they're a fraud.

My favorite part was when you spoke of cherry picking. You should not throw stones from that beautiful glass house.

Re:Scientific review

[Chris Burke]

Oh, so you're one of those extremely advanced people who thinks to themselves "Folks were up in arms about a problem, a bunch of changes were made to fix the problem, and now there isn't a problem... gee must never have been a problem in the first place!

I hope to God that some day I can hear people talking in such an advanced fashion about AGW: "Remember when everyone was predicting dramatic climate change from human emissions, so we made all those massive changes to clean, renewable energy sources and we're all driving electric cars? And now the earth's barely warmer than it was then! What a bunch of hooey!"

P.S. you forgot acid rain on the "not a problem now ergo what was done before I was a gleam in my fathers eye to fix it was actually unnecessary" list.

Re:Scientific review

[riverat1]

Methane is actually the #1 greenhouse gas emission from people.

The level of methane in the atmosphere is about 1.75 ppm. CO2 is about 396 ppm. Since 1750 CO2 levels have increased by about 116 ppm while methane levels have increased by a little over 1 ppm. See here (note that the methane levels are noted in parts per billion, not parts per million). Methane is something to worry about but it's no where close to CO2 yet.

Re:Scientific review

[Chris Burke]

>>>The idea that light was a wave moving through the ether was consistent with all available data, especially given the limitations of 19th century measurement

Well the same is true today, in regards to the limitations of globe-wide measurements. There is a ton of uncertainty there.

Okay, and when alternative hypothesis are not consistent with the available data even given the uncertainty, that tells you something about them.

Re:Scientific review

[Lisias]

The Earth has got cooler and warmer before, and that time was not out fault.

There're a lots of evidence that our presence is affecting out habitat, but there're also evidence that Earth has a recurrent cycle of Ice Eras and Warm Eras - and nobody could prove, yet, that this is not what happening now: a transition from one Era to another.

Of course we're polluting our biosphere to a level where our extinction here will be inevitable. We're facing the ending of our sources of drinkable water. We're facing the ending of raw resources. We're facing the exhaustion of our fertile lands.

But since Earth has already got warmer and cooler in the past (a past in which we weren't there!), and given our historical difficulties in facing the *right* cause for our problems, I find all this argumentation healthy.

Yes, I understand the frustration about all that arguing, but as said Carl Sagan, that famous scientist: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Galileo Galilei has to give it. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis too.

Get used to that.

Re:Scientific review

[riverat1]

In the field of risk management the hazier the risks the more value there is in trying to avoid them. If you know well what the risks are you can plan for them effectively but if the risks are not clear but could potentially be bad then you invest more in trying to avoid them.

Re:Scientific review

[Chris Burke]

Okay, so you accept the parts where increased temperature cause increased releases in CO2, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes temperature to increase, creating a feedback loop. This, by the way, does mean CO2 and other GHGs are "the mechanical cause of climate change".

Your issue is that something has to cause some initial warming in order to start this feedback loop, and in the past it wasn't CO2.

Yet the part where CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can cause warming, this being the whole idea behind the feedback loop, also means that it could instigate the initial warming if something were to release enough of it. Which matches the current trend. So, where's the issue?

Re:Scientific review

[Chris Burke]

How come it's getting colder over the last decade

Whoever told you that was lying to you. They cherry-picked the year 1998 for a two-point comparison because it was anomalously high. If you picked 1997 instead you'd see warming way above predictions. But that would also be a lie. That's why climate scientists don't do that, and instead use rolling averages to find the underlying trends.

Re:Scientific review

[Lisias]

While the phrase "Get used to that" can be used in the context to deliver the intended concept, it came to my attention that in US English that same phrase can be used to do it in a harsh or perhaps pejorative way.

It's not my intention.

What I mean it to deliver is a Stoic, conformist intention: as something not that good that we must endure in order to get something good.

Sorry if that intent was not fulfilled in my previous post.

Re:Scientific review

[treeves]

"O-Zone"? That doesn't help your credibility.

Re:Scientific review

[Livius]

Because precipitation snow or rain - increases with increasing temperature. And it comes down as snow if the temperature goes up as long as it's still below freezing. If the temperature goes from -10 to -5, it still snows, but the amount of snow goes up.

But I'm guessing you knew that already and just asked the question in bad faith.

Re:Scientific review

[Dishevel]

We already know that the earths climate has swung quite naturally much hotter and much cooler than it is now.
If humans were making no impact on climate at all (Which would be very unlikely) sea levels will rise and fall and so will temperatures.
What we need to do is get off this fucking planet and figure out how to control climate. Mitigating our impact on it will not save us.
We need to be able to control climate. Not stand by and let it take its natural course.
Control and escape. If these are not your priorities then you might as well just burn the whole fucking place down.

Re:Scientific review

[Dishevel]

Wow.
Finally! Someone on slashdot that has not comprehended the post they are replying too and assuming things never said so they can beat down the argument that was never made. Since this is a first I will have to coin a term for it.
I know. I will call it. "Random idiot knocking down a strawman argument". Who knows, maybe this strawman thing will take off. ....
and vaginas.

Re:Scientific review

[rockout]

Your understanding of the word "theory" in the scientific world gives away your uneducated born-again leanings.

Re:Scientific review

[Sparticus789]

And across the Arctic in the Barents and Kara Seas the ice levels have been extraordinarily low this year. Overall the level of ice in the Arctic has been slightly below average for this time of year. I have my doubts that "the longest it has ever been present." is accurate too.

So I guess this entire article is a lie?

Re:Scientific review

[khallow]

But you do agree that a theory is not a fact, just as Wikipedia said?

Re:Scientific review

[Sparticus789]

While you say that I implied it, I merely stated that these are environmental issues that have been/are overhyped by environmentalists and the media in order to pursue an agenda. I never said that ozone or global anything was true or false, only that often times environmental theories are crammed down our throats with a "if you disagree or question our theories than you are Satan."

CFC's were a problem, they were banned, and now the ozone layer has recovered. Science proven. Global warming has a lot further to go, and the "scientists" need to start publishing their data in whole to allow for peer review instead of keeping it tight-lipped and sending out climate-gate e-mails that get hacked and released to show their data purge of anything which does not agree with their theory.

Re:Scientific review

[Chris Burke]

I think the standard trick is to compare 1998 to 2008 (a comparatively cool year). Seems like I started hearing this "last decade" schtick in 2009, but I could be wrong.

Re:Scientific review

[Apuleius]

"1. Controlled tests"

We do not have spare planets to experiment on. Ergo, controlled tests in climatology are impossible.

But, by that standard, you can also dismiss meteorology, archaeology, economics, astronomy, and lots of other fields of science.

Re:Scientific review

[Apuleius]

"Inhospitable? You know the earth has been much warmer with humans living on it? Earth had a radically different climate 200 years ago, and 200 years before that, and 200 years before that"

And for most of those periods, large portions of humanity would die off because of crop failures. And if global warming compromises the productivity of our breadbasket regions, of which many are coastal, then the earth will not be so hospitable to all 7 billion of us..

Re:Scientific review

[Apuleius]

" In the 1970's, it was all about global cooling. "

Cooling from sulfur aerosols and particulates. We have curtailed our emissions of both.

