Slashdot Mirror
Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty
An anonymous reader writes "A study out of McGill University sought to examine historical temperature data going back 500 years in order to determine the likelihood that global warming was caused by natural fluctuations in the earth's climate. The study concluded there was less than a 1% chance the warming could be attributed to simple fluctuations. 'The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales. For the industrial era, Lovejoy's analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. ... His study [also] predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. That range is more precise than – but in line with — the IPCC's prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.'"
Well, petro-bot has responded...
I think I'm going to create a theory that states if you point a laser pointer at space for a long enough period of time that it will cause more meteors to hit the earth.
Then when the rate of meteorites hitting the earth goes up I'm going to claim my theory was apparently correct.
I'm going to purposely ignore the reality that the meteorite rate could also be due to some other root cause because I need to convince people that meteorites are going to kill all of us and the planet if we don't do something about it.
I just hope that no one comes along who predicts that the rate of meteorite impacts will be just like what I predicted but will explain that the rate has nothing to do with any influence on my part but rather the rate increased simply because of a natural phenomenon. I should be safe though. The media will prefer the fear aspect of my theory, the progressives will be able to use my theory to impose unprecedented levels of control on citizens of my country to better align with other countries that are already moving in this direction of controlling cow flatulence, vehicle flatulence, house flatulence, etc. and evil corporations, which liberals hate when republicans protect them, will be able to make billions off this fake theory, which will make liberals and progressives who receive bribes and donations from the same evil corporations will become rich off it as they continue lying to people that my theory is true.
My theory will be the excuse people need who believe in total control by government. And I'll get rich by receiving money from these my own government and others to continue lying about my data and interpretations in order to counter valid claims my theory has been proven false.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Eh that's arguable, there are some approaches to paleo-climate that work fairly well, as long as their limitations are understood.
But 500 years? Are you freaking kidding me?
Nowhere near long enough to hold the weight attached. If this were science rather than religion their reviewers would have ripped them apart. But these days it seems like as long as you mouth the orthodox AGW litany no further questions are permitted.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Yep. Garbage in, garbage out. Models are like maps, they are not the territory. Since these "scientists" want me to ignore their 4.5 billion years of climate change and accept their area of focus that would not even qualify as a sliver of that time frame. They are just promoting pseudo-science. I to can smell a scam.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Pollution is harmful. So you BASTARDS that have been trying to reduce CO2 (which plants use as food!!) have diverted vast funds of money that might have gone have gone into reducing real and meaningful pollution.
Many species have died and will die because of your idiocy.
Those of us who ACTUALLY care about the environment saw Global Warming as the political sham it always was, funneling money into lining the pockets of many politically connected people and industries. Those of us who care have seen the rusted wind farms of Hawaii and California from decades past, and shake our heads as the cycle of meaningless and environmentally damaging forms of alternative energy comes around for another pass..
But please, do go on posing as if you care what happens to the Earth while you block support for things like nuclear reactors.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's not science. The Scientific method requires that observations can be independently reproduced and that a hypothesis is falsifiable.
Unless you have a time machine, the proxies can not be independently verified and the only change in their outcome can come from altering the observers preferences (changing methods).
The hypothesis itself cannot be falsified because no human has any data or knowledge of the Earth prior to humans being here. Any reconstructed data is second-hand, the equivalent of hearsay in law.
Then figure out how you're going to generate all that while remaining carbon free. Try wind, but you probably won't have a bird left alive in the whole country.
Wind doesn't kill that many birds. I've been to multiple wind farms in multiple countries and have not seen piles of dead birds at the foot of the turbines. It just doesn't happen. It may have happened for some wind farm placed in a migration path, but it doesn't happen in the manner currently asserted by the green-haters.
Solar? How long will it take to ramp that up, and at what cost?
The longer we wait, the longer it will take. So we should start sooner rather than later. Distributed PV is the best solution, with night storage via hydro, kinetic, thermal or chemical batteries (probably in that order).
keep researching geothermal...
Ah, the guy that wants his pet theory to be the only one. It's been researched. It's only viable for areas with active surface thermal (Iceland, and areas with hot springs). It will *never* be viable in arbitrary areas. That's why there isn't that much research into it. You want to see your $300 electric bill got to $3000 and still have rolling blackouts? Try geothermal.
Learn to love Alaska