Slashdot Mirror
Norwegian Study: Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared
Numerous news outlets are reporting the findings of a study from the Research Council of Norway — a government agency — which concludes that (in Bloomberg's version) "After the planet's average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized." The New York Times' Dot Earth blog offers some reasons to be skeptical of the findings.
It's real! Panic!
Even if it's not real, the world will be a better place if you panic!
Frankly, I don't give a crap what the world will be like for my great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren. If they're too slow to get out of the way of a 500 year long rising tide, screw em.
DENIERS, BUUUUUUUURN THEM!
Wait wait. How do we know they are deniers?
Because they look like it!
Yes, but, we have to prove it.
Uuuh... they're made of oil... so they float?
Yes, and what else floats?
Ducks?
Yes, so fetch me a duck and I get my scales out....
But they're Europeans so they have to know better than us. No, no, it is even worse--they're Scandinavians, the only people who have formed perfect governments on Earth that maximize the potential of every citizen. How can we dump apes criticize them?
The simple fact that anyone who produces evidence to the contrary is automatically suspect is perhaps THE biggest problem with the entire climate change debate.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Correction: an oil-producing country that's cold like hell, and can gain a lot from both its land getting more habitable and from it's main competitors' land getting less habitable.
If Earth got 40 degrees warmer, people at the south pole wouldn't complain.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
For god's sake, it's just one more piece of analysis. If true, it will be followed up on, if not, it will be followed up on with corrections.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Moderating as +0 a bit kooky.
A peer reviewed study that doesn't quite jive with the prevailing line of thinking appears in the prestigious journal Nature.
But don't worry, some blogger says it may not be correct. Alarmist Rejoice!
Stop believing, start judging facts,
and the best thing:
ASK people who work for insurance companies, then they will tell you a story about their one century spawning statistics and how close many predictions match our climate situation of today. And why they predict that the climate change is real and well 90% is man made, and well some is cow made.
the 'reasons to be skeptical' weren't by a journalist and had a bit more meat than "doesn't *quite* fit the received wisdom and thus is fodder for the deniers".
The simple fact that anyone who produces evidence to the contrary is automatically suspect is perhaps THE biggest problem with the entire climate change debate.
Debate? You see, that is the problem. Climate change is an event, like earthquakes, the sun rising, and cargo ships running into a pier. It is not like a gun control debate or an abortion debate where opinions matter. Climate change simply happens.
The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate. There is also a very noisy group of lunatics who deny all evidence and make up conspiracy theories. We can't prejudge this study, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept it prior to it being thoroughly reviewed by the international scientific community--not corporations or politicians. Science self-corrects, which means that there are occasionally flawed studies and occasionally revolutionary studies. I hate to break it to you, but flawed studies outnumber revolutionary studies by orders of magnitude. This is why the scientific process is so rigorous. Science is hard.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Since the vast majority of people at the South Pole are Scientists and support staff, I'd guess they would be pretty upset if temperatures rose by 40 degrees.. especially since if "Earth temp" rose, that would be average temp and the poles would get a significantly larger share of that than the equator.
I'm guessing they'd be upset because some of them are there to actually study ice and cold and glaciers.Also, the vast majority of scientific opinion is that climate change IS happening and it's man-made, and I'm guessing that they're going to have the general opinion that it's "not a good thing".
That much warming and everyone within ~50 miles of the current shoreline of the oceans of the world would need to start commuting to work in scuba gear. (With exceptions for some local geography that can handle a 200' rise in sea levels that would happen if the South Pole and Greenland ice sheets got hit by that much warming (pretty much a total melt of all the glaciers and ice caps).
Maybe a few mountain climbers wouldn't mind... would maybe make Everest a bit more comfortable to summit - then again, such drastic change would likely F*** up the world's weather patterns so much that it's hard to tell what the result would be.
I seriously wouldn't want to take the chance.
And yes, I know that a 40 degree warming is NOT on even the most dire climatologist predictions - I was just extrapolating on your example.
The Digital Sorceress
There are probably hundreds of studies that try to estimate the climate sensitivity. Most get numbers between 2 and 4 degrees per doubling. This one got 1.9. So?
This study finds warming at the low end of the IPCC projections. Other studies find warming at the high end of IPCC projections. There is uncertainty, and that why the IPCC publishes a range - but this study is not outside the published range. If this study is right then we will be committed to 2C of warming by 2050. We are trying to stay below 2C to avoid hitting some of the more worrisome tipping points and impacts.
Hopefully this study is right. If so then there is a chance that we can get off of carbon based fuels before we hit the tipping points. I wouldn't bet my kid's future on this one study though.
The simple fact that so many people who oppose addressing environmental concerns have produced false evidence and fraud to support their agenda, to the point where they even manufacture similar accusations based on similarly shoddy evidence against those with environmental concerns, is a far bigger problem with the entire climate change discussion.
It's not a debate, it's a discussion.
That distinction is important. But don't pretend that your "contrary evidence producers" are the persecuted victims. That's just a false martyrdom meant to exploit people's emotions.
Ten years is too short time for any conclusion.
you forgot to mention that...elvis still lives and americans didn't land on the moon.
Not like we have world or national governance that can do anything about it.
The US government can't make a budget or run a money system of their own creation -- yet you think they can absorb science, understand it, and react to it in an effective fashion?
Such things only exist so that there can be sides for people to join and so there can be issues to argue about.
And we should all piss our pants if someone publishes that its slightly higher or slightly lower than expected? Laughable.. argue on children.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Nice thought-terminating clichee you got there.
How conveniently it wipes away all rational thought and “but”s.
PROTIP: While what happens is fixed, that which is perceived by our senses, minds, and from our state in space-time, is not. And it's not easy at all, to determine what happens just from that. That's call science.
And you don't even seem to realize, that with your rigid ignorant mindset and dismissal of the scientific method, that includes you. ... Mixing people who ask valid questions in with the actual ignorant deniers/lunatics of both "sides" (including yours).
It's just that your conspiracy theory is that everyone who doesn't blindly follow your mindset and dares to question anything, is an evil lunatic conspiracy theorist.
Like the ones you criticism, you have to right to speak in the name of science. Your mindset is the opposite of a scientific one. It is one of boneheaded stubborn belief. Yes, you believe in the right view, from what I can tell. But you do not think . You believe. And that's where you're a complete fucking nutjob too.
So let's divine the number of gods that exist by averaging the number of gods that world's religion claim to exist.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Norway and Sweden are very different; some conflicts even exist between the two.
Norway has a bigger territory, and has control over all the areas where there are natural resources.
Norway has a much smaller population.
Sweden has a more vibrant society and prettier girls.
Norway is much more rich thanks to all the oil.
I forgot to say the obvious: Sweden is in the EU, Norway isn't.
No need for that. The number of gods already is divine by definition. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
So 100% is man made. Since those are not free cows. They are man-owned, man-bred, mad-used cows.
The so-called "global warming deniers" are to be scorned, ridiculed, and otherwise have their professional reputations destroyed by any means necessary but it's just fine and dandy to be skeptical of this study.
Merely "a bit"? You hurt me! :p
I was aiming at "some insight, lots of WTF". The former is: even with such a massive warm-up, some places today inhabitable would become comfortable to live; as for the latter, DigitalSorceress' post nearby is exhaustive enough. Outlandish hyperboles aside, my point is that there's a massive tolerance, both ways, before traditional ways of human life would become impossible. Being able to sustain a large population or avoiding hardships of migration are another story, though.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Do you know what the problem with that argument is? The problem is that regardless of what the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming actually is, it *started* with substantial political and corporate interests framing it as certain and apocalyptic. In addition, while the scientists of the IPCC may actually be neutral parties, the fact that the IPCC is a UN organization doing research on a subject that blocs of countries could leverage into significant economic advantages at the very least suggests conflicts of interest. And it's a legitimate question to ask what research has been suppressed or minimized as a result of the initial politicization of the issue. (Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Slashdot even decided to report this one, since they have generally missed or skipped peer-reviewed research contradicting the apocalyptic GW scenarios for the past five years.)
Quite right, but in ways you didn't think of. Because of the politicization of climate science, individual scientists now have to eliminate personal bias, politics, and economics from their research. There are suggestions that scientists on both sides are unable to do this, which makes finding out the "truthiness" of climate science very difficult.
And here is the irony in your post. Based on this statement, you're what neutral parties call a "believer." Neutral parties generally accept that there probably is some anthropogenic global warming going on. Neutral parties are also smart enough to still ask what that rate of change is, if the climate models are correct enough, what the error bars are on those models, *before* asking if there is anything we should do about it.
The OP asked a perfectly valid question; unfortunately, it was answered by you, a zealot.
The "evidence" that exists is that it has been getting a bit warmer; few people disagree with that. The "debate" is about what that means. Is it going to continue to get warmer? Is there anything we can do about it? Should we? What are the costs?
There are a lot of people who like to confuse the little bit of scientific fact we have with issues of extrapolation, prediction, and policy. That is not science, it is just dishonesty.
you commit the fallacy of "asserting the consequent". Overwhelming evidence? you mean like the claimed "record high temperatures" in Australia which actually are just a cyclical repeat of 1972, but for a fraction of a degree difference that is only due to more sensors and heat islands? Or the temperature rises and melting in western antartica which are more than offset by the increased formation in the MUCH LARGER east?
Actually they are great, they eat all the wasted food thrown into the trash. Natural habit is garbage dumps. One of the great adaptations of the world after man arrived. Probably last longer than us (with the cockroaches).
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
due to solar and (lack of) el nino cycles coinciding. Its quite temporary and we're already coming out of it.
and not news reporting, but in journalism it's a truism that anytime a title ends in a question mark, the answer is "no."
The title of the paper in question: “Global warming less extreme than feared?”
Debate? You see, that is the problem. Climate change is an event, like earthquakes, the sun rising, and cargo ships running into a pier. It is not like a gun control debate or an abortion debate where opinions matter. Climate change simply happens.
True, now tell that to all those lunatics that say it is human made for certain, and never debate (oh well, there should be a debate) how to deal with a natural climate shift, but just say we must do this or that to prevent it (like it was assured that we can prevent it).
The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate.