" In the 1980's, it was the O-Zone layer"

Which we have successfully addressed by banning CFCs.

"Now it is global warming. "

Yes. And we need to do something about it.

Re:Scientific review

[riverat1]

The article says it was the most ice seen in the Bering Sea in the 32 years of satellite monitoring. However I doubt any scientist would unequivocally state that it is the longest it has ever been present. The ice in various areas of the Arctic Ocean and adjacent areas like the Bering Sea varies from year to year due to local conditions but my main point was that overall the ice area is a bit below the 1979-2000 average.

Re:Scientific review

[able1234au]

Parts of Antartica are cooling which fits the models correctly. If you are proposing that disproves global warming then you are wrong. Denialists try to cherry pick the one dataset that fits their worldview rather than read widely across the evidence. Cherrypicking would let you "disprove" evolution and gravity.

Re:Scientific review

[user flynn]

itz ALL MANKINDZ FUALT!!!!!!11!!!BBQ!

Whether or not it's mankind's fault...take a wild guess as to who has to do something about it?

    Anyways, it is mankind's fault in some sense, in another sense it's nature's for evolving humans without the ability or wherewithal to take care of shit they need to take care of.

    Nature forces us to build nice houses, air conditioners, HDTVs, etc. in order to live happy satisfactory lives. It's not like beer grows on trees. Likewise, if nature dictates that we have to do something about the shit we are spewing all over the world, we do have to do something. Then again, it's probably someone else's problem.

    It's not surprising that global warming deniers lie to get a free ride while others do the work to take care of the problem. It's pretty standard for leeches to pretend they aren't leeches (to themselves as well as others- they justify their behaviors so that they don't have to acknowledge the consequences).

    Just so you know, I think something is going to happen. Not sure what. Probably the power of stupid will win. :D But maybe not.

Re:Scientific review

[riverat1]

I guess the point is that a single weather event or even a single unusual season in a particular location on the Earth doesn't have much effect on the global climate. Climatologists generally use a 30 year running mean to denote the global climate temperature.

Re:Scientific review

[BlueParrot]

Clue: No one was putting forth the theory that the Earth was warming due to mankind's actions 120 years ago, so unless you can post a paper stating otherwise, trot that troll elsewhere.

That's wrong. Arrhenius himself noted that human activities would likely prevent another ice-age from ever happening. He figured this was a positive thing, but did not considered the consequences of excessive warming.

Re:Scientific review

[ongelovigehond]

In science, a theory is better than a fact. Theories provide explanations for facts, they bind facts together, and allow us to predict more facts in the future.

Re:Scientific review

[ongelovigehond]

Increased snowfall is actually pretty consistent with a warming climate. Increased temperature causes higher evaporation rates from lakes and oceans, and thus result in more moisture in the air. As long as the temperature remains below freezing, the increased moisture results in more intense snowfall.

Re:Scientific review

[Vintermann]

The same place as the reviews that challenge the core hypothesis of evolution. The dust bin of history.

Re:Scientific review

[Vintermann]

Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly
suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global
warming,though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a
potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does
explicitly suggest this outcome in later work. ..

Emphasis mine this time around.

No one was putting forth the idea that earth was warming then due to greenhouse gas emissions because

1. At that point in time, greenhouse gas levels were not much above preindustrial levels (and they couldn't easily measure preindustrial levels as we can today, e.g. from sealed bottles).

2. The earth wasn't in fact warming (on a scale measurable at the time).

But this could change, and Arrhenius recognized it. So yes, he wasn't putting forth the idea that it did warm. But he was putting forth (in later papers) the idea that it would if greenhouse gas levels increased, which they have.

How disingenuous...

Re:Scientific review

[Vintermann]

Don't rely on stories. It's better to rely on data. Best of all if the data is presented in a nice way, such as here.

Re:Scientific review

[Vintermann]

We also have to get rid of the myth that climate is something stable.

Yes, we need to get rid of that strawman.

The earth is on a journey from creation to end. No year will ever be the same as the last one. The distance to the moon changes, the distance to the Sun changes, the solar output changes.

And we need to get the ecclesiastes-like poetry out of climate discussions.

What we need to determine is what kind of climate we want

We want the climate we evolved in, the climate our civilizations grew and thrived in. If it must change into something less hospitable to us - that is basically anything different with regards to global temperature - it should change as slowly as possible, so we have time to adapt.

"Determining" that is so trivial, and non-political, that anyone calling for it is just calling for more delay and obfuscation.

But sure, you go ahead and play with Mars first before you decide what kind of earth you want. Sounds like you've got your head on Mars already, so it should be easy.

Re:Scientific review

[khallow]

But you do agree that a theory is not a fact, right?

Re:Scientific review

[tbannist]

I'm not sure how an iceberg peeling off the Arctic ice cap and blocking the Bering Strait would constitute evidence against global warming. I would think that was the expected behaviour if the polar ice cap was breaking apart due to global warming.

From the article you referenced for this fact:

Overall, the May ice extent averaged about 5.07 million square miles -- an area, strangely enough, just a little smaller than the ice-covered portion of Antarctica. That's about 185,000 square miles below the long-term average, but still about 212,000 square miles above the record low for the month set in 2004.

and

The polar ice cap plays an essential role in stabilizing the world's climate, but has been shrinking to record and near record levels during the summers for the past decade.

and

"The higher than normal extent and late spring break up of the ice cover in the Bering Sea are mainly due to unusually low air temperatures and persistent winds from the north, related to a region of low atmospheric pressure centered over Kodiak, Alaska," the NSIDC explained here. "As these cold winds slowed ice melt, they also pushed the ice edge to the south."

So there you have it, overall the Arctic ice extent is below average, and an unusual weather pattern pushed more ice than normal into the Bering Strait. Around the world, unusual weather actually happen fairly frequently, it's the law of large numbers and that's why we always need to look at the big picture too.

And this is what every single global-warming alarmist says, "The facts are not up for discussion, it's already proven, just do what I tell you to do!" Remember when your parents would do that, you ask why and they say "Because I said so!" That's what you, and your global-warming buddies are doing. You all sound more like a Pope during the Crusades than "scientists."

I'm sorry, Global Warming is a fact, just like 3 is larger than 2 is a fact. It's not "because I said so" it's because it's true. Global average temperatures have been increasing for decades. Say what you will, it doesn't change the temperature record. Even the scientists hired the billionaire Koch brothers for the express purpose of proving that the global temperature records were unreliable found that the global temperature records were reliable and that the records might be slightly understating the global warming trend. Frankly, when scientists explicitly hired to find fault can't find any, maybe it's time for unqualified people to consider that maybe it's time to stop endless questioning whether the facts are true.

Worth noting that theory of evolution was formed about 160 years ago, physics has been evolving for thousands of years, and tectonic plate theory is about 100 years old. Thirty years old for a scientific THEORY is nothing. And with people like you shooting down any critical review, of course there will be no peer review.

I'm not shooting down any critical review, I'm saying the critical reviews have been done. Over and over and over and over and over again. Unless someone can come with a new idea rather than repeating the same alternative hypothesises (sun, internal variability, clouds) that have already been proved false during their own critical reviews, there's just not much to review any more.

