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.
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!
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
due to solar and (lack of) el nino cycles coinciding. Its quite temporary and we're already coming out of it.
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~
My god those scientists must be idiots. Thank the very same god we've got Hentes to clear things up for us!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Study in a nutshell:
"By taking in account a best case scenario, our number just barely miss the 2.0-4.0 increase prediction by 0.1 degree. We agree with the fact that global warming is man made and happening but we think that numbers should be lower then expected if best case criteria are met".
[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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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."
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!
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.
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.