The same reason goes for all those mediocre scientists (the vast majority of them) who could never dream of topping the bill if there wasn't some heavy controversial and popularized debate like this. If there is no debate, it is because every thing that happens is dismissed as "it's all according to the models", yeah, how could it be differently? There are literally thousands of different models, predicting all and its contrary. But, yes, it is an event and there must be no debate, because it is certain and all according to the models. Mind you, I believe (that's the correct term) that there is a climate change, but everything beyond that is just to early to call.
It's doubtful their study will hold up to scrutiny. After reading the actual study, they're using a simple climate model to feed a Baeysian statistical model to generate their results, which fails to take into account numerous factors. This seems exceptionally weak, especially since a few years of data can drastically alter the results. For example, if the last ten years had a few strong El Ninos that gave a warming signal stronger than the expected signal, their model could be made to show warming beyond even the worst IPCC projections. And if you applied their methodology to a decade where some slight cooling took place (like the late 60's to early 70's), it would appear that by this time we would be well on our way to an ice age by now. That's an incredibly wide error margin, and more than enough to cast doubts on their results.
~X~
the paper makes no challenge to the proposition that GW is occurring and is indeed anthropogenic, only that it us perhaps somewhat less severe than other recent estimates indicate.
So why again are the climate change deniers crowing in "vindication?"
Norway and Sweden are very different; some conflicts even exist between the two. Norway has a bigger territory, and has control over all the areas where there are natural resources. Norway has a much smaller population. Sweden has a more vibrant society and prettier girls. Norway is much more rich thanks to all the oil.
Well, they're both former Danish colonies :)
:)
Okay, joke aside (I'm a Dane of course).
Sure they are different in many aspects (language is just one), but when it comes to having a democracy that works and is trusted by the people, which is what GP talks about, Scandinavian countries aren't that different.
So whilst, Norway is an oil producing country, I seriously doubt the Norwegian government faked a study about global warming...
Anyways, maybe we should read the article and see if the summary is even right... I mean the conclusion of the study might very well conclude that we'll be cooked at a slightly lower temperature, but still very much cooked
(I'm just saying doesn't trust the media, especially not Slashdot, read the study).
How conveniently it wipes away all rational thought and âoebutâs.
Things do simply happen. The evidence is now very strong, though not as strong as evolution, relativity, QED or QCD. I can't remember the last time I saw a "but" that actually stood up to inspection. So rational thought says now that unless you have some really strong evidence then the rational thing to do is assume global warming is happening.
Rationality doesn't mean challenging everything all the time.
Rationality means accpeting things as facts until further notice when the evidence is strong enough. I accept the existence of gravity as a fact. I now accept climate change as a fact because the evidence is strong enough.
All your sophistry does not change that.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Agreed! But I also think it's ridiculous that people say they have proof either way. The models arent old enough yet to have realized concrete predictions. The models old enough are from the "global cooling" era. I think it's obvious climate change is occurring. The question is how much of it is a result of geological processes? Deforestation messing up the water cycle, nitrogen cycle, and carbon cycle? Plants reflect infared light like a mirror could that be a factor? Ocean pollution killing off plankton and algae could have an impact! We're ALSO at the 11 yr peak of the solar cycle which seems as if it could have an effect. I dont think think I need to give evidence for the other side. I believe most of us are intimately familiar with it. Isnt that enough to at least say its a debate?
[citation needed]
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
The simple fact that anyone who produces evidence to the contrary is automatically suspect is perhaps THE biggest problem with science.
FTFY
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
GLOBAL BAKING, which seems to be more to the point.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Being able to sustain a large population or avoiding hardships of migration are another story, though.
And that's the big issue. If there were one or two billion reasonable, intelligent humans on the planet instead of 6 billion crazy assed members of Homo Industrialis then we'd be OK pretty much anything this side of a giant asteroid strike.
We're pushing the envelope at present. We've had and are having resource wars with just tiny decrements of a couple of major inputs - oil and water as an example.
Squish agriculture. Squish transport. Worsen our silly reliance on constant growth as an economic model and you have trouble.
We're doomed.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
just saying,
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change
"James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared."
everybody chill.
You have constructed one hell of a strawman here. And I must say, you have masterfully taken down an imaginary argument. I can only imagine that you somehow interpreted my post to mean that anyone that questions climate change is a lunatic and that questioning climate change is questioning science. And if that was what I wrote, then your post would be insulting, but correct. But it wasn't what I wrote. There really isn't much of a way for me to respond to your argument since it is based on a false presupposition. I can only reiterate my argument and hope that your reading comprehension is stronger this time around: the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, but not popular with certain groups. For this reason, there are a lot of bullshit arguments and conspiracies thrown at it. These bullshit arguments and conspiracies are then labelled 'debate'. Now a new study comes along that partially contradicts several other studies. Should we have a 'debate' about this before the international scientific community can respond?
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
they are certainly scientific facts.
Methane Clathrates exist and it is a scientific CERTAINTY that they will create a tipping point.
Don't you know what "conditional stability" means? Scientifically?
No, you're just SPECULATING that it's all a big con, therefore all the problems are nonexistent, so you can forget it all.
True, now tell that to all those lunatics that say it is human made for certain, and never debate (oh well, there should be a debate) how to deal with a natural climate shift, but just say we must do this or that to prevent it (like it was assured that we can prevent it).
The problem with that discussion is that it's used as an excuse to avoid doing anything about any human action at all. It's like fires. No matter how many fires are caused by natural events, like lightning strikes, or wind-driven branches creating friction, it won't change the fact that humans also have responsibilities.
But when those things are used to justify ignoring human-caused fires, then that's a problem.
Just to be clear, since I was misinterpreted earlier in this post, when I wrote "questioning science" in the above post, I meant questioning science philosophically, or questioning the scientific method as a valid method.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Kind Sir may I also draw notice to the fact that magnificent fjordly Norway is the home, source, and origin of trolls?
Sincerely,
Herr Underbro / Mr. Underbridge
Oslo, Norway
1) No such thing as "global cooling era":
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/#love
2) Those models got pretty damn close. Hansen's 80's model would, if given the actual emissions scenario that took place, would have gotten a 3.4 C per doubling climate sensitivity to CO2 rather than the 3.2 that would have been spot on.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
3) We're NOT at the 11yr solar cycle peak. We're at one of the lowest levels of solar activity for a hundred years
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Now given your premises are incorrect, do you think you may go back and check to see if you've been led astray?
Maybe there's no debate, but to the OPPOSITE conclusion you took because of your faulty reckoning?
Correction: an oil-producing country that's cold like hell, and can gain a lot from both its land getting more habitable and from it's main competitors' land getting less habitable.
If Earth got 40 degrees warmer, people at the south pole wouldn't complain.
I don't think that,
a couple degrees one way
or the other is
going to impress the Norwegians
very much.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Maybe a few mountain climbers wouldn't mind... would maybe make Everest a bit more comfortable to summit - then again, such drastic change would likely F*** up the world's weather patterns so much that it's hard to tell what the result would be.
Probably not much, elevation effects trumps sealevels temperatures at that elevation
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I'm not saying their numbers are "fudged". But science isn't as objective as scientists would like us to believe, especially when it's about systems as complex as the earth's climate. Scientists's subconscious biases affect their results... there has actually been a bunch of research showing THAT in recent years. In this particular case I think the scientists in question saw what they wanted to see in the uncertainties inherent in the data.
The lead in this project - Terje Berntsen, says that the variation from '90s and in the '00s could be explained by natural variations. In the 00' the natural variations is canceling out the rise in CO_2 emissions, and in the '90s it was amplifying it. I still hope that the worst case scenario(a 4 degree rise) will be the "working scenario" for the solutions that will be used.
Sounds like a more reasonable approach than has been used so far.
I *didn't* accuse them of fabricating anything. I just pointed out ("informationally" if you like) that they have an inherent bias. If they were perfect scientists that bias wouldn't affect their results, but nobody is perfect. Because of this bias, even if it be subconscious, they are more likely to draw certain conclusions from the same set of data than other scientists with less or different biases.
The simple fact that anyone who produces evidence to the contrary
Except this isn't evidence to the contrary. This report still says that there is Anthropogenic Global Warming. It just found that it's at the lower end of the IPCC projections, not that it doesn't exist.
You say that like an Insurance Company doesn't have a financial incentive to raise rates to compensate for imaginary risks.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Your understanding of the scientific method is a bit naive. Lots of incorrect results pass peer review even in the most prestigious journals and sometimes are discovered as being incorrect only years later (or never)... because there is always some "fuzziness" in real-world experiments or data analysis. Were the experiments designed correctly? Was the data read correctly? Were there any errors in the analysis (mathematical or otherwise)? Is the logic leading to the conclusions correct? Peers who read the papers may or may not spot the errors... sometimes because the errors are subtle, and sometimes because even the smartest peers don't fully understand the research in the first place. (And with regard to the this Norwegian government research... well it hasn't even been peer-reviewed yet.)
There are a lot of steps in research and in each of the stops bias can creep in even if the researchers are honest and well-intentioned.
For more about this see, i.e.:
http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600
http://www.niam.scarp.se/download/18.71afa2f11269da2a40580007299/Huesseman%2B-%2BBiases.pdf
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/238/3/780.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter's_bias
...and lots more. In some areas of research (specifically bio-medical) there have been estimates (based on meta-analysis) that as much as half of all published results are wrong, and mostly along the lines of the researchers inherent biases.
They already are making tons of money on global warming. They can drill and maintain their oil platforms and tanker routes for far less money during winters, they're signing deals with Russia to develop Shtokman field and so on.
The money is already in motion.
The problem with your argument is that you assume that global warming simply means everywhere gets proportionally hotter, all year round. It doesn't.
Some places will get colder, and everywhere will experience more extreme weather events. I don't know about Norway in particular, but a likely outcome for the UK is that it will get colder, due to the breakdown of the gulf stream, which currently brings it's temperate weather from the Caribbean.
If there was one global Insurance Company monopoly, sure.
There isn't one. And competition in insurance industry is one of the fiercest in the world. Especially for major projects that also need most insurance against weather issues.