The Climatology basics, here, are pretty simple:
1) Green house gases exist and they trap heat in the atmosphere.
2) If you increase the amount of greenhouse gases, more heat will be trapped.

Our current phenomenon, Anthropogenic Global Warming, rests on that and the following additional statements:
3) CO2 is a green house gas
4) Humans are releasing around 30 gigatons of CO2 a year.

Given these basic facts, we can easily see that because humans are releasing a large amount of a greenhouse gas (CO2) into the atmosph

Re:Scientific review

[ArsonSmith]

There is no such thing as scientific 'fact'. Only theory that has overwhelming evidence but has yet to be proven false. Please leave 'fact' and any 'Ultimate Truth' to the creationists.

Re:Scientific review

[ongelovigehond]

Of course.

Re:Scientific review

[ArsonSmith]

Yes, we should always select sources that agree with us.

Re:Scientific review

[Chris Burke]

Really? You didn't say that "the climate is always changing" is the hypothesis scientists should focus on knocking down if they want to confirm the AGW hypothesis? Because it sure sounded like you were saying that. What does what you said even mean, if not that? Why bring up the "always changing" thing as if it's something climatologists would ever disagree with and want to 'knock down'?

Re:Scientific review

[Bigby]

Did those crop failures happen because of global warming? I would bet most of those failures were due to the Little Ice Age instead of the Medieval Warm Period.

Now diseases...that's another story.

Re:Scientific review

[Lisias]

Thank you.

I know I can rest confident of being right. For what any reason you would troll me anonymously with an so blatant ad hominem attack? ;-)

But, just for the records, we're living in what may be the ending of a Interglacial Era. These Warming Eras is believed to last about 10 to 100K years, while the Ice Eras are of variable time frame - at least, is what Discovery tells me. :-)

Of special interest would be this article: http://news.discovery.com/animals/antarctica-dinosaurs-paleontology-110218.html

The South Pole (Antarctic may be too much for you) was, once, a Temperate Forest.

Anyway, and for your information:

There have been at least five major ice ages in the Earth's past (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes.[30][31]

30. ^ Lockwood, J.G. (November 1979). "The Antarctic Ice-Sheet: Regulator of Global Climates?: Review". The Geographical Journal 145 (3): 469–471. JSTOR 633219.
31. ^ Warren, John K. (2006). Evaporites: sediments, resources and hydrocarbons. Birkhäuser. p. 289. ISBN 978-3-540-26011-0.

Information copied and pasted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Re:Scientific review

[Lisias]

You are judging the scientists from the past using present knowledge.

This is BAD SCIENCE.

Every new generation of scientists build new knowledge over the last generations success and failures.

Do you judge Newton badly because of Einstein's discoveries?

Would you so judge Einstein badly because the current discoveries on Quantum Physics?

Again, what you preconizes is BAD SCIENCE.

Re:Scientific review

[Lisias]

Nice addendum, I didn't knew that. :-)

Re:Scientific review

[Dishevel]

My problem was with your childish assumption that I therefore believe that

the fact that humans are changing it now into something we can't live in, and could stop changing and get all those other benefits, should all be ignored.

Never said that. Never thought something so inane.
What I think though is that when the climate starts changing and you want to blame it on the Air I breathe out and regulate that gas....
That your models better be pretty damn tight and effective and leave no room for doubt.
Because I do not know what universe you live in but in mine once the US government (or really any government) gets its hands on another thing to regulate they do not exercise that power in moderation. It always grows.
And a government like that regulating the gas that comes from my lungs strikes me as a bad long term power to give them.
But me wanting to just ignore all evidence and theories that have anything to do with climate other than earth and sun is much easier for you to attack I am sure.

Re:Scientific review

[KeensMustard]

Cool groupthink, asshole

So, Denialists don't cherry pick the data? If I go trawl through climate discussions, I won't find cherry picking by denialists?

Yeah, the "ludicrous" standards are the kind of unfair, hardline standards we hold children to in science fairs. If you cannot hold yourself to them, you are a storyteller, not a scientist -- therefore anyone in the climatology field who refuses to even consider such rigours as beneath them is not only full of bullshit, but they aren't even a fucking scientist -- they're a fraud.

Climatologists are behaving fraudulently?

And it's safe to assume then, that the twin hypotheses proposed by by denialists:

1. There is no warming

2. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

Are both held up to the kind of rigorous standards you mentioned?

Re:Scientific review

[Apuleius]

"Did those crop failures happen because of global warming?"

Ever heard of a little corner of the world called the Fertile Crescent?

Ever wonder why it ain't so fertile nowadays?

Re:Scientific review

[Ironhandx]

I have no idea why this is marked insightful.

The reason is well-known, the globaly warming climate is causing the south to north atlantic ocean current that causes britain to have much warmer than normal for your latitude, to shift out to sea more. The same current shift is causing greenland and baffin island to have much warmer than usual weather. It should also cause Newfoundland to get much warmer and balmier weather pretty soon, which I am very much in favor of. Newfoundlands previous climate of 10ft+ snow drifts all winter is much closer to what GB SHOULD have been getting, if it wasn't for that lucky ass current.

Re:Scientific review

[Vintermann]

The important part is not rejecting data because you disagree with it. Which you apparently do. Or is there something in climatecentral's interpretation of the data that you would like to criticize?

In your own words, please.

Re:Scientific review

[Doc Ruby]

No. Anything that has been exhaustively tested but not falsified is a scientific fact. The Moon's orbit around the Earth is a scientific fact. The equal and opposite reaction of a bullet flying from an exploding gun cartridge's action is a scientific fact.

Please leave "ultimately unknowable" to the solipsists.

Re:Scientific review

[lsatenstein]

So where are the reviews that actually challenge the hypothesis - or is that untouchable?

Reviews don't do that; competing hypotheses do. In the world of science, a competing hypothesis overtakes the consensus if and only if it explains everything the old system could and more that it couldn't. Science demands alternative explanations that solve inconsistencies; finding a problem with the consensus is only the first step, and denialists are stuck there.

Is there another idea, and that due to global warming, the ability of the atmosphere to hold water is diminished, and that water is now in the ocean. We have had much higher spring time temperatures these past years and as well much more rain in bursts, with flash flooding. The old days of drizzle are gone. Yup, less moisture in the atmosphere due to GW.

Re:Scientific review

[DQKennard]

Weather IS climate in the same way a point on a curve IS that curve. In other words, not really.

Re:Scientific review

[ArsonSmith]

none of those are facts, only consistent with all current observations.

Re:Scientific review

[Lisias]

No, I'm not.

Please feel free to correct me anytime you think it's needed.

Re:Scientific review

[Chris Burke]

Much the same way as forest fires occurred long before humans arrived; thus it is the height of folly to suggest that humans could cause something like a forest fire.

Excellent point. I hope you don't mind but I'm definitely going to use that next time.

Re:Scientific review

[rSelrahc]

Just FYI, according to StatsCan (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/kits-trousses/cyb-adc1999/ecozone/edu04_0092f-eng.htm) lists the largest 1-day snowfall in Canada at 118.1 cm at Lakelse Lake, B.C., on January 17, 1974. Other sources (e.g., http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/Canada/snowiest.php) list Tahtsa Lake, BC, receiving 145 cm of snow on February 11, 1999. Both are far below your 8m statement... Now snow drifts, especially against a building, will get much higher...