Until recently I believed the human-induced global warning narrative. On closer inspection of the data there are several aspects that need to be examined:
Global temperature increase data: The data shows that global warming is correct at least since the 17th Century (when there was a 'mini-ice age', possibly due to volcanic activity). This is undeniable. However, if you go back to data from two thousand years ago it appears that the climate is actually cooler than it was two thousand years ago. Please look at the data (and note that the trend is a very slight cooling over 2000 years):
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-climate-northern-europe-reconstructed-years.html
Human induced warming: The narrative given to us is that human activity in the form of burning fossil fuels has caused the supposed warming. If this was the case then we would examine the data and expect to see a carbon dioxide rise (CO2) from humans burning fossil fuels and then the temperature would rise as a result. In fact we see the opposite, we see that the CO2 rise *follows* the temperature rise, not precedes it. This means there is something wrong with the narrative that human-induced CO2 emission is causing global warming because the data does not support this. Here's the data
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
Global warming models: Much of the global warming information is based on 'extrapolations' (projections) of short-term trends. Looking over the last hundred or two hundred years and projecting will result in temperature rise estimates that are alarming. Looking at the long-term data results in projections that are far less alarming (which this Slashdot thread is talking about; and I am also trying to inform you about). The other thing about models is that they are iterative and are subject to all sorts of instabilities. From what I know some of the models also were rather crude in the fact they didn't take into account many significant effects, like the eccentricity of our orbit etc, which results in periodic changes in solar radiation levels. Having a model is always better than no model - but that doesn't mean the model you have corresponds to reality, it only corresponds to our best guess. I know, as a astrophysicist turned IT guy used to make scientific models all the time - they are tricky beasts and most people (even those graduate students making them) don't always understand their limitations very well.
Vilification of scientists: scientists who where skeptical of the data are being vilified. Their careers are being destroyed and they are ridiculed for saying, "Hey, the data suggests something else than the human-induced global warming narrative" despite this being not only consistent with, but *required by* the Scientific Method. These scientists are labelled by the media as "climate change deniers" when in fact they agree with recent climate warming, disagree that human-released CO2 as the primary agent for the warming, and disagree that the climate has gotten warmer over the last two thousand years. All of these positions are supported by the data (as far as I can see). The media is especially bad at mocking the scientists who "don't follow the (Liberal) Party Line" despite the courage of those scientists to not cave in (which would be easier) and follow the scientific evidence as they see it. The US mainstream media
I find it strange to see someone discount the idea of debate calling it "the problem", and the in the same breath talk about the rigorousness of science.
A scientific treatment of these papers would include taking each at face value -- not conferring those that agree with the status quo with a special status.
I think you are part of the problem as much as anyone else.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
" The New York Times' Dot Earth blog offers some reasons to be skeptical of the findings."
Why is it that everyone seems to accept the findings that man is doing all this harm to the planet people tend to accept it. When someone says oh we aren't doing as much damage to the planet as we thought then there is someone right there saying oh there is reasons to be skeptical of the findings. Give me a break. At this point the people who are pushing the whole man made global warming argument are sounding like the guy on the street corner with the sign that says "Jesus is coming are you ready?" There have been people predicting the end of the world for a millennia now. When is it that we started listening to them and ignoring the facts?
The data shows that temperature rises *precede* CO2 rises. We would expect it the other way around if human-released CO2 was causing the rise, but the data shows the *opposite*. Citation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
[quote]Do you know what the problem with that argument is? The problem is that regardless of what the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming actually is, it *started* with substantial political and corporate interests framing it as certain and apocalyptic.[/quote]
Actually when scientists first started warning that the consequences of CO2 could be extreme and dire there where no political interests interested at all in the topic. Fouriers warnings in the 1870s about the greenhouse effect where pretty much ignored until the early 1900s when data started to come in that the infrared absorbsion properties of CO2 he had observed in the laboratory and he postulated would affect the atmosphere where turning up localized around roads and automobile heavy areas. From that point CO2 climate change was pretty much confirmed in theory and observation but still a bit abstract until later in the 1900s when new data found that some of the droughts and changes in arctic and oceanic conditions where directly caused by it.
Unfortunately the other thing that happened in the 1900s was a growth of anti-science activism around creationism and various health kookery, and some of this bled over into physics denialism which found an apreciative audience amongst conservative audiences who had decided that tempering the carbon economy was "socialist". And now here we are with half the planet insistent on denying the evidence in front of their eyes.
We've had nearly a 150 years of physics to get here, and now its "political interests" that are making the carbon molecules absorb infra red.
Well congratulations conservatives, it wasn't us scientific folk that decided atoms have a liberal bias, you goons.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
This is simply wrong. In the early years, many climate scientists (like Revelle, still quoted for it today, although he absolutely took it more seriously later) didn't think there would be so much warming, and could even speculate (like some modern denialists) that maybe it'd counteract an ice age, maybe it'd be a net positive, etc. The climate scientists (and eventually, some politicians) grew gradually more alarmed as the evidence grew, not least the direct evidence of the thermometer.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
That's pretty standard behavior when a specific set of events has been documented at nauseam. If someone says that gravity is weaker in NYC than in San Francisco, there's a good amount of skepticism that has to be overcome. Same with anyone who argues that Global Warming isn't taking place. They better have some real good data collection and a real good explanation at hand.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Why to be skeptical of the findings?
The main reason they doubt it is because it contradicts quasi-religous dogma.
-Styopa
This study doesn't say anything about the "severity" of the phenomenon but is a statistical modelling of the sensitivity of the surface temperature to the concentration of co2. In other words, the rate of the warming. However, it is written : "When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis. But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a “mere” 1.9C." That doesn't look to be a very solid model ...
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
Are you schizophrenic?
The problem is that regardless of what the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming actually is, it *started* with substantial political and corporate interests framing it as certain and apocalyptic.
Actually, it started with a good chunk of scientists in the 70s and 80s saying that "hey, it seems temperatures are trending upwards. Can we cross-check that and see where this might lead?"
. In addition, while the scientists of the IPCC may actually be neutral parties, the fact that the IPCC is a UN organization doing research on a subject that blocs of countries could leverage into significant economic advantages at the very least suggests conflicts of interest.
Ok, so the UN is comprised of bodies that might have some ulterior motives. Instead of asking you to prove your point that they have ulterior motives (you know, innocent until proven guilty, etc), I'll give you the much easier job of just giving me one example of an entity that is not only completely disaffected from any conclusion drawn, but also 100% incapable of being biased. Not that I'm holding my breath, btw. We haven't seen any aliens yet, and even they might have some ulterior motives.
And it's a legitimate question to ask what research has been suppressed or minimized as a result of the initial politicization of the issue.
And it's a legitimate question to ask what bodies you're hiding in your backyard that might be uncovered as a result of a police action in your backyard. Oh, it isn't? Yeah, didn't think so.
Because of the politicization of climate science, individual scientists now have to eliminate personal bias, politics, and economics from their research.
Now you're getting hilarious. I'd like you to demonstrate a single action that was taken by anyone anywhere at any time that had no personal, political or economical bias, and didn't even have the chance to appear as such. What I'm getting up: you're setting up an impossible scenario, and then acting surprised that no one can complete it. That's dishonest arguing 101.
Based on this statement, you're what neutral parties call a "believer." Neutral parties generally accept that there probably is some anthropogenic global warming going on. Neutral parties are also smart enough to still ask what that rate of change is, if the climate models are correct enough, what the error bars are on those models, *before* asking if there is anything we should do about it.
You mean, like the climate scientists doing the actual studies? No? You mean, like random people on the Internet like you? Oh, I see where this is going. Since skeptic has been so utterly tainted by people like Watts and Monckton, you're tried to frame yourself as a "neutral" party just asking some questions. Here's what I know: every one of your questions has already been answered, if you'd just bother to read the scientific articles. Since you aren't, I can only assume that you're trying to throw out random words to derail the discussion.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
sunspot activity indicates we're in for some global cooling
which will counteract the obvious global warming our CO2 output is producing
so the debate will get shattered
then, in a decade or two when sunspot activity picks up, the temperature and violence of the atmosphere will shoot back up, and we'll be totally caught by surprise
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Let this be an object lesson, but really you should have learned this in elementry school with "Peter and the Wolf".
At this point, we don't know whether the boy who cried wolf was called Peter. Could be, but the story doesn't say so explicitly.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
No, the biggest problem is that there are economic interests involved. The "debate" is between evidence and special interests, in the same way as, say, the evolution vs. creationism "debate". The main difference is that accepting the evidence with regards to climate change implies a need to concrete action - specifically, giving up fossil fuels, which is going to be very painful - which is why more people are willing to delude themselves there.
Norwegian studies about global warming are as credible as tobacco company funded studies about the effects of smoking, and for the same reason.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Welcome to stage 3 of AGW denial: It's taking place, it's us, but we don't know how bad it is. You're about in the middle of where the US is, and ahead of a few stragglers like Watts who still vacillate between stage 1 and stage 2. Questions 1 through 3 have been answered at nauseam, so I'll leave you to google that for about 30 seconds. As for question 4, here's a more recent study on it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/curbing-climate-change-world-economic-forum_n_2521275.html. There are a number of different studies on this, including some done by the US and the UK government, all of which come to different numbers as for cost. All of them pretty much agree though that it is cheaper to mitigate CO2 emissions than to just continue with our current approach.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You mean a climate study (that is critical of aaalll the other scientists in the world who have been screaming things have, thanks to VERY recent evidence in the last few years not to mention last year which saw huge droughts, storms, and heat (Australia had to come up with a new colour for their frickin'
weather map it was so hot), gotten far, far worse), from the Norway who's entire economy derives from oil?
What a co-inky-dink.
Keep in mind that the evidence is FAR FAR FAR more extensive than just, "getting a bit warmer." Even with the study that is the focus of this slashdot posting, there is NO debate at all in the way that you describe.
From the F'n article:
Climate issues must be dealt with
Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.
Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.
So we know what it "means", we know it is going to get warmer, we have to do something about it, cost isn't the issue. At least that is what the authors of THIS study think.
So, tell me again, where the debate is?
Very insightful. Look at the headline and paragraph for this story. Firstly, Andy Revkin as cited to cast doubt on the findings. Revkin is not qualified to comment on this, and he certainly wouldn't provide you with a disinterested and bias-free analysis in any case. Secondly, the article points out these findings are from a "government agency". Well, how much climate science is paid for through government agencies? Almost all of it! So if the fact that the government paid for the research is somehow going to bias the conclusions, one could ask the same question about what, precisely, the billions of dollars of government money is paying for in our academic institutions.
That's the scientific method: we don't accept things as fact until they have been convincingly proven through reproducible experiments and logical arguments.
And it's not a question of "how bad it is" (global warming is obviously not very "bad" so far), it's a question of "how bad will it become".
I don't have to "Google it", I've read many of the papers.
Even the last IPCC report didn't reach that conclusion. Furthermore, all those studies have methodological errors. And, finally, agreement is irrelevant in science; what matters is sound, logical arguments and reproducible experiments.
the problem with climate study in general is there are literally millions of possible variables to affect global climate. are there things we can do to prevent it? possibly, it's also entirely possible that there is nothing we can do to stop it. it all depends on the variables a study takes into account. I'm not a denier, and I do think there are things we should be doing to lessen our impact on the environment. Climate change is a very new science, there are a lot of factors we don't know about, and new factors come into play in each new study. It's still science, proving and disproving hypotheses is the foundation of the scientific method. Shutting down the findings of a study because you don't believe in it is as short-sighted and self-serving as creationists denying the evidence of evolution.
I actually like seeing more studies being done on this, rather than just towing the party line...
frankly...
the more studies the better.
Perhaps, but when the government of the third largest oil producer in the world finds out against scientific consenus that consuming oil is, in fact, good for you it should perhaps, just perhaps, be approached with a little bit of scepticism rather than touted as incontrovable evidence.
And in fact, the claim that global warming has stopped has been refuted again and again in the past. There is far too much noise in climate to make such a determination based on only a decade of data. At some point we'll reach a point where such a determination could be made, but my prediction is the claim will just morph to the form of "But global warming stopped in 2010!".
Further, many claims like the Norweigian ones aren't really claiming what most global-warming deniers seem to think they are. Bloomberg quotes the researchers; “The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s,” said Terje Berntsen, a professor at the University of Oslo who worked on the study. “This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”
In other words, they're saying the science is fine and the predictions were correct until 1998, but then for a reason they don't know and can't even guess, global warming suddenly stopped happening. And they're counting on this condition to last indefinitely, or at least for their lifetime, so people don't have to cut down on buring fossil fuels until they run out. But basically, they're only squabbling about the rate of global warming.
1) Not an era of the globe cooling. An era where the general population was panicked about global cooling. I stated that poorly. They were trying to use their models to prove the opposite conclusion, and looked at somewhat different factors. There are several FAR better studies than Hansen's. Plotting "temperature anomalies" is simply not enough. Also read the entirety of Hanson's study not a pundit-analysis of it from 1995-present. The people presenting his data have cherry picked some of his strongest statements. But yes the conclusions are certainly supported by his study. I can't argue with that. 2) Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes it heats things up, but we're at least trying to cut down. My point wasn't that it's not happening, as I said, it is. My point was there are a lot of factors that cannot or have not been taken into account. If we found OTHER causes that can be addressed in a more direct, cheaper, or easier method we can mitigate the climate change. For example deforestation causing issues with the carbon, nitrogen, and water cycles. If we find out this is a factor we can pass EPA regulations (I'm a social liberal/fiscal conservative so...a moderate? I'm liberal on anything green (the environment, pot laws) but the PC stuff is getting on my nerves...this was ineveitably gonna come up) to plant certain species of trees that perform best in the specific role we need. We can create provisions for protected areas (areas with certain soil/water profiles) and the like. My plankton argument is actually in favor of global warming. Due to chlorophyll phytoplankton the reflect near-infared visible light very well (like plants.) You might recognize this as the wavelength area the sun radiates most of it's energy on. A lot of plants have markings to reflect UV light. I don't know it's relevance here, but it might be important. What I KNOW is important is that plankton process more CO2 than classical plant matter. This makes sense due to the surface area of the ocean, and the small size of plankton enabling massive surface area. Ocean pollution kills them which weakens the Earth's ability to process CO2. I've spent too much time on this post already, I don't feel like grabbing sources. I don't think I've heard that disputed before though? 3) I don't think you understand how the sun works. Every 11 years it flips it's poles in what's known as the "solar maximum." This is a period in which extremely large CMEs and solar flares are most likely. We have had several X class solar flares hit us in 2012. True there seems to be less sunspot activity right now, but they seem to be FAR more energetic. Then there is a consistent increase in X-class solar flares which is consistent with the solar maximum. " The most recent solar minimum occurred in 2008, and the sun began to ramp up in January 2010, with an M-class flare (a flare that is 10 times less powerful than the largest flares, labeled X-class). The sun has continued to get more active, with the next solar maximum predicted for 2013." From http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solarmin-max.html. The people saying "this is the weakest solar cycle" have been misled by a single piece of data. It IS the weakest cycle since 1903 if you look at solar flare/sunspot/cme activity. Unfortunately solar flares aren't even remotely (well maybe remotely) important in this debate. In fact the more sunspots there are the lower the average temperature is. What IS important is that the suns irradiance increases .1+% during the solar maximum. .1% of that kind of energy seems like it could have an impact! There is probably some effect on the solar wind as well.
Also obligatory wikipedia quote:
"Correlations are now known to exist with decreases in luminosity caused by sunspots (generally - 0.3%)"
In other words you're supporting my argument. Less sunspot activity = higher luminosity and higher irradiance. Irradiance is important because the "braids" of mag
Isn't all of Antarctica technically the Northern parts?
And? Even a broken clock is right twice a day (right to ask the questions not deny climate change.)
I'm Norwegian and I can inform you otherwise. What you're describing was before islam arrived (2nd generation fanatics) and helped throw massive amounts of grit into the system, a system of homogeneous societal trust that was never built to survive massive intentional abuse and violence. Now we're as fucked as everyone else even though the numbers on paper look prettier than elsewhere (as long as you squint just right and pretend not to know this or that). The last two years it has started to become plainly visible to just about any and all Norwegians and even the mainstream media is writing about the serious deficiencies (but not yet the root causes).
Some people have even stopped caring enough about their own well-being to bluntly admit to their own "nasty" thoughts! Even among the socialists! Ten more years of this and Europeans will make Hitler look like a lackadaisical pansy (I can't decide whether that's for better or worse but it would be nice to avoid it and still get rid of all the "cultural enrichments").
Anders, is that you ?
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
I am just going to say this every time global warming is discussed from now on:
The climate change debate is a giant distraction that only serves the interests of those destroying the environment.
At first it was 'is it happening?' then it was 'are we causing it?' and now we have discussions about the magnitude and the exact quantification, about whether it is a debate or not, about whose fault it is.
Scientists have been saying for decades now 'we are destroying the environment we live in, it is unsustainable and if we don't curb this trend it will become critical.'
Finding a new way to argue about one specific element of this problem is just another way of avoiding discussing the many things we already know are a problem, and finding solutions. The debate used to be about deforestation, fish stock depletion, groundwater and ocean pollution, unsustainable farming practices etc. After the climate debate is done and settled someone will come up with a new thing to argue about, maybe radio frequency or visible light pollution, or whatever, who knows. The point is we know we are doing things wrong, we have known for ages, why are we still arguing about it?
These are the facts: The proliferation and industrialisation of the human race is having massive consequences for the earth and the environment, the changes are cumulative and usually either detrimental or unpredictable in their effects. These changes are greatly exacerbated by the unsustainable, greedy and ultimately unnecessary excesses of our consumerist society.
Does anyone want to dispute these facts? Does anyone wish to make the claim that it would be better to exactly quantify in perfect detail every aspect and facet of each of the ways in which we are causing harm before taking any steps whatsoever to rectify any of them?
Can we start doing something about it some time soon, please?
What's your problem with whale hunting when it is done in a well regulated way on a population which is large enough to sustain some predation? How is it worse than, say, deer hunting? Or keeping cows stowed up for their entire life just to be killed? Is it worse because you don't do it in your country?
Disclaimer: Am Norwegian, but I've never hunted whale. Asking question out of genuine interest.
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate.
The reason that proponents of the anthropomorphic theory are much, much more suspect is that they refuse to admit that there is more money on the side of that GW camp. It's just not money coming from private hands. This theory is widely seen as a way to increase government power through arbitrarily-applied regulation and equally arbitrary government subsidies. As much money as the oil industry has, the governments get to print money, so they have more.
Science self-corrects
Only when there is no outside bias. Given the tremendous pressure applied on the scientific community by the government and the media to comply with the AGW agenda or be labeled a pariah, and given how vitriolic and visceral the attacks on skeptics are (even going so far as to relabeling them "deniers" so as to pull their credentials as thinking individuals), there is no credible way to claim that there is no outside bias. Any claims to the contrary are down right insane.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I love how you ask the same, hackneyed "questions" that climate change deniers have been trotting out for a while now.
Read his post carefully. He is not "denying climate change" as you claim but is acknowledging that it is an established fact. What he is asking is how much of the current change is due to man-made influence. Frankly as a scientist (though not in climate change) I have the same question. The debate is not about climate change - that is a fact established so well that even recorded human history provides clear evidence. The debate is about how much of recent change is due to us burning fossil fuel, killing forests etc. and how much we should do to stop this.
My own opinion is that it seems plausible that we could be having an effect on the climate and, since we don't yet understand what that is, we should take steps to lessen our impact and research not only ways to do this but also how to better understand what impact we are having as well as understanding the natural forces which change the climate. If you want to argue for a wholesale dismantling of the economy you need to have some really hard evidence that this will prevent global warming...showing that this dismantling will be less disruptive than the global warming that would otherwise be caused would also be a bonus.
I think we all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The key question is the magnitude of the climate sensitivity to a doubling in CO2 concentration. Is it 1 degree C? 5 degrees C? Somewhere in between? I think that the "mainstream" answer right now is "We don't have enough data to tell for sure, but we're confident it is between 1 and 5 C. But we should be doing something about it right fucking now, so say it's going to be 3 C, and then work out the consequences."
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
you forgot to mention that...elvis still lives and americans didn't land on the moon.