Re:Scientific review

[pastafazou]

You don't have any clue about what you're talking about, do you? Maybe you should read the papers and analysis of the Law Dome O18 data set first. The ratios of O18 and O16 in our atmosphere are global. Global temperature trends will result in either higher concentrations of O18 in the polar glaciers (warmer) or lower concentrations of O18 in the polar glaciers (colder). This is one of the more accurate climate signals the scientists have to work with. And my comment has nothing to do with "denial", it has everything to do with accuracy and honesty. And it's not about cherry picking. In fact, it was a scientist by the name of Gergis that decided to cherry pick data and exclude the Law Dome O18 set from her analysis. Why? Because it didn't fit her conclusion of "unprecedented warming". Incidentally, the data set is one of the highest resolution data sets available so far, and should be included in any long term global temperature reconstruction.

Re:Scientific review

[able1234au]

Widespread fuel use has only happened since 1900 and with population explosion the effects are largely within the past 100 years which is what the data shows. The effects in the prior 1000 years was minor and irrelevant to the background noise of global warming. Looking around for one data point perhaps unexplained (i doubt that it is, and can see many references to it) is also cherry picking. If you want everything explained 100% before accepting the theory then that is just being difficult. There is so little evidence for any alternative it is beyond doubt.

Re:Scientific review

[Runaway1956]

"we were treated to not even 10 years ago."

I think you err. I agree with your point of view, but it's been more than ten years since the Doomsday - errr - Global Warming fanatics got going with their new religion. It might be hard to agree when the movement really started, but this article seems to suggest 1969 as the earliest.

http://news.yahoo.com/political-history-global-warming-debate-united-states-223500960.html

Re:Scientific review

[able1234au]

So the only thing you are truly truly worried about is the tax which is designed to reduce CO2 use and modify peoples behaviour. Cosmic rays, Methane, Sunspots all have very minor parts to play. CO2 is the elephant in the room and the fact that you are avoiding it tells me that you are in the camp that is desperate to find an alternative reason. There isn't. Changes in temperature in recent years is being understood better. It turns out that the oceans as a shortterm sink was higher than expected. There are a lot of brains focussed on this issue and while not all of the answers are there, there is no doubt that CO2, not sunspots, methane etc is the prime driver. As the system becomes more unstable expect the changes to become so too. Whether you like it or not we are sliding down this slippery slope and the pain in the future will outweigh anything seen to date.

Re:Scientific review

[bryan1945]

You realize that you could have just pointed out that I was incorrect, yes? Without the "uneducated born-again leanings" thing?
I just wonder where you got the "born-again" thing? I'm not even religious.
And yes, I'm fairly educated, and made a mistake. Mea culpa. And I wasn't even being an asshole in my original comment. Though I'm sure that you have never made a mistake, correct?

Re:Scientific review

[AK Marc]

You should have a look at the air quality of coal-burning London and the documented effects on the local climate. Not too many actual studies about it, but still lots written about it.

Good, let the scientists hash it out

[sandytaru]

As soon as a politician with no scientific qualifications weighs in, however, I reserve the right to be annoyed.

Interesting Theory

[Ferretman]

We certainly HAVE pumped a lot of groundwater out and I presume most of it ends up in the atmosphere or the oceans one way or the other.

Glad to see REAL scientists questioning AGW tenets.

Ferret

Re:Interesting Theory

[s.petry]

Wow, do people ever think any more? Okay, we pumped ground water out. Did it stop raining? Did the processes for saturation suddenly stop working? Did all of the ground water magically vanish that we were pumping out, rivers all dried up, and shit we all live in a desert now?

As of about five years ago, you should immediately have known that "Science" no longer means Science. What you read is from an agenda, and not Scientists.

Honestly, I feel really bad for Scientists that want to do real science. The only way they can seem to make money is to spew garbage that fills someone's agenda, they can't do real science (or at least they can't write papers based on it).

Re:Interesting Theory

[bbecker23]

The issue is actually pretty similar to that with declining returns in oil production. Groundwater replenishment is certainly still happening. Similarly, the processes which produce oil are still occurring. The issue is that we are consuming much faster than we are replenishing. Groundwater, depending on the depth of the aquifer and the material in which it exists, can take years to thousands of years to be replenished. Oil takes millions.

The reason that ocean levels might rise from groundwater is that we are bringing it up faster than it can go back down. All that water has to go somewhere.

Re:Interesting Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the water will eventually return to the ground, but some of it has been underground for 100,000 years, and may take that long to return to the depths it came from.

Re:Interesting Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the aquifers we are using do not get recharged because they have impervious materials between them and the surface. The water we pump out of them does not go back into them and they do not get recharged by rain.

Re:Interesting Theory

[C_amiga_fan]

>>>Did all of the ground water magically vanish that we were pumping out

If you read the article, it clearly says groundwater levels have DROPPED over the last few decades. The grandparent poster was correct. You are wrong.

Re:Interesting Theory

[s.petry]

Which of course becomes a contributing factor, but it's painfully obvious that it's not the only reason for the rise. Ice loss in the Arctic and Antarctic have much more bearing than ground water as the article tried to state. Those do not include Glacial loss, permafrost loss, etc...

If anything, I think the Global Warming issues point at an immediate problem we have with the Scientific community (by no way is that statement intended to blame the Scientists directly). Instead of doing "Science" they are working on theories that an agenda wants them to work on. Real science took a back seat long ago.

Re:Interesting Theory

[Hatta]

What agenda do you think climate scientists are working for? If climate scientists were catering to the powerful, wouldn't they be publishing data and models that the oil industries like?

The fact that there is such strong agreement among climate scientists in the face of such powerful and wealthy opposition is a very good indication that they are not in fact serving an agenda.

Re:Interesting Theory

[s.petry]

There are at least 2 distinct lobby groups. Polluters, and GW. The GW group also breaks down in to two more groups. The natural and man made.

Each has their own funding and support, and each publishes reports based on biases that tend to show that the opinion they receive funding from is correct.

I think you are making a mistake in thinking that Money can only come from one source. You also make a second mistake, in that the creation of controversy has no financial gain.

Re:Interesting Theory

[Hatta]

Obviously, the oil industry is huge and has a lot of money to put into research that would benefit it. However, the overwhwelming majority of the research out there supports the AGW hypothesis. Therefore, if you are correct and science is primarily agenda driven, the AGW group must have even more money than the oil industry.

Where do those funds come from, and how is creating controversy profitable for the group that provides the funding?

I mean, it's conceivable that creating controversy could be profitable for James Hansen. He has made a career out of it. But he's just a guy. How does fabricating evidence in favor of AGW benefit his funding agencies (NASA)? Why would NASA choose to take on the most powerful industry in the world?

Re:Interesting Theory

[s.petry]

This article does exactly what you say, however it's presentation by other media has been: "See, no global warming. We use to much water!". Sanity is not a requirement to work in the media. On occasion, I listen to a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh on the way to work. In the last week, I have heard at least 2 segments claiming that Global Warming is a farce because plants need CO2, so CO2 can't be rising to cause global warming.