Almost right: Americans still live, and Elvis didn't land on the moon.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
The "debate" is between evidence and special interests
That is an outrageous lie. Given how often the counter position is stated, there is no way that you are now aware of it. So you must be telling what isn't truth despite the fact that you know that it is false. That's a lie. The interests on the side of AGW theory are much better funded and have much more at stake than the skeptics. So as far as the funding is concerned, it is the skeptics who have an uphill battle. As far as calling the collected data "evidence", that is also a lie, because most of the skepticism is of the conclusions drawn from the collected data. You don't need evidence to counter a bad conclusion if you can show that the interpretation mechanisms are flawed.
specifically, giving up fossil fuels
How do you fail to grasp that this is a multi-trillion dollar endeavor and an unprecedented power grab? How do you shill for a study which might even slightly question the extremes of AGW predictions. AGW is a theory which is used to make calls for drastic dystopian change to the world. How do you possibly ask to do that without at evidence even when it is presented?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
.. you assume that global warming simply means everywhere gets proportionally hotter, all year round. It doesn't.. Some places will get colder ...
The term is Global Warming. A combination of "global" and "warming". Which obviously means warming on a global scale. That's what the '"global" means. Globally so to speak. And no cooling either, just warming. Otherwise it'd be be called "global warming and cooling". Or local warming.
The term is Global Warming. A combination of "global" and "warming". Which obviously means warming on a global scale. That's what the '"global" means. Globally so to speak.
Correct so far. You understand the meaning of two common words.
And no cooling either, just warming. Otherwise it'd be be called "global warming and cooling". Or local warming.
And there you are wrong. Because you made the mistake of thinking that the entire topic is contained in two words. It may have been for idiots like you that the term "climate change" was created.
The study referenced hasn't even been officially published. Perusing the comments, I see is religious zealotry from both sides. You don't need a college degree to understand the reasons that climates (plural) are changing and that, globally, it's getting warmer. Educate yourself.
While the public argues, science goes on. Researchers aren't wasting time addressing whether climate change exists, they are focused on understanding and predicting its effects as well as developing mitigation strategies.
Is anyone here old enough to remember the ozone hole? CFCs? Well, that problem was (mostly) fixed despite the inconvenience of finding new refrigerants. Switching energy platforms will also be inconvenient but I, personally, hope the public just gets the fuck with it and does so soon.
Disclaimer: I am an instrument technician & integrator for an atmospheric research laboratory. (read: I know what I'm talking about.)
Howdy howdy howdy
I have been to Norway (January). They could use some Global Warming.
I'm not sure about that. If, as some predict, the gulf stream breaks down due to global warming, Norway probably will actually get colder.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
This is exactly my opinion on the matter. I'm also a person who tries to be more "green" despite moderate scepticism.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
for my alternative math axioms 2+2 is infinity, therefore from now on for the rest of you 2+2 is no longer 4. Please update your math coprocessors accordingly.
Sorry, but I calculate the mean value with my math axioms, where the mean value of 4 and infinity is 4. Therefore there's no need to update my math oprocessor.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Because the whales being hunted for "research" are not only endangered, but are being fished on a commercial scale.
I'm dubious of this research as it goes against nearly every other peer reviewed paper I've read recently, which all state climate change is observably worse than predicted. I'm not sure where they get the info that temps have leveled off post-2000, but GISS, NOAA, etc, data does not show this.
The "evidence" that exists is that it has been getting a bit warmer; few people disagree with that.
A lot more than a few people disagree with that, including a significant number of people who have the authority and responsibility to actually DO something about it.
The "debate" is about what that means.
No, we KNOW what it means; we have known for decades what it means to have global temperatures get "a bit warmer". Just like we have known for decades what it means to have global temperatures get "a bit colder". The only serious debate left is what we need to do about it. Not when, because the when is NOW, but what.
Is it going to continue to get warmer?
Yes. The science is VERY solid on this point.
Is there anything we can do about it?
Yes, of course. There are many things we can do about it, but realize that even if we did everything we could, right now, the warming trend will continue for some time due to the enormous inertia of the climate system. What we would be doing right now is reducing the future peak and extent of the warming that will occur for the next few hundred to few thousand years.
Simply put -- we need to STOP putting more excess CO2 in the atmosphere (I use the term "excess" as a pre-emptive anti-stupid-response for those who would counter with trollish strawmen like "ok, let's all stop breathing, then!"). It isn't going to happen in one day, but we need to make a sincere and concerted effort to make it happen as quickly as possible. We need to start looking towards CO2 sequestration technologies to remove the excess CO2 that we've already put into the atmosphere. We need to make plans for the changes that are going to happen anyway from all the past emissions excesses. Is it a big challenge? Yes, enormous; as enormous as the problem itself. Can we do it? I think we are capable; we have mobilized ourselves as a nation for other important tasks in our history.
Should we?
Should we wash our hands after handling fecal matter and before handling our food? Should we purify drinking water? Should we rotate crops? That's the kind of common-sense question that really doesn't need to be asked, does it?
What are the costs?
Indeed. What are the costs of NOT doing something about it, and now? Are they far greater than the costs of doing something about it? Well, see, there are some really smart people who have been working on this particular question -- insurance actuaries -- and we already know their answer. People who are experts in risk management are well aware that the costs of doing nothing on climate change are catastrophic, far more so than most practical abatement and mitigation plans combined, and they are already adjusting insurance plans and premiums to take it into account. I think we should take a cue from them as to what the costs are very likely to be and make decisions to do something NOW.
There are a lot of people who like to confuse the little bit of scientific fact we have with issues of extrapolation, prediction, and policy. That is not science, it is just dishonesty.
"Little bit of scientific fact" You're kidding, right? There are LIBRARIES full of scientific research on this subject. If that is to be considered "a little bit", perhaps we should start questioning the confusion related to the "little bit of scientific fact" we have with things like gravity, biology, chemistry, evolution, etc.
One of the main principles of science involves extrapolation and prediction. That's what the scientific method is all about. How do you think we got to the moon? We didn't have previous attempts by ancient civilizations to guide us, we extrapolated and predicted. We did so smartly and very carefully, but that's what we did.
When the weatherman predicts a big, dangerous storm heading your way, do you think it is a good policy to ignore it and do nothing to prepare for it until it is blowing your house down?
Do you really consider that *dishonest*? Really?
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
The sad part is what the billions that have been squandered at the Alter of Apocalyptic Global Warming could have done if spent wisely on real ecological problems.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
If most scientists agreed that world was flat, and you were to somehow decide what to do on that information, the rational course of action would have been assuming the world is flat. The rational course of action does not depend on the physical reality but on the best available information. By definition, that information is judged to be better than its rivals. Whether a theory is better than its rivals is the pertinent question, whether it is actually true is not. "The truth" cannot be known as such, as is the "actual fact."
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
it *started* with substantial political and corporate interests framing it as certain and apocalyptic
Why do people believe this shit when it is so fucking simple to refute. Also you have got the various organizations all muddled up. The IPCC is purely for scientific review, it does not "do science", it does not have it's own scientists, nor does it pay a dime to any of the ~2500 scientists who donate their time to write the reports. Their budget is available on their site, it's a modest $5-6 million a year sourced from over 100 nations of all political colours, most of this is spent on airfares and conference rooms and salaries for 3-4 full time admin staff.
Just to be clear, the UNFCCC is where the political haggling takes place.
All of your suggestions of how they should conduct themselves before doing anything have been done to death, you simply have not been paying attention. Your sense of fair play has allowed vested interest to pull the wool over your eyes and insert FUD into your brain.
they have generally missed or skipped peer-reviewed research contradicting the apocalyptic GW scenarios for the past five years
Despite the fact you leave the word " apocalyptic" undefined could you link to what you consider the best three example of this hidden treasure trove?
Neutral parties are also smart enough to still ask what that rate of change is
Currently 0.14degC/decade, however the rate of change itself is also accelerating.
what the error bars are on those models
You mean like this?
I find it very hard to believe you are making these basic mistakes and have also researched the subject for yourself. Forget the idea that you are neutral, your not and I'm not. Question your own assumptions and use reputable sources, then come back and look at your post. When you figure out who has been misleading you will probably get very angry, I know I did. Fool me once shame on you and all that...
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't take you seriously as you A) are using an ad hominem argument in the first place, and B) can't even spell it correctly.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
There seem to be quite some studies lately showing that temperate increase "had leveld off". E.g. German Sueddeutsche Zeitung recently cited an English Institute with such a study.
Criticism of other climate scientist seems to be that the used intervall is too short to make any statements on speed of change, especially since 1998 had been an extremely hot year globally due to El Nino (see second page of above article). Longer term trends seem to be steady at 0.16 C per decade. So don't get your hopes too high on being able to continue driving SUVs along the coastline.
You mean the anthropogenic theory. Unless you mean a theory which claims the climate doesn't like what we do and therefore punishes us with more heat. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Because the whales being hunted for "research" are not only endangered, but are being fished on a commercial scale.
That's Japan. It's in Asia, not in Europe, you know. I specifically said "in a well regulated way on a population which is large enough". Try answering the question.
To be specific, the quota for Norwegian whale hunting has been between 500 and 1000 whales per year for the last decades. This is of a species called "common mink whale", estimated global population 184 000 individuals, being cited as "of least concern" on the IUCN Red List for endangered species. That's the same "endangeredness" category as Alaska Moose. Should we stop hunting that as well?
And regarding the temperatures leveling off post-2000, that's fairly easy to find data for (GIYF): here's a plot showing the global temperature anomaly from Hadley data, NOAA data and NASA data. All are roughly flat for the ten years following 2000.
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
Norway != Japan
Just some nitpicks.
Fourier died in 1830, he predicted the properties of C02 in 1824 while developing spectroscopy.
Tyndal confirmed the prediction by experiment in the 1850's
The first mention of AGW was in 1896 by a guy called Arrhenius, he woefully underestimate the growth in emissions and estimated it would take 3000yrs for CO2 to double.
Arrhenius was largely ignored for 50yrs, it was believed that the spectrum of H2O overlapped and overwhelmed that of CO2. The "problem" during those 50yrs was explaining the ice ages.
In the 1950's work on heat seeking missiles improved spectroscopes to the point it could be shown that the two spectra were interleaved not overlapped.
In 1958 the national academies first warned the US government that CO2 was warming the earth, their confidence in that warning has done nothing but strengthen since that time.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Two weeks ago we had massive fires across about a quarter of the continent.
But that's alright because the fires are being put out by a cyclone/rain depression.
We're in Brisbane surrounded by flooding which has gone from the top of the cape
and is now going down into N.S.W.
For you small minded people that's over 3000 Km in a week.
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/synoptic_col.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/viewer/index.shtml
and it's still going down the coast probably run out to sea tomorrow
down N.S.W. south coast, but it's still pissing down here.
If you have your head where the sun don't shine,
I don't expect you will notice the drastic weather.
The only good thing about global warming is the surf is only going to get better.
Cyclone swells.
Go well
Even the last IPCC report didn't reach that conclusion.
Well duh, the IPCC do not provide any economic calculations or conclusions. They provide the best available reports on what is happening and what the trends are doing, they then advise policy makers what problems are likely to occur and what can be done to mitigate or avoid them.
Furthermore, all those studies have methodological errors.
So where are the studies refuting the likes of Stern, the IMF, and other hard nosed bean counters?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
So if the study goes in line with my beliefs, then it's ok. No? The point really is that this days anyone has a study that fits his (her) agenda. That the temperatures are going up is a fact. But no interpretation or hypothesis is a fact yet. In any case, ask a geologist when the earth has been a isothermal process. And I don't buy that a pre-human nirvana was harmed by the evil industrial civilization, like some luddist and gnostics preach us.
is actual fact independent of scientific consensus?
The problem with this common question is that way too many people do not understand what the word "fact" means in a scientific context. Outside of axiomatic systems we don't have any "facts", we only have observations, also note that the fundamental axioms of mathematics are assumptions agreed by "consensus", not fact.
"Scientific consensus" is just the modern term for what Karl Popper called "the republic of science". It means that no single authority/observation/calculation has the strength of "scientific fact" (or "well established science" if you prefer). At no point in the process of strengthening a "scientific fact" does it become "actual fact", but that's ok because we do not pursue science as a path to absolute truths, we pursue it because of its track record of utility to mankind (and the 'fact' that humans are more curious than the proverbial cat).
As for the "flat world" canard, the well known skeptic Asimov had something to say about that in his short essay The relativity of wrong.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
.. you assume that global warming simply means everywhere gets proportionally hotter, all year round. It doesn't.. Some places will get colder ...
The term is Global Warming. A combination of "global" and "warming". Which obviously means warming on a global scale. That's what the '"global" means. Globally so to speak. And no cooling either, just warming. Otherwise it'd be be called "global warming and cooling". Or local warming.
That fallacy is why the scientific community was forced to start using "climate change" instead of global warming. Joe Public just can't (or refuse to) grasp the concept of averages.
Yes, it means warming on a global scale. But the global scale means the *average* goes up. There may be areas that get cooler, but they are outweighed by the number of areas that get warmer.
Put it in computer terms (only to illustrate the "global scale" fallacy, not how global warming happens): say your CPU has 8 logical cores. All 8 cores are being used moderately by a multithreaded process, but you suspend it when you start running a more demanding process that only uses 6 cores. A monitoring tool will note that 2 cores cool off but the other six get much warmer. The tool's ninth temperature reading, the average of all cores, will obviously report that the temperature of the whole CPU has gone up.
What's your problem with whale hunting when it is done in a well regulated way on a population which is large enough to sustain some predation?
Population of whales was more than an order of magnitude (two, perhaps? two and a half) greater a century ago, and population of humans was an order of magnitude smaller, and it *still* didn't save the whales. That "some predation" would have to be very tiny indeed nowadays.
I'd be for absolute ban until the population of whales reaches at least pre-1900 levels. Hunting whales now would be like eating the seeds you have to sow for the next year!
Ezekiel 23:20
Except that I didn't propose ANY particular scheme, hare-brained or otherwise. That wasn't the point of the argument. So go prop up your strawman and sodomize it somewhere else.
You are correct that reason and critical thinking are taking over and dominating the discussion now, and they should be. Go figure. Too bad you failed to participate in any meaningful capacity, but thanks for outing yourself as someone who isn't interested in such in the first place; it is most appreciated. :)
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
it's a question of "how bad will it become".
The answer is "it depends on what we do now".
I'm tempted to say that what will happen is that emissions will be cut through heavy-handed government interference, global warming won't be so bad after the cuts, and we'll have people saying that there was never a problem in the first place. Much like how in 2000 the y2k deniers were claiming that there was never a y2k problem despite the millions of dollars and man-hours going into making sure there wasn't a y2k problem (and yet I was still getting groceries marked "Best By 19100")
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Accidentally moderated redundant, mouse playing up. Post to undo.
Since everyone sees fit to purposely misinterpret my posts I'm going to preface this. I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. I ALSO BELIEVE IN GRAVITY. BUT Our understanding of gravity is actually extremely flawed. Everyone on here knows this. Sure we know it's a thing, but there are a lot of grey areas. Dark matter and WIMPs ring a bell? And that's just scratching the surface. At a quantum level gravity is still extremely unknown. Also with evolution there are some somewhat serious questions. The only really "interesting" question is the timescale issue. When dating something carbon-14 dating produces a result that sometimes wildly varies from uranium:thorium ratios. Apparently it can be as far off as 3500 years: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html. I think uranium's decay rate is something ridiculous, and there are a bunch of different ones to use. I don't have the patience to wade through all the fundamentalist garbage to find more valid sources and problems. Anyways I'm just saying even things are practically scientific law have a little mystery left in them. That's the cool thing about science! You find out something is a little bit broken, you tweak it a little, check out the results, rinse, repeat. While pursuing those questions we (the human race I'm not a scientist) tend to stumble across really weird things that lead to more questions or discoveries. Like cellphones being a result of black hole research. Even the most esoteric seemingly asinine questions can have dramatic far-reaching consequences.
Because the whales being hunted for "research" are not only endangered
They are not endangered. In fact, the scientific consensus, also in the IWC, is that culling the population is the rational thing to do. Sadly, the political wing of the IWC is not going to allow whaling until we can walk from Norway to New York on the backs of whales.
Hunting whales now would be like eating the seeds you have to sow for the next year
That's like saying we have to stop eating cows since the White Rhino is threatened by extinction. There is no such thing as "whales" that are either threatened or not threatened. There are large numbers of whale species, some which are still far too low in numbers, and other who have re-bounded nicely and of which hunting should take place. If sustainability is what we are looking for. We created an un-balance, by not managing the re-bound, we'll do even more damage. The Minke, for example, competes for resources with species of whale that are actually threatened by extinction. We created the imbalance, now we have to manage the re-bound. That means culling the ones that re-bound the fastest.
Oh, and don't worry about the future. People are never going to be big whale eaters again. Due to the toxicity, eating only moderate amounts of whale meat once every blue moon is a health risk.
I feel sorry for you that you react so violently to someone pointing out that your religion is based on nonsense. Now go play with the rest of the jihadists.
Climate change simply happens
Yes, and Jesus simply rose from the dead. I mean, could you get more religious?
The saddest part of the AGW lunatic lobby (which is not the same as the serious scientists researching Climate Change) is that they have made "skeptic" a bad word. The only people who view skepticism as bad are religious nuts.
There is always debate welcome to science.
What does the age of a model have to do with anything? Why would you expect a model from the 1970's to have "realized concrete predictions" more than a newer model? They all can be run to cover any time period. Wouldn't you expect as time goes on that models would get better, more refined and we'd be able to throw more computing power at them?
All those other things you mention have been and are being studied by scientists. They are not being ignored by climate scientists but there has to be a plausible link for them to take it into account. Climate scientists certainly factor in changes in solar output and large volcanic eruptions already. They point to deforestation, particularly burning as a factor in CO2 levels. So scientists are incorporating those and other things into the theory as they become more known and so far none of them has been shown to be anything more than a vernier dial compared to the "Human caused emissions of CO2 are the major factor in global warming." dial. Debate is fine but it has to be scientifically based.
I wouldn't accuse the scientists of Norway's research council of fabricating data or anything, but they can't help but have a strong bias.
Problem with your logic is that it runs counter to observable facts. Norway has a very, very strong AGW leaning. Politicians, people in general etc. We have an ex-prime minister who said that AGW skeptics are evil (a word right out of religious debate). So, looking at what is the actual mindset of Norwegian scientists, you are dead wrong.
Funny enough, even if Norway was concerned with the market for its petroleum products in the future, they'd still probably be advocating the reduced use of oil as a fuel. Even if we stop burning oil tomorrow, the market for petroleum based products is going to rise significantly in the years to come. Norway wins out, whether we go all electrical and sustainable or not. In fact, more so if we do.
This is not to cast aspersions on the Norwegian researchers who wrote this study - I have no idea whether they receive funding from petro interests
They do not. Question answered.
"This study was sponsored by the... Norwegian Orange Growers Council?"
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
The problem with your argument is that you assume that global warming simply means everywhere gets proportionally hotter, all year round. It doesn't.
I think a bit more nuance is necessary here. Everywhere on the surface of Earth would experience some degree of warming from the AGW effect. It really is a universal heating effect at the surface of the Earth. Not everywhere may experience net warming as a result due to secondary climate effects which cool the area more than AGW heats it up.
This is why I think terms like "climate change" are inherently very deceptive.
As to your claim that everywhere will experience more extreme weather events, it's worth noting that is an opinion not based on fact. To prove evidence for such an assertion, one needs a lot more statistical evidence than has been gathered to date.
As to your claim that the UK will cool down due to the shutdown of the Gulf Stream, this is based on the assumption that a lot of low salinity surface water will come from the Arctic Ocean. We haven't established that degree of melting nor considered how much of such low salinity water may escape through the Bering Strait (obstruction of which appears to be the big driver of geologically recent glaciation).
There might even be simple mechanical means for preventing such climate issues such as an array of floating buoys mechanically mixing sea water from different depths.
I think the primary effect would be to push atmosphere up about a hundred meters or so. In a marginal environment like Mt. Everest it probably would save lives on occasion from oxygen deprivation.
What a shame. I'm freezing here and no warming ? Come on people. Global warming was my last hope !!!
JAM
I still hope that the worst case scenario(a 4 degree rise) will be the "working scenario" for the solutions that will be used.