And yes, I probably read way to much in to the comments of the post I replied to.

Re:Interesting Theory

[s.petry]

Sorry, you are going to have to search for it since I'm lazy at the moment (actually to swamped with other things). This was a big internal discussion at my last work place, and a person was able to track down many of the funding sources. Greenpeace was one, and of course Oil and Coal were big ones.

The controversy I'm talking about is not quite the same as it seems you are thinking. Example: If I make a shitload of money polluting and you say it's bad, having a controversy allows me to keep polluting and continue to make assloads of money. This is a very common business tactic.

I never said NASA was bad, why would you infer that? Is NASA the only source of scientific data being used currently? I think that you will find that Politicians stay pretty far from NASA's data when proposing policies, laws, and discussion of GW. MSM uses the same data you find Politicians have.

Re:Interesting Theory

[guises]

I know this is Slashdot and you didn't read the article, so let me help you out:

Other researchers in the field can spot dodgy methods in a paper like the mascot in a cereal box knock-off of Where’s Waldo? Scientists know that every study is imperfect or incomplete in some way and are especially skeptical of results that contradict—rather than build upon—the existing science. When lots of data has been published supporting one conclusion, and then a single data set points in a different direction, the most likely explanation is that something is wrong with that rogue data set.

The thrust of the matter is that there have been several other previous studies on the effects of groundwater contribution to sea level rise, all with conclusions in roughly the same (low) ballpark. Then a single study comes along with wildly different results and that's the one which gets heavily reported on in popular media. I don't know who the real scientists are in this case (and you don't either), but we'll see if the new study survives a thorough peer review.

Re:Interesting Theory

[Hatta]

Greenpeace was one

Greenpeace's total budget is around10 million per year. How is it that they can influence the overwhelming majority of climate research?

If climate science is primarily agenda driven, and climate science is overwhelmingly in favor of AGW there must be a group out there that profits from the fabrication of data for the AGW hypothesis and has more money than the oil industry. I don't see any candidates.

The controversy I'm talking about is not quite the same as it seems you are thinking. Example: If I make a shitload of money polluting and you say it's bad, having a controversy allows me to keep polluting and continue to make assloads of money. This is a very common business tactic.

Yes, this would prompt the oil industry to manufacture controversy allowing it to continue polluting. But that's only one side of the story.

Who benefits by the fabrication of AGW data? If no one benefits, then how do you square your claim that climate science is primarily agenda driven with the fact that climate science is overwhelmingly in agreement with the AGW hypothesis?

I never said NASA was bad, why would you infer that?

NASA does a considerable amount of research into the radiation of energy by planetary bodies. This research is diretly related to the AGW argument. Those models are developed and used by people like James Hansen to predict what will happen to the energy our planet absorbs, given the composition of the atmosphere. If you are correct, and all of this is bunk science driven by an agenda, then NASA must have been coopted by some special interest group. Is that your claim?

Re:Interesting Theory

[Hatta]

Apologies, the Greenpeace US budget is around 10 million/year. Globally it's 360 million. I should have read more carefully.

I will point out that 360 million is still peanuts compared to the oil industry. If money speaks louder than facts in climate science, why is the consensus not what the oil industry wants to hear?

Re:Interesting Theory

[Magius_AR]

What agenda do you think climate scientists are working for? If climate scientists were catering to the powerful, wouldn't they be publishing data and models that the oil industries like?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_commercialization#Renewable_energy_industry

Renewable energy investment increased 51 billion dollars in one year. Hint, someone got richer there.

Re:Interesting Theory

[Magius_AR]

. If money speaks louder than facts in climate science, why is the consensus not what the oil industry wants to hear?

Bias plays a role as well. Oil-friendly individuals don't exactly pursue careers in climate science.

Re:Interesting Theory

[Hatta]

Why not? Is climate science fundamentally opposed to oil use? If so, why do you think that is? Could it be because the facts of climate science so strongly speak to the dangers of continued oil use? If not, where does the bias come from? Do you think these people just woke up one day and decided to take on the most powerful industry in the world for no reason?

If the facts of climate science did not support AGW so strongly, there would be no reason for oil friendly individuals to avoid climate science. Actually, they could make a great name for themselves by demonstrating that AGW were false. But this doesn't happen because AGW is a fact.

Re:Interesting Theory

[Magius_AR]

Why not? Is climate science fundamentally opposed to oil use? If so, why do you think that is?

People in a given industry are either prone to (or indoctrinated towards) a particular way of thought. This is why people without the computer science field also just happen to tend to be predisposed towards strong opinions in favor of "digital liberties"/piracy/internet freedoms.

If the facts of climate science did not support AGW so strongly, there would be no reason for oil friendly individuals to avoid climate science. Actually, they could make a great name for themselves by demonstrating that AGW were false. But this doesn't happen because AGW is a fact.

GW is a fact. Percentage related to man remains in debate. But most importantly, what to do remains hotly debated. Climate scientists haven't done a great job with precision, quantities, or timing -- as such, we have no idea what effect any given change in mankind's behavior will have over what time period. They have theories and speculation, but that is it. The only fact is that the Earth appears to be warming.

Re:Interesting Theory

[s.petry]

Well, again like mentioned several times above there are many sources for the reports. You are not looking any further than what you think you know. NASA and GreenPeace are only two sources. There are numerous colleges and universities providing reports, as well as private groups outside of those which you may not recognize.

So if you say again "Why would X do something" knowing there are probably a hundred agencies supplying reports.. it becomes painfully obvious that you don't want an answer, you only want to bolster your opinion.

I could have told you

[chispito]

I could have told you that 42% 1/2.

Re:I could have told you

[chispito]

Oops. Well there goes my snarky comment. Meant that 42% =/= 1/2.

Not the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate Change has been studied for decades with thousands of studies that keep coming to similar conclusions.

And how many studies have been done on this hypothesis that ground water is the cause of higher sea levels?

When this hypothesis gets a few more studies behind it and mostly come to the same conclusion, then I'll give it the same credence as Global Climate change. I won't hesitate - I have no political, religious or any other dogmatic interest in either; I take that back, I am dogmatic about scientific rigor.

They can't even "count" groundwater

[C_amiga_fan]

Just finished the article. These scientists can't even reach a conclusion of how much groundwater was pulled from reservoirs *even when directly measuring it*. Some say 0% loss. Others 40% loss.

And yet these same people claim they can predict the temperature 100 years from now. :-| Riiiight. If they can't get *current* numbers right, even when pulling out their rules and measuring, how can we trust anything they say about the future water level, temperatures, et cetera? The Greeks called this "hubris".

Re:They can't even "count" groundwater

[C_amiga_fan]

>>>"These same people"? Do you mean all "scientists" look the same to you?

Yes.
They all share the same profession and general beliefs. Ditto engineers, programmers, doctors, nurses with their respective careers.

   

Cause

[skyggen]

The cause of Global Warming is Simple; Humans.

Re:Cause

[sexconker]

The cause of Global Warming is Simple; Humans.

Because humans took the planet from 0 Kelvin to the temperature it is now, right?

Re:Cause

[sexconker]

My home town nearly went to zero Kevins back in 1978.