Would you mind explaining that? I guess my concern here is that our solutions for AGW seem to be unusually expensive given the problem. I guess the problem here is that the temperature sensitivity of carbon dioxide is inversely proportional to time. And the cost of a solution is inversely proportiona; to the inverse of the exponential of the time over which it has to be implemented (this is "time-value"). One gets a superexponential relationship between temperature sensitivity and the cost of solutions to that temperature sensitivity.
It doesn't show up on short time frames, a solution that is paid for in two weeks costs pretty much the same as one paid for in one week. But over long time frames, it's quite relevant. For example, harm that occurs in 50 years is going to be somewhere around three times as costly in inflation adjusted money as if it happened in 100 years (my assumption here is that money in hand today is about 2% more valuable than that same money, adjusted for inflation in a year's time). Similarly, if it happens in 100 years instead of 200 years, that's a factor of ten roughly in cost difference just from the difference in time.
I'd rather have a warmer planet because we failed to do something than a cooling (iceball) planet because we mis-corrected.
There really is no danger of that happening unless the Sun does something it's never been know to do before. According to a study released a couple of years ago we've already upped the CO2 level enough to prevent the next glaciation from happening.
Every single nature program on TV at least once claims some "huge problem" (coral dying, amount of rain increasing or decreasing, species die or spread[1], ...) due to global warming. But this far the warming has been so small that is is hugely overwhelmed by random fluctuations so the *major* cause for the "huge problem" cannot be global warming - as of now. Still as a fact they say "due to GW huge problem". There likely are some problems *due to GW* in 100 years, but not today.
This kind of dishonesty must be stopped. It does a big disservice for you. For example I don't give a shit about GW as I am confident "cheaper to mitigate" actually means "more subsidies" to you, i.e. more taxes to me.
Besides, during my remaining life the GW won't have any effect on my daily life. None whatsoever.
[1] Somehow always those spreading are "harmfull" and those dying are "cute". Without a single exception (I know there are, but they are never mentioned).
Are you really claiming there is no economic interest in the "alternatives"? They see an immense amount of subsidies to mitigate the "pain". That is why they are willing to delude themselves at believing GW is going to kill us all. Unless of course we pay the ransom ... I mean subsidies to save the Earth as we know it.
This is why you never see a single advantage of the GW mentioned anywhere. Are you really claiming there is no advantages? Or that the advantages are so small as to be totally ignored?
I'd like to say something.
I don't care.
I don't care if the globe is getting warmer or colder, I don't care if humans caused it, I don't care if CO2 forcing is greater or lesser than guessed, I don't CARE.
I want enough solar panels on my roof to power my whole house. You know why? Because I want to be energy independent. REAL energy independence. Not this fake "independence" they talk about when they're talking about countries. Real independence, free of privatized utility companies who will jack up rates whenever they can beg, borrow, or bribe a public utilities commission into letting them do it.
And here's the worst part of the whole mess: the technology required is available, right now. It's not some lab bench curiosity. It's off the shelf. Real, manufactureable, see it, touch it, lick it if you want, carry it home hardware. The only problem is the high cost per watt.
They tell me that cost is dropping. Call me when it reaches parity (or just a little more) with what I pay now.
Until then, SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT THE CLIMATE.
Age is very important when taking into account predictions. If the period of time is too small it could just be a coincidence. Sample size is important in any scientific study is it not? I'm not saying that invalidates results I'm just saying I'd feel they were more concrete over 30-100 years. Primarily since in geography and climate science the time scales are at least 100s of thousands of years if not millions. If you pulled an arbitrary 30 years out of the ice age, or the heating period after...well...you get the idea. There are several extremely long periods of cooling and warming that have taken place on the earth. I have even heard the theory (I think it's wrong) that global warming killed the dinosaurs. In my view (MY personal view) there is no way 10 years of data could reach a "concrete" conclusion. It can reach a fairly well-supported conclusion, but it's just not enough time to say entirely. Hell that's not even an entire solar cycle! You're right the models have probably gotten better, but 10 years of data just isn't enough for even a 3 sigma standard of evidence. There ARE models from the 70s, but none of the predictions are perfect, or near-perfect. They are in the ballpark. As I said I believe (I said BELIEVE) that this is because they were trying to prove "global cooling" at the time. I remember watching the debates, and being bored to death as a child. Of course they are incorporating those things into their models. I'm not the only one to have those thoughts. I'm sure each of those thoughts was derived of, if not entirely of something said by someone else. It's pretty rare to have a "truly original" thought in human society I believe. I'm not saying you're wrong. However I would need to see a link to these studies before I'm convinced. That being said I can definitely be convinced. I believe my points were scientifically supported. I did after all have fairly good sources for any of my points yes? I was just trying to point out how ridiculous the people that say there "isn't even a debate" are. That concept in *anything* is entirely contrary to the scientific method. What it really comes down to is that I don't like people being dismissive about anything. I'll listen to an "ancient astronaut" theory all day, and I won't outright dismiss it. Sure it's pretty crazy, and it's probably not true, but why not at least listen to the evidence? That was my whole point. People kept going on about how I had an agenda and was some kind of climate change denialist nutjob, so I had to keep going on and on.
Again, what does the age of anything have to do with it? What makes you think a 10 year old climate model is limited to 10 years of data? Climate models can be fed with data of any age and they'll calculate based on what you give them and run as long as you let them go. Typical climate model runs are for periods of 100 years or so (accomplished in about 1 month of model run time). And let's be clear, climate models are never fed temperature data except maybe as a starting point, that is part of their output. What they are fed is things like changes in insolation, CO2 levels, the occasional major volcanic eruption, ENSO data etc. I'm just confused that you think age has anything to do with it.
The "global cooling" myth needs to die. A search of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 found 44 papers on global warming and only 7 papers on global cooling. The cooling papers got a lot of publicity when Time and Newsweek used them as cover stories but they were never the mainstream view. At least a couple of the cooling papers were examining what could happen if humans continued increasing the level of aerosols and SO2 at the rate they were up to that time. Continuing increase would have caused more cooling. Of course we implemented pollution controls and pretty much stopped that problem although it's growing again because of the industrialization of SE Asia. I was in my 20's back then and I don't remember any televised debates. Maybe on PBS I suppose.
I'm happy to have a debate as long as it's done on a scientific basis. But to debate things scientists have already examined and come to conclusions on is pointless unless you have new information. You owe it to the person you're debating to be knowledgeable about subject you are debating including the current research in the field.
The simple fact that anyone who produces evidence to the contrary is automatically suspect is perhaps THE biggest problem with the entire climate change debate.
That's not the problem it's the anti global warming people latching onto any study that supports their claims and focuses on it and assumes all other studies are biased. Other studies are showing last year was a full degree warmer than previous records so who is right? I see evidence on the news practically every night. Not because I'm cherry picking but because I've been around more than a half a century and I've never seen weather like this. Also remember the real issue isn't warming it's more radical weather. Warming deniers always pick unseasonably cold days to claim as proof warming is a hoax ignoring that the science talks averages and radical shifts so cold weather is part of the pattern. We had pipes freezing for the better part of a week here in Phoenix but before that it was unseasonably warm. Weather tends to be like a rubber ban and warm weather can result in a sudden cooling in the winter. The real point is I've read multiple articles on warming trends worldwide literally from Antarctica to the North Pole and everywhere in between and they all show a warming trend. Droughts to dying corals to vanishing glaciers. Collapsing ice flows that scientists literally thought were impossible should give everyone pause. I recently saw a Nova episode on Greenland glaciers that was jaw dropping. The amount and form of the melts was shocking. The experts all appear to be stunned by what they are seeing so my question is if the experts are shocked and concerned then why aren't the deniers? FYI There are slowly "scientists" coming out against global warming. Most are backed by conservatives and many by the Koch brothers themselves. If the Koch brothers pay for the education of a person in climate science and that person went in believing it's all a hoax then came out of college claiming it's all a hoax then I think it's reasonable to call that person biased. The goal of people like the Koch brothers is keep doubt alive to avoid regulations that will decrease their profits.
Obviously. This isn't the only mistype in my post, btw.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I don't know, could it be I'm against whaling because it involves the wholesale slaughter of the largest brained animal on the planet, an animal with a complex language, an animal with an extended lifespan and race memory and almost certainly sentience? I dunno, I'd say that puts it above a deer, an animal just only slightly more consciousness than a rutabaga. See, I'm good with agriculture, have no problem with utilizing life on the planet to sustain our life. That said, we have a bunch of close primate relatives, whose intelligence demands we consider them as having every bit as much right to be here as we have. In fact there are a significant number of animals, certain parrots and crows, higher primates, cephalopods, cetaceans and a smattering of other critters who've demonstrated by remarkable intelligence, that we should be showing these creatures some respect and perhaps as we evolve ourselves, help them reach their own escape velocity as well. Of course you could just turn them all into dog food. Its not like we have any formal obligation to preserve the miracle of sentience in other species... it just makes us seems like a bunch of self absorbed, misanthropic, unevolved, evil monkeys, but who cares, if we blow the whole damn thing up, or burn it all down, as long as we get ours, screw the universe... right?
Merely "cutting" of carbon emissions isn't going to change anything significant, it's just going to delay things by a few years. To stop CO2 growth, all major industrialized nations have to become carbon neutral. The only way to do that with today's technologies is to switch to nuclear on a grand scale. That doesn't require "government interference", it requires less government interference.
But it does. Go look at it.
Have a look here, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
Methodological errors include the use of incorrect discounting rates, ignoring technological uncertainties, ignoring the feedback of climate change on growth, and ignoring opportunity costs. And Stern's conclusion that CO2 levels can be stablized at an annual cost of (only) 1% GDP doesn't even make sense.
Reading isn't your strong point either: "but scientifically and economically illiterate blow-hards like you are dominating the discussion".
Apparently, thinking and writing aren't your strong points. Try reading your own words a few times; maybe their ambiguity will sink in. Probably not, though.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
I'll agree with most of what you say as long as you don't try to take away my intelligent, tasty bacon.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Yes, we can all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But we don't all agree on it's effects. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and it absorbs the same spectrum as CO2 and is much more prevalent. There are several basic questions still not answered about how the entire process works. For instance, how long does the CO2 hold any radiation it absorbs vs how long water holds it? How much radiation does the CO2 absorb given the variable content of water vapor in our atmosphere? There are many others too, and the worst part about this whole debate is that the UN IPCC got involved and politicized it. So now the scientists are caught in the middle of a political war, and instead of information flowing freely, they're bottling it up.