It was a particularly cold winter, and we were already down to 3 Kevins (due to their low popularity at the time).

Kevin Thomas had flown out to be with his son's family for a wedding and got stuck in Boston for a whole week due to the weather. 2 Kevins left.

Kevin Lemmer was rushed to the hospital during my shift. I still remember the call from the EMTs as the ambulance was rushing toward us. "It's Lemmer. He's in bad shape. Drove right into the fucking ditch." We called the time of death at 6:15 PM.

At 6:16, all eyes turned to room 2217. Kevin Spencer was 82 and on his death bed with leukemia. His family being Catholic, he had already been given his last writes. If he couldn't hold out until Kevin Thomas returned, we would be at zero Kevins. Sure, we had 4 perfectly healthy Calvins, but they're just not the same.

It was 7:15 when Carla Brooks and her husband James burst through the main entrance. "She's not due for 2 weeks!", James exclaimed. As the staff bustled around getting the Brookses settled, they exchanged darting glances with each other. This was their first child, and they wanted to keep the baby's sex a secret. Of course, in a small town, secrets don't get kept. Nearly all of the hospital staff new that the child about to rip open Mrs. Brooks was indeed a boy.

The delivery was routine, and Kevin Brooks was born healthy, if a tad underweight, at 10:52 PM. Kevin Spencer was pronounced dead at 10:54.

It was, as they say, a close one. Kevin Thomas arrived two days later, the weather having finally cleared up. To this day, we still rib him about it.

Cedar Falls is currently at 5 Kevins.

I thought water evaporated

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I think a 3rd grader better review all this data, because according to the current grade-school curriculum, water evaporates, condenses into clouds, rains, fills lakes, rivers, aquifers, etc, and then evaporates again in a seemingly recurring cycle.

With global warming, shouldn't the rate of evaporation increase causing more water to evaporate, increasing cloud cover and rain and filling up groundwater reservoirs?

Doesn't more cloud cover block the suns heat thus reducing Global warming?

I know everybody thinks the world is going to sh*t and we are living in Hell and the planet will be destroyed in a matter of decades, but I find it hard to believe that after a few billion years of water evaporating, condensing and raining that suddenly this basic concept of a global ecosystem some-how no longer applies.

If a 3rd grader can just step up figure this sh*t out for us cause obviously the "scientific" community doesn't have a f*cking clue

Re:I thought water evaporated

[ChromaticDragon]

Is this a troll? Do you actually believe it's reasonable to attempt to refute current scientific studies with 3rd-grade textbooks?

No matter what folk personally believe (or want to believe), does it not seem inappropriate simply to assume scientists specifically or in bulk are simply stupid? Is it not more productive to maintain an inquisitive approach and ask yourself what you might be lacking in your own understanding?

Now, to the actual point, your trite reference to elementary school understanding of the water cycle completely ignores all the relevant volumes. How much water is evaporating? How much water is raining/snowing? How much water is being pumped out of aquifers? How much water is draining down to replenish aquifers? How much water is being taken out of rivers for irrigation? How much water is sinking into the ground vs. escaping via run-off?

It's trivial to explain the water cycle in a simplistic sense. But it is incredibly foolhardy just to assume certain things are or will always be in balance (especially related to FRESH water). Your claim that increased rain is filling up aquifers can be straightforwardly disproved. They call this "fossil water" for a reason. Worldwide, we're exhausting groundwater (much) faster than it's being replenished. And increased precipitation due to increased evaporation isn't going to help if much of that extra rain is simply falling over the oceans - which is what the vast majority of modelling suggests will occur with increased warming. Some areas will get wetter. Many areas will endure droughts. And remember, heavy rain on parched ground just runs off.

Re:I thought water evaporated

[buglista]

THANK YOU!

Please, someone tell the British Meteorological Office that water evaporates, forms clouds and this can lead to occlusion of the sun at times. I'm sure they'll be EXTREMELY GLAD that someone bothered to mention it to them.

Re:I thought water evaporated

[pk001i]

Strawman much?

Although I do not know these scientists personally, I have a hunch that they understand the water cycle, and still believe that water evaporates. The groundwater is constantly recharging, it is just that we are removing the groundwater faster than it can recharge. This recharge deficiency could be due to a number of things, we could simply taking out too much water, or we could have altered the recharge mechanisms. Calculating how much water we take out is easy, but understanding all the ways that we could be interrupting the recharge mechanism is pretty complex. Off the top of my head we could have asphalted the recharge zone, or altered rainfall/snow-melt patterns, altered the natural drainage system via ditches and canals and sewage systems.

I don't really understand the contempt towards earth scientists these days. The vast majority of these people are highly intelligent, and are honestly attempting to understand these highly complex systems. If I were to ask myself, "Who should I talk to to better understand hydrology?" It would be to talk to a hydrologist, just like if I were to ask myself "Who should I talk to learn about cancer treatments?" I would go talk to an oncologist. Believe it or not, there is a good chance that these scientists, who have spend decades trying to understand these systems know more than you, just like I imagine you know more than them in your given field. (As a geophysicist, I don't know much about biology, and so I choose to trust those who have devoted their lives to it's study, just like those biologists generally trust me when I explain some aspect of geophysics.)

That is all.

Re:I thought water evaporated

[Mindcontrolled]

Well put.

May I, just from personal curiosity, ask in what particular field of geophysics you work? I used to share the building with our geophysics guys while I did my PhD in biochemistry. They were not so helpful on ecosystem questions, though - they were mostly concerned with high-pressure metamorphic stuff trying to model it in their diamond-stamp-huge-arse-pressure-press ;)

Re:I thought water evaporated

[Dixie_Flatline]

Well, here's something that they neglect in 3rd grade: extra heat does cause evaporation, but it also changes the atmosphere's capacity to hold water. This is something that's readily observable in most climates as the seasons change, and we tend to look at it just as a local change that affects our comfort.

As AGW deniers seem to love pointing out, the most potent greenhouse gas is actually water. It stores heat exceptionally well. So if the atmosphere is warmer (on average), then it's holding more water. That water allows the atmosphere to hold more heat, and you have a feedback loop. Eventually the feedback loop balances out (since we obviously don't live on a planet with a runaway greenhouse effect) because water tends to precipitate out of the atmosphere if it gets a chance. Still, the effect is notable and measurable. You can certainly change the carrying capacity of the atmosphere with respect to water in climates that are currently cooler.

More problems with your overly simplistic description of the water cycle (beyond the fact that you're using a necessarily distilled version of the process that is accurate only at a distance, but accurate enough for grade school children) are that heating effects tend to cause other changes that interfere with the cycle or themselves cause heating effects. Melt the snow for slightly longer in the far north, and you get the ground absorbing more heat and reflecting less back to space; the albedo of the planet is much different when you're comparing a large snow covered area to a large dirt covered area. And then you get secondary effects, like an expanding tree-line. If the trees are there, the uniformity of the snow cover is disrupted, which ALSO modifies the albedo; a uniformly even white surface reflects more light back to space than one that is lumpy.