Cold or hot, you won't get much corn out of sand, rock, or peat bog.
Peat bogs should be pretty good for farming actually. Just drain them first. Lot of farm land in the US used to be wetlands.
And you just entered stage 1 scientism.
Science concludes global warming is occuring.... therefore disagreeing with government policies on how to combat at make you anti-science.
Study shows transfats are bad for your health.... therefore if you disagree with banning transfats you are anti-science.
Study shows wearing bicycle helmets reduces head injuries while cycling... therefore being against mandatory bicycle helmets makes you anti-science. ....
OK, so when do we get our Freon back?
Wait, you're dismissing it because it's from Norway? First of all, two of the institutes which are most associated with the theory of anthropogenic global warming are GISS, and UEA CRU. The first is in the US funded by the government, and you cannot tell me that the US administrations are all anti-oil greenies. The other is in the UK, which *gasp* is also an oil producer. Don't tar the Norwegians with your prejudices.
Second, read the damn paper. It doesn't say that there isn't warming. It doesn't claim that there's no anthropogenic effect. It merely attempts to explain something that's bothered the hell out of the CC research community for the last decade - why is it not still warming? Their conclusion is that the forcings in the model overestimated climate sensitivity so we have a bit more time before it's catastrophic (if you believe it will be).
So, this a paper which tries to explain something that is a known problem without actually challenging anything about the underlying theories. And you're attacking it because of your mental problems which see conspiracies everywhere? One of those shadows behind your door or maybe the monster under your bed should whisper the answer to this in your ear - who makes and runs all the green technolgies and generators that will replace the carbon spewing monstrosities we have today? You'd find some familair names and logos in there.
Rational thought is the only true freedom
I'll take the opinion of the climate scientists rather than some random person off the internet, thanks.
Paragraphs, what the fuck are they for.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
For instance, how long does the CO2 hold any radiation it absorbs vs how long water holds it?
What?
How much radiation does the CO2 absorb given the variable content of water vapor in our atmosphere?
Huh?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Norway and Sweden are very different; some conflicts even exist between the two. Norway has a bigger territory, and has control over all the areas where there are natural resources. Norway has a much smaller population. Sweden has a more vibrant society and prettier girls. Norway is much more rich thanks to all the oil.
If all those things are true, then Sweden needs a new government to properly exploit the rich natural resources you mentioned.
Personally, I'd say that quality of life went down when we invented farming. Our industrial civilization has generally raised it, but has other large effects on the world.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Do you not understand the basic principle of how CO2 is supposed to work? Sunlight comes down, strikes earth. Some is reflected, some is absorbed. The portion that is absorbed is radiated upwards as heat (infrared). CO2 and water vapor both absorb this reflected radiation, and then in turn re-radiate the energy, again in the infrared. Only this time, it radiates it in all directions, not just up. Thus, much of the original infrared that was radiating up, is diverted back down by CO2 and water vapor. That's the principle. However, water vapor has a much greater heat capacity than CO2. What hasn't been determined is how much radiation CO2 is actually able to absorb given the prevalence of water molecules in our atmosphere, and how quickly is it re-radiated when compared to water molecules re-radiating. And while your video is quite accurate in terms of what we're doing wrong to mitigate the situation, it doesn't address the fact that the basic mechanism of CO2 in our atmosphere isn't completely understood yet.
The resources are in the North and Norwegian Seas. Sweden has no coasts there.
Do you have lots of peat bogs? Because here in South Africa we've got very few wetlands. We've got a few deserts which will get bigger. No tundra, not much rain forest. So, the basic point seems to be "the already hot parts of the Earth will just have to starve, and those of us in the temperate latitudes will be alright Jack". Short sighted,immoral, as well as flat out wrong.
And I see no actual disagreement with my point. Just some pointless whining. As to South Africa, you're going to lose more land to bad farming practices than you will to AGW. Maybe you ought to work on the bigger, more important problems first.
It will take hundreds of years to make the peat bogs fertile enough to replace even a part of what is lost by AGW.
That hasn't been true in practice. There have been similar bogs throughout the US, for example, and they were drained and farmed much quicker than that, usually well within a human lifetime.
Also, we actually have good farming practices in South Africa, in fact we have some of the most sophisticated agricultural systems in the world. Of course someone as ignorant as you wouldn't know that, would you?
You mean, you used to. The desertification problem you allude to is an indication that things have changed.
Our problem is that much of our farming is in or near semi arid areas which will grow. Wine farming is already being affected, areas that have provided some of the best wines in the world are now becoming too hot to produce quality, and the winelands are, in essence moving, towards the coastal areas with cool breezes. But even that won't last long. It's possible the 300 year old wine industry in our country will not last out the century.
It's also possible that your claims are based on a few decades of data that don't properly reflect how climate is actually going to change.
But let's suppose you're correct here. You've already mentioned the adaption-based solution. Move the vineyards to where they are still producing quality grapes. If that's no longer in South Africa for some reason, then grow something else.
Now take your sneering ignorance, and shove it.
Oops, guess I didn't follow orders this time. Maybe you'll have better luck making silly demands some other time.
There was a right to be here.
It's just that "Here" is Pangaea...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
you are confused, we are talking of alleged "overwelming evidence" of global climate change
1) Confirmation bias, confirmation bias, confirmation bias. It is more than enough grounds to invalidate conclusions of "predictions" if they can even be called that. You notice the word pre in the word predictions? It means BEFORE. Of course the conclusions of a '08 model are going to be right for '99 they knew what was going to happen! No matter what you say about a computer being "unbiased" a human wrote the formulas based on bias. In psychology studies a psychologist can't even administer the study to make up for confirmation bias. You can't predict things that have already happened. Period. 2) There were several debates broadcast in CBS in '75 I remember my father calling them "stupid hippies" rather vividly. The data was both heavily flawed, and heavily biased. As a 15 year old the paper in time (Idk about newsweek, we were forced to read time in class) was excessively biased. 3) You obviously aren't studying or working in a scientific field. There is no such thing as a "true" conclusion. If you can name 1 theory that hasn't radically evolved since becoming "accepted" much less since inception I'll be extremely impressed! 4) If you don't think I'm knowledgeable on the subject I encourage you to find the post in this thread written by me which talks about an increase in irradiance/luminosity in the solar maximum. It also mentions the reflectivity of algae and plant matter (in the near-infared visible light spectrum IE where the sun radiates most of it's energy) which seems important. Every aspect of our environmental impact is important in this. It is FAR more than just an emissions problem! 5) What about the article recently posted here talking a bout cities affecting temperature for 1000+ miles? I didn't even talk about that and my arguments are pretty strong. Calling me unscientific is what's known as a "claim" in debate. You're missing both the "warrant" (how am I unscientific) and the impact (why that matters) in your response. You're being dismissive, and that is almost never positive.
I swear to Allah this had formatting until I hit submit :(. I don't know why it keeps taking away my paragraphs. Still that's a pretty scientifically supported post with valid sources is it not?
Oh and the post I was referring to is here: slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3411745&cid=42709147
Yes. The science is VERY solid on this point.
I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten me. My understanding is that groups of scientists argue for either side, albeit with a majority on the it's happening side.
There are accusations of incomplete data, data not going back far enough and flawed models that have changed numerous times. What makes the science solid?
Why should I not still be on the fence?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
So you think they build the results into the models but you don't really present any evidence other than saying humans are always biased. That may be true but how do we get any science done if it's not possible to overcome that? What makes you think climate scientists are worse than any other scientists? Maybe you have some confirmation bias of your own.
Most models do a decent job, better than any other method so far. Here is a comparison of model results to observations (the 2012 update will be out shortly). Here is a discussion of Hansen's 1981 results compared to observations. As you can see it actually underestimates what has been observed and what later models project.
Yes, you can't predict things that have already happened but you can certainly start any model's run at any point in time and let it run then compare the results to the observations. The only thing you would need to feed them is the observed changes in CO2 and other greenhouse gases (except water vapor which is a feedback of temperature changes and built into the models), changes in solar radiation and major volcanic eruptions. The output would be mostly temperatures.
My point about the global cooling thing still stands, far more scientists were looking at global warming even back then.
I am a computer programmer/sys admin but I took through 200 level courses and some 300 level courses in college for physics, chemistry and biology. Science is something I've had a lifelong interest in and I think I know a thing or two about how to conduct it. Science is always subject to revision pending new results but someone has to come up with the new results first. If climate scientist are so biased that their results are wrong it shouldn't be that hard to come up with those new results but no one has so far.
Einstein overturned Newtonian physics but didn't prove them wrong, just a special case of the Einsteinian universe.
I read that other post and debated responding. I'll just say you bring up a lot of things like deforestation that scientist are not ignoring. It looks to me like you haven't read deeply enough in the literature to know what they've already covered on those subjects. One error you made is that the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field flips at the solar minimum, not the maximum. Also, sunspots, total solar irradiance and solar flares all track together fairly well. You seem to be saying that maximum luminosity occurs when the sunspot count is lowest. That doesn't give me confidence in the rest of what you say.
On the reflectivity of plants, that is easily measured with a spectroscope and it has been. Another thing that has not been ignored. In fact they measure the spectrum of the incoming solar radiation in orbit and at the surface and the outgoing radiation at the surface and from orbit. All of that constantly to see how it's changing.
I saw the article about cities downwind temperature effects but from what I've read so far it appears that it is at best a minor factor in the overall equation and is unlikely to overturn the larger picture.
I don't think I said you were unscientific specifically and apologize if you think I did. But as I have pointed out you've said a lot of things that don't fit well with what I know about the subject. I'll continue to believe what climate scientists say until someone comes up with a better explanation and I don't think they are ignoring things because they don't fit with their narrative. Time will certainly tell whether they are right or not but so far they've done pretty well.
Still that's a pretty scientifically supported post with valid sources is it not?
Fuck knopws. It's unreadable.
Seems to be full of irellevant shit about the sun, which we know is not the cause of the trend.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Ah ok, my bad. Going from memory there. What was the 1870s era stuff about? Maybe it was some other experiments?
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.