So, yeah. You can't rely on the models that we were taught in school because they were meant for people without any training, and just as a taste of the full subject matter. When kids learn to read and write, it doesn't mean that the simple constructs that we show them are the entirety of the English language. It's just enough for them to get by. Graduate English/linguistics classes are a far cry from the rules that we teach them. You can't criticise the literary community because their work may step beyond the stuff we teach kids.

Re:I thought water evaporated

[Dixie_Flatline]

I'm not convinced that this was a troll. I think that we might get told that we were trolled, but it's not far enough out of line with the AGW denying comments I've seen here lately. :/

Re:I thought water evaporated

[pk001i]

Geophysics is a pretty big tent. I work on imaging methane hydrate in the ocean sediments using controlled source electromagnetics (known as CSEM). CSEM is basically a way to find the bulk resistivity of materials, whether at shallow depths, such as detecting groundwater, or great depths, such as the mantle conductivity.

The diamond anvil press is a pretty neat tool, while not very common in the US, it is (currently) the best way to replicate the pressures within the earth, and even with those we can't replicate very deep.

Re:I thought water evaporated

[Andtalath]

Actually, there are theories akin to that.
The Gaia hypothesis for instance came forth with the idea that as the temperature rises, more of the water will be in clouds, meaning that less heat comes in from above meaning global cooling will follow.

However, it's a pretty big gamble to make.

Re:WE NEED MORE RAINWATER TANKS!

[Jeng]

I know you are joking but cisterns are illegal in many areas.

Here is one of many stories that talk about it.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/40.18/a-good-idea-2013-if-you-can-get-away-with-it

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

That's one of the problems with many proponents

[Sycraft-fu]

They start with the statement of "It is a scientific fact that global warming is happening," which is true. That the Earth is getting warmer outside of known cycles is a claim of fact, something you can measure, and measurements show it is indeed correct. No problems there.

However the problem then starts that they make a bunch of other claims, such as that if the warming continues Earth will be inhospitable, and so on, and want to claim that is all scientific fact too. No, not so much. That things will get worse would be an assertion or judgement call that would be based on a bunch of theories and hypothesis about what will happen if the warming continues. It is the kind of thing that is actually up for a lot of debate since you have to evaluate all the different theories of what might happen, how well supported they are, and then pass a judgement call as to if it would be better or worse.

Thing is, they present it as just something you have to accept part and parcel. A situation of "If you deny any of this, you are denying the facts." No, not really. Anyone who says the Earth isn't warming is denying facts, unless they can show how the measurements that we use to reach that conclusion are flawed (given the measurements are world wide and spanning a century, it is possible, though unlikely, the conclusion is incorrect). However from that it does not automatically follow that things will be horrible.

Re:That's one of the problems with many proponents

[steelfood]

They start with the statement of "It is a scientific fact that global warming is happening," which is true. That the Earth is getting warmer outside of known cycles is a claim of fact, something you can measure, and measurements show it is indeed correct. No problems there.

But it's a bit more than "warming". That's where everybody gets held up. They think "warming" and automatically equate it with a temperature rise.

Yes, there is a temperature rise. But the temperature rise is a symptom, not the disease, so to speak. The overall temperature rise is a result of there being more energy in the system (our planet's climate). How much of that extra energy translates to how much temperature rise is an equation left to the scientists.

There are other symptoms of having energy in the system. For example, more powerful and frequent storms, more extreme weather phenomenon (heat wave, cold snaps), etc. What this means is generally unknown, but to think that they'd be beneficial is unlikely.

Human civilization relies on stability. It relies on being able to measure risk, which means being able to make accurate predictions based on past data. Increasing the amount of energy in the system does exactly the opposite.

To say that an increase in energy will bring about the downfall of civilization would be a bit far fetched. But it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that things will get harder overall for everyone in the short to medium term. For most of us, it's not the end of the world. We may need those winter jackets for a few more days, or might need to clean our gutters more often. But the poor and impoverished will be impacted the greatest (exactly how much is still yet to be determined), as they always are when there is systemic instability.

What all this ultimately means, what "global warming" ultimately does to society and this world, is anybody's guess. And we won't really know until the system stabilizes at another point again.

Based on past history, it's probably not going to be beneficial. It may not be end-of-the-world disastrous, but only the delusional or ignorant would think that if things at all get better in the end, it won't get worse first (again, exactly how much is up for debate).

Re:That's one of the problems with many proponents

[KeensMustard]

They start with the statement of "It is a scientific fact that global warming is happening," which is true. That the Earth is getting warmer outside of known cycles is a claim of fact, something you can measure, and measurements show it is indeed correct. No problems there. However the problem then starts that they make a bunch of other claims, such as that if the warming continues Earth will be inhospitable, and so on, and want to claim that is all scientific fact too. No, not so much.

So - the difference between the part you accept and the part that you don't is .... what, exactly? You don't like bad news about the future? You don't like it?

It is the kind of thing that is actually up for a lot of debate since you have to evaluate all the different theories of what might happen, how well supported they are, and then pass a judgement call as to if it would be better or worse.

Well, there is really only 2 theories. The first one is that the climate will continue to get more energetic as we increase it's energy potential. This theory is based on observation and modelling of the physical world. The second is that the climate will not get more energetic for reasons we can't explain. This theory is based on the our predilection to burn stuff and cut things down.

Only one of these theories actually passes the lowest bar of intellectual honesty.

Thing is, they present it as just something you have to accept part and parcel. A situation of "If you deny any of this, you are denying the facts." No, not really. Anyone who says the Earth isn't warming is denying facts, unless they can show how the measurements that we use to reach that conclusion are flawed (given the measurements are world wide and spanning a century, it is possible, though unlikely, the conclusion is incorrect). However from that it does not automatically follow that things will be horrible.

The same science that tells us the earth is warming tells us what to expect from the future. Rejecting part of the science and accepting another part is like going to you oncologist and telling him that you will only accept a negative result. No. The same test the rules out cancer is the one that confirms it. The same test that tell you it's bad, but with treatment you will probably be okay, can also tell you that you will die. Rejecting one outcome because you would prefer that it not be true is not rational or defensible.

FACT!

[DarthVain]

FACT: Earth didn't always have CO2 in atmosphere
FACT: Over time CO2 has increased
FACT: Earth didn't always have complex life
FACT: Over time complex life has increased

THUS: The more CO2 we have in Earth's atmosphere the more abundant and complex life we have.

I'd make you a pretty graph but I'm too lazy, instead I'll describe it: It involves two correlated lines closely mirroring each other upwards.

There take that!

Is that the whole story? Probably not.

Re:FACT!

[riverat1]

I think you have that a bit backwards. Around 500 million years ago when complex animal life was first developing the atmospheric level of CO2 appears to have been around 5000 ppm. Since then it has generally been on a downward trend reaching lows around 180-280 ppm in the past million years.

Re:FACT!

[DarthVain]

Nope. The information I saw clearly had a correlation to CO2 and life on the planet, complex life. Basically the premise is the more animals expiring CO2, the more CO2 is present. In the beginning, very few, so not much, over time a ton of complex life develops, much of it exhaling CO2, which is a clear indicator that the rise of these populations in themselves (6 Billion humans maybe) are a big part of the problem, regardless of if kola bears become an industrialized society and start burning wood and coal ejecting CO2 in the air. The simple fact that there are more beings emitting CO2 with every breath I think should be enough for this change. Considering the *explosive* growth in human population over the last 100 years, this isn't something that should be all that surprising. However this has been identified as a problem for decades now, but no one wants to contemplate doing anything about it. Politically it is bad, and most religions do not want either. Population control, or reduction as a solution, isn't a popular one. Hell it is less popular than the whole "control your CO2 emissions wreaking your cheap energy economy" plan...

Anyway what I was trying to point out with my silly example, was that just because FACTS might line up to prove something, it doesn't tell the whole story. For example, the fact that what I described happened over something like 4 billion years which is pretty incalculable even by geologic standards, the fact that it was a gradual (and I don't think our word for gradual has enough oomph for how slow a process it was) process of CO2 rise, not a sharp one, allowing evolution to easily keep up presumably, and the fact that likely a sharp abrupt (at least in the geologic or evolutionary sense) change will likely have much different consequences.

I mean presumably at one point it was mostly plants perhaps "eating" CO2 and producing O2, which created an environment that would give survival advantage to animals that could survive by "eating" O2 while producing CO2, creating the symbiotic cycle we have today. The change was such that it allowed species to adapt, though I am sure many died off in the process. However how quickly can evolution adapt to creatures sucking down more CO2 which is more abundant now? I'll not get into the fact that we intentionally try to exhale our industrial CO2 sources where that CANNOT be absorbed. I have no doubt that through industrialization this process has been accelerated, however explosive population growth on its own is likely attributable to much of this (not to mention all the food animals we now create).

Re:FACT!

[riverat1]

LOL. The carbon in the CO2 that humans and other animals exhale came from CO2 absorbed by the plants you ate (and the plants the animals you eat ate). Animal exhalation doesn't change the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Digging up carbon and burning carbon that's been sequestered for millions of years does add to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Re:FACT!

[DarthVain]

So the corresponding rise of CO2 along with life on our planet has to do with our increased extraction of of carbon over the past couple of billion years?

I wasn't aware that the technology predated human existence by hundreds of millions of years.

You don't seem to be getting what I am selling. That carbon that's been "sequestered for millions of years" wasn't ALWAYS sequestered for millions of years, and it predates humans, and industrial revelations. At some point that carbon WAS not sequestered. They were trees etc... They used to be part of our environment and the cycles that effect our atmosphere.Try taking a lot longer world view. Hell I bet there is a super long cycle of sequestration and release (one that we are certainly effecting).

Humans digging up former trees and burning it isn't the whole story. People are looking at this from only one perspective.

Re:FACT!

[riverat1]

So the corresponding rise of CO2 along with life on our planet has to do with our increased extraction of of carbon over the past couple of billion years?

Not at all. Both Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are about 95% CO2. I doubt life had much to do with that on either of them. Carbon is a relatively abundant element in the universe and it's not surprising to find it outside of the realm of living systems. If you want me to take your hypothesis seriously you have a lot of details to fill in.

Re:FACT!

[DarthVain]

Well if you can call that an atmosphere on Mars... that's pretty weak.

I am also not saying that CO2 is exclusively created by breathing complex life, far from it. Things like volcanoes etc... spew out the stuff at a huge rate. I am sure there are numerous sources that CO2 can come from. Venus for example is likely volcanic activity.

At any rate, all I am saying is looking at the numbers over a long period of time it seems that there is a correlation between population growth (of everything that breathes O2, and exhales CO2) and the increase of CO2 in earths atmosphere (and a decrease in obvious CO2 emitters such as volcanic activity over time as earth matures).

Yes there is a cycle involved with plants that seems to mean no net increase. However all these cycles involve balance, and when that balance is thrown off, that is when things start changing. So while everyone seems certain that it us digging up old trees and burning them, I am just saying that if you look over the last 100 years or so (which industrialization is being blamed for everything really), one of the other things besides industrialization was that we didn't just double our population, we quintupled it. In 100 years. In geologic terms 100 years is like half a nanosecond. These cycles are measured not daily (well yes they are all the time, but they last much longer). Such an abrupt change, in addition, we eat more meat, we have also quintupled the number of cows, pigs, etc... all of which snort out CO2 at even faster rates. Combine that with taking down trees and burning them to make room for people, cows, pigs, etc... (so you lose a CO2 absorber + immediately emit that CO2 into atmos), I find it hard to believe why so many people have a hard time seeing that all of the above is a significant factor (digging up old trees and burning them is another) that is equal in need of addressing.

However no one ever wants to discuss overpopulation or population control.

Heck so far as humans are concerned, the only real problem with climate change is that we are going to lose some arable land, which is going to make it hard to feed people, which is really because we have too many already. I mean other than burning dug up trees, likely the SECOND most significant use of those dirty trees, is to convert them into fertilizer, which enables us to grow 4 times the number of plants we could without (in combination with oil powered tractors and the like), which people eat, and continue to exhale CO2, make more babies, etc...

It absolutely baffles me that so many people are hung up on burning coal/oil, when there are so many other factors involved. If you think it is a hard sell to convince people that it is humans doing the burning of oil/coal causing climate change, try arguing that it is the mere existence of people eating and breathing that are making a significant contribution to it.

Re:FACT!

[riverat1]

Of course as is often brought up here on /. correlation is not causation.

The question you have to ask yourself is "If the exhalation of CO2 by living things has some relation to the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere then where is that carbon coming from?" In other words what is a source of the carbon in the CO2 you exhale that didn't start as CO2 absorbed by the living things you eat?

It is true that deforestation and other changes to land and sea use can cause a significant rise in CO2 but compared to the amount of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels it's pretty small.

Fertilizer derived from fossil fuels does not use the carbon in those fuels. The carbon that plants use is exclusively derived from CO2 already in the atmosphere (or the water for aquatic plants) as far as I can tell.

If you want people to believe that the increase in CO2 is due to the increase in human population due to their eating and breathing you're going to have to come up with some actual scientific evidence for that, not a simple correlation between population and CO2 levels. Human population is a factor in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere but it's due mostly to increased burning fossil fuels, not breathing. We know fairly accurately how much CO2 is released by burning fossil fuels. It's an easy calculation based on the chemical formulas for that reaction. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from one year to the next amounts to about 45% of the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels and other human activities such as deforestation and cement manufacture. Most of the rest is absorbed in the oceans leading to ocean acidification.

(Sorry I didn't respond sooner but I was out whitewater rafting the past 3 days.)

manbearpig

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, this is scientific review in action.

And it's Slashdotters tagging it with "manbearpig", too. People whose "science" is really "politics" is really "ideology" is really "cartoons" is really stupid. And they have the same vote you do.

Re:Here in North Carolina

[Doc Ruby]

pi = 3

Re:I didn't believe it.

[bratwiz]

Nah, that's just a vagina with hare.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Yes since LBJ

[dbIII]

The "contraversy" started when alternative energies that don't produce much carbon dioxide started to get a foothold in markets and threaten established companies that could afford some highly amoral PR groups.

Bullshit - and here's an example as to why

[dbIII]

Geophysics and geology are related to climate science and contain almost exclusively "oil-friendly individuals", yet apart from a small handful of loonies (eg. Plimer) they are not saying what the Heartland Institute is paying for.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion