Sun May Be Warming Both Earth and Mars 1050
MCraigW writes "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes might have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause. Mars, it appears, has also been experiencing milder temperatures in recent years. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide 'ice caps' near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."
Well Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
CO2 least of my worries (Score:4, Insightful)
Under the guise of "global warming isn't real"
Thanks a lot.
We need clean nuclear power ASAP charging our electric cars, not driving around cancer fumers.
Re:Well Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's clearly a gross oversimplification. For starters, the Earth has its own geothermal heat, and without greenhouse gases, the sun's heat would be reflected back out into space, leaving the planet quite cold. The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere clearly does warm the Earth. Nobody seriously debates that. The Earth has also been getting warmer in recent years. Nobody really debates that either. The only question still open for debate is whether humans are the primary cause of the increase in temperature.
CO2 still a problem (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Take that, Status Quo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's suppose that the orbit alteration is not the case. Wouldn't it still make sense to prepare for the worst? Why not stop CO2 emissions, we're better off slowing CO2 output and being wrong about global warming than we are heating up the planet with CO2 and being wrong about not having a human global climate impact.
global warming is a complex issue (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, taking care of the environment in general is a good thing. So either way we ought to research renewable energy, keep recycling, etc.
Yes, the Sun goes through cycles (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How long do we have to argue about the why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who sponsored this study... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ya but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are solar physicists around the world observing every measurable characteristic of the sun (that we can measure from here) all the time. Seems a bit silly to infer what's going on with the sun by looking at Mars instead of the sun itself. Unless some solar observations back this up, this'll probably be the last we hear of it.
Re:Take that, Status Quo! (Score:2, Insightful)
Solar forcing is already taken into account in today's models of climate change, and estimates range from no substantial effect to around 5% or so of warming being caused by the sun - the rest is nearly all anthropogenic.
Furthermore, if you read the article, the person proposing this as the SOLE means of heating really doesn't understand the greenhouse effect, or the role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Please stop trolling - you are wrong, the person pushing this is wrong, and the evidence is out there on this already if you would but look.
Re:global warming is a complex issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose for the sake of argument that it is natural. If it creates havoc for humans, such as bad weather, lost farmland, and lost coastlines, then perhaps we should still do something about it. Continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere is not helping the situation.
Re:How long do we have to argue about the why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if we try to change what's going on without understanding the situation we might easily decide on a cure that's totally ineffective. If C02 emissions aren't a major factor (And I'm not saying they aren't.) then lowering them won't help much, if at all. It's better to spend a little money learning what's really going on before we spend a huge amount of money on possibly useless countermeasures.
Re:Well Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two questions still open for debate --
Are humans a significant cause of the increase in temperature?
Are steps to mitigate the human effect on temperature worth taking?
I believe the answers are yes and yes, but we don't have to be the primary cause to make it worthwhile to reduce our carbon emissions.
Re:RTFA (Score:1, Insightful)
The #1 greenhouse gas is not CO2, but methane - which reflects back far more heat and exists in far greater amounts, and the #1 emmitter of methane is not humans, but plants by an order of magnitude. The fact that scientists didn't even know that most plants emit methane a mere two years ago makes the case even stronger that the "global warming" movement is filled with idiots that don't even know what the hell they are talking about. In fact, all the recent over-hype about "global warming" is precicely because compelling evidence is starting to show that it is not mostly man made, meaning that those whom had insincere motives for promoting the "global warming" agenda are in a real rush to push their regulations.
One more thing. If a polluting inefficient electric generating coal plant that cost a billion dollars to build faces competition from a cheap clean efficient high-tech competitor - how do they stop them? You guessed it, buy up all the CO2 credits and lock the competitor out.
Without a "why" you don't even know what to fix (Score:4, Insightful)
The part where we try and figure out the cause is the most important part there is. Otherwise we stand a good chance of wasting resources we don't have or screwing something up that isn't broken to begin with.
You've Obviously Never Been in an ER (Score:2, Insightful)
If you've actually ever been in an ER, you know they don't do anything until they know the cause. Know the cause, know the treatment. Anything else, you're seeing a witch doctor or something.
Bring it back to the article, you're missing the central point. If carbon emissions really aren't causing global warming, reducing them will have absolutely no effect. The earth will still get hotter, we're still be in square one, only with less time & money.
-Bill
Re:I can't wait for the sequel!! (Score:3, Insightful)
You see, There most likley won't be any verified or serious studying of this theory. This isn't the first time this has been noted and there wasn't any serious studies contradicting them. To date. almost every "sun is the cause" theory has been dismissed by the pros without citing were it is wrong or why the common view is better. You will see words like junkscience thrown out as it's dismissal. You will see that it doesn't fit the current models (when the current models are structured incorectly to show any association with the sun). You will see things like Exxon is behind this. You will see things like psudoscience being thrown out. You will see statments like we didn't understand exactly what the studdy is saying. You will see all kinds of stuff discrediting this view except for facts.
And yes, I agree with waiting to celebrate. Someone could have made a mistake. But when every thing is out there and all the objections and discrediting revolves around blasphemy because the religion says otherwise, I will celibrate that this study was corect. And yes, I did just liken the global wamring science to a religion. It has become one for some people. I'm not saying you, but some people.
Re:Woo! (Score:3, Insightful)
Water vapor is one of the most prevailent green house gasses and currently has the most impact of any greenhouse gas. And the problem with usiong water vapor as a forcing is that the atmosphere can only hold so much reletive to the temperature. This is called reletive humidity. Also, because of reletive humidity, we have a natural correction. It will eventualy creat clouds and block the sun which will limit the amount of heat effects the sun will have. You have probably heard of this effect when it is called global dimming.
You see, If it is the sun, there is no reason to panic, if it is humans, there is cause. Human caused global warming has more benifits for more people then Solar caused global warming. And human caused global warming has more problems if we are wrong about the sun.
Re:ya but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I just lost my mod points by replying to a previous comment in this thread. But this is not a troll; there are plenty of scientists observing the sun directly, whereas we know bugger all about the weather patterns on mars. If there were significant changes happening to the sun, we would already know about it. Anyway, does the source of global warming actually matter much?
The bottom line is the correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature is well known (you can reproduce it in a simple lab experiment), so does it actually matter, in the end, what the source of warming is, if we aleady know how to prevent it? That is, even if the recent increases in temperature are due to some other cause, we know for sure we could reduce the effect by reducing human output of greenhouse gases (exactly how much we can reduce it by, is another question...).
Re:global warming is a complex issue (Score:3, Insightful)
How much CO2 is human activity producing? What is that, as a percentage of total CO2 being produced from all natural and artificial sources? Of all the greenhouse gases being produced, what percentage is CO2?
What if our best bet is to continue producing CO2 at our current rate, on account of it being a very small part of the overall picture, while at the same time being a side effect of exactly the kind of technological advancement we will need to adapt to global climate changes that are actually beyond our control?
Re:CO2 least of my worries (Score:2, Insightful)
You bring up a very good point, which is that a lot of people have completely taken their eye off of the ball of general pollution, focusing only on CO2. See the defense many Gore fanatics brought forth to defend his gluttony: Sure the coal plants in Tennessee are going overtime to power his mansion, but his investment group invested in some nebulous scheme that might possibly reduce CO2 somewhere.
Cars seem to get a lot of the blame (a story yesterday claimed that they were the primary cause of CO2, when they, coupled with all other methods of transportation, are less than 1/4), yet modern cars are very clean burning. A couple of Volvos actually empirically leave the air cleaner than before.
Instead the major problems are industrial pollution, coal power plants (there's still a shitload of those), and even the pollutions and toxins that invade our food and water.
Re:CO2 least of my worries (Score:5, Insightful)
If cancers are on average going up across _all age groups,_ then you might have a more appropriate correlation.
Re:How long do we have to argue about the why... (Score:4, Insightful)
You've never watched "House" have you...
Geting back on topic, moving to more efficient vehicles has other advantages than just reduced CO2 emmissions, oil will eventually run out.
Re:Well Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
As for your comment, I think you are right on point. I mean, even if there are uncontrollable external factors that are at least partly responsible for global warming, that does not absolve us of the responsibility to manage our planet properly.
Even if it were to be found that global warming is a complete unreality or is entirely out of our control and due to the sun or some other factor, we still face the same issues. What about the fact that we are facing extinction of staggering number of species [bbc.co.uk], due to our mismanagement of the earth? What about the fact that 20% of the world population doesn't have access to clean water? [pww.org]
As pressing as global warming is, arguing that man must change his habits solely on the platform of global warming is a one-legged argument. We have many, compelling reasons to make changes. Of course, we won't think about it until it's too late.
Re:Well Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
Well.. If its not true than it deserves to be discredited.
Or are you saying this particular study does not actually discredit man-made global warming?
>What about the fact that we are facing extinction of staggering number of species, due to our mismanagement of the earth? What about the fact that 20% of the world population doesn't have access to clean water?
What does that have to do with (human or non-human) global warming?
Re:Woo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Take that, Status Quo! (Score:4, Insightful)
See how those sentences sound totaly different but convey the meaning I want to have? I will let you in on this secrete of mine in case your wondering what the hell I'm doing.
Like you said, The IPCC when making this statment about humans likley to be causing global warming, were looking for a rock and found a rock. They didn't pay attention to the dirt, the bugs or worms in the soil, they were lookin for a rock and found a rock. And now they are saying that area over there is full of rocks. But when you look at it, You see rich farm land teaming with life and nutrience and a couple of rocks. The IPCC didn't go on a quest to find out what was causing the earth to warm, the went on a quest to find if it was warming and if humans could be the cause. And they found that. Yes, humans could be causing the earth to be warming. But they statment shouldn't be taken as more then that.
I have also looked at all these reports that the vast majority of the science comunity belives humans are causing global warming. And all these reports revolve around a few peer review articles were a sample of scientist were asked it the papers were flawed and to make sure tey used good science. The people who said they didn't see any flaws or that good science was used were counted as people supporting the outcome of the papers. The minor few who had an objection with them for some reason, were counted as disagreeing with them. The endresult was the vast majority of scientist agree with global warming and that humans are the cause. But the questioning had nothing to do with this. It is a play with words and misinterpretations of wording used for a specific purpose.
The relevence here is that it is possible to create a model, perform experiments, be completly and scientificly acurate and still get it wrong. This is the nature of science and why people check others work. And this is why science finds new discoveries that change the way we think about things.
So you are right. Their job was to find evidence of global warming and that humans were the cause. They did exactly this. But the GP is very wrong in making the asertion that this rules other explainations out. It doesn't touch the validity of other explainations. What he doesn't seem to know is that the truth doesn't change with popular opinion. The truth always is and we change how we understand it. This change in understanding changes popular opinion. He has stopped trying to understand the truth and just wants to regurgitate popular opinion. Even when it is wrong.
Now the line about truth not changing came from someone else. I wish I could quote him on it but I forget his name and what context it was said in.
Re:global warming is a complex issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
Cleaning up CO2 cleans up other pollutants (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the same things that will reduce CO2 emissions (taking fossil-fuel powered cars and coal-fired power stations out of service) will also tackle some of the biggest sources of these other pollutants. In fact, it's my guess that the savings in health costs would, on their own, go a long way to offsetting (if you'll pardon the pun) the costs of tackling CO2 emissions.
Re:ya but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably just that correlation doesn't imply causation. There's a strong (negative) correlation between the number of pirates plying the seas and global warming, too, but that doesn't mean the solution to global warming is to increase piracy on the high seas.
While I mostly agree with you... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Take that, Status Quo! (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this insightful? This kind of thinking shows everything that's wrong with the environmental movement: a complete disregard for cost/benefit analysis. You're saying that it's somehow "better" to impose arbitrary restrictions on the economy of a completely unknown cost, in the hope that whatever you did creates some kind of unspecified benefit.
This is no better than a medieval doctor removing a few pints of blood because it's better to remove your blood and be wrong than to leave you with a cold and do nothing.
If you want to help the environment, present your solutions in the way every other idea needs to be presented: here are the expected benefits, here are the expected costs, and here is how we're going to be accountable for these benefits and these costs.
Re:not really that complex (Score:3, Insightful)
That global warming has been politicized doesn't invalidate the science, any more than me being upset over the germ theory would invalidate that. I defer to physicists on physics, mathematicians on mathematics, and climatologists on climatology. Are you suggesting I should reject what climatologists say about climatology, just because of a political controversy? That seems a bit silly, especially considering the stakes involved. The "politicization" is unfortunate, but it's not my fault that the left wing noticed environmentalism first and the conservatives feel duty bound to oppose everything liberals do, even when the science is clear on the subject.
Re:Well Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UPCC) has concluded that:
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations
http://www.ipcc.ch/ [www.ipcc.ch]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Pa
It is time to stop pretending there isn't a scientific consensus on this issue.
Re:Without a "why" you don't even know what to fix (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is, even if a doctor doesn't know what's wrong, if there's one symptom (like overheating) that's an immediate danger, and there's a quick fix for it, the doctor will use the quick fix first and then figure out what caused it. If the earth is warming now (and it is), and decreasing CO2 will cool it (and it should), we should go ahead with it even while we confirm the cause.
Re:Well Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
I do.
Right, which is exactly why it's important to understand whether or not the global climate change is anthropogenic. We want to know why it's happening rather than jumping to conclusions or just doing something drastic for the sake of doing something. Furthermore, there is quite a bit of evidence that the global climate has varied within 5 degrees within the time period which humans have existed. I think that humans will survive this, but I don't think that's the point. It's not about human extinction, but it's OK if you want to believe that (or continue overstating your case to make others jump on the bandwagon).
Most current research tends to show that human Co2 has some affect on the climate, but nobody is really sure how. There may be a number of other factors at play. The problem is that nobody really knows, any many people aren't willing to make major sacrifices regarding something that we need more information about. I don't think that we should panic and make irrational changes which will have severe and immediate economic effects on a global scale. Perhaps it would be wiser to make an evolutionary shift in technology and lifestyles, which the global economy can afford...and maybe do it in a manner consistent with our understanding of the phenomena that we're just beginning to understand.
So you suggest a new blind path to avoid a death warrant that you can't prove exists? You're overstating your case, my friend (or really believe everything that you read). Doing something for the sake of doing something is equally unjustifiable, especially when all sides of the issue are confounded with politically charged BS.
I'm not saying that this is or isn't being caused by humans, but you're taking on a position that I consider irrational. If global climate change is based around cyclical patterns that we can't change, there is little point in making drastic, sweeping changes. In that case, we'd better start thinking of ways to deal with our dynamic and always changing world. Just because a few extremists are predicting the end of the world (remember, most scientists aren't writing about the end of the world, or even human existence) doesn't mean that I'm going to jump on the bandwagon. If you believe every prediction of doom that you hear, why not accept 90% of the religions in the world? They all predict your doom if you don't believe, and there's only one way to be safe...start praying.
Re:Well Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can't wait for the sequel!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Instant Kyoto compliance [proteinwisdom.com] to help offset Al Gores inconvenient electric bill. [go.com]
But when every thing is out there and all the objections and discrediting revolves around blasphemy because the religion says otherwise, I will celibrate that this study was corect. And yes, I did just liken the global wamring science to a religion. It has become one for some people. I'm not saying you, but some people.
You mean like this [blogspot.com] or this [blogspot.com]?
Re:Mass != risk (Score:4, Insightful)
You're making the mistake of conflating ozone depletion with global warming, too.
The Mars data [realclimate.org] is often misunderstood.
"The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states.
Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted."
Funny how three years is good enough to prove Martian global warming to the same people who tell us 150 years of data (and 720,000 from ice cores) just isn't enough to base a conclusion off.
Re:ya but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's Al Gore? We need him to fix his documentary. Oh yeah - he's in his mansion that uses 15 times more energy than the average home... I bet he is a vegetarian too...
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be surprised if Pluto weren't warming, given it is just past perihelion and it has some quirky orbital parameters. Funny how when things get closer to the sun they warm up a bit. I'd also point out neither article mentions anything to do with the sun getting hotter, and both have quite plausible explanations for the observed trends on both bodies. These articles in no way supports your "OMG it's a conspiracy!" distortion field, unless you believe the astronomers are in on it with the climatologists and geologists.
Also, if you bother to check your history, James Hansen didn't pull this out of his ass and a bunch of climatologists suddenly said "Brilliant! We can finally crush ExxonMobile/Shell/BP/Chevron!!!". There was quite a bit of review and discussion early on, it's just that the theory that best explained the observations survived, which is how good science works.
PS: I did climate modeling in grad school. If you think it's so bloody simple and we're all just idiots, let's see you build a model than predicts anything useful.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to misquote... In the wikipedia article you linked to:
"The poverty rate in the United States is one of the highest among the post-industrialized developed world. It is, however, important to note that America's poor most commonly have adequate food, clothing and shelter. For example, of those beneath the federal poverty line, 46% own their own home, with an average of three bedrooms."
In the US, many people are unhappy if they can't afford everything that Madison Avenue is trying to shove down their throats. They are unhappy because not everyone in the freakin world can afford a 60" flat panel HDTV and a BMW or Mercedes. There is nothing more frustrating than seeing people like my sister-in-law who has been working the system forever (she doesn't have a job because the government pays her more not to work), goes out and buys that 60" flat panel TV on taxpayer dollars so she can sit on her fat ass and watch TV all day while I work 70 hours a week and pay about $100K in taxes each year, supporting lazy fat slob's like her. Oh yeah, she and her entire family of 6 kids and worthless husband get WAY better medical care than I do, with no deductibles - totally free medical and dental. So don't whine around me how bad "people in poverty" have it in the US, cause it's BULLSHIT.
Re:TFA is a troll. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, claiming that the sun is responsible for Earth's current warming and "proving" it by looking at Mars is pure bullshit designed to confuse people. Zonk is always posting this type of crap, I wouldn't have a problem with it if he didn't insist on labeling it "science".
It's interesting to note that a National Geographic article is also the source of the "in the 70's scientists predicted global cooling" myth that psuedo-skeptics drag up all the time. As I said, if you are interested in solid research about the attribution of forcings in Earth's recent warming then look at figure SPM-2 [realclimate.org] in the IPCC report (LOSU = Level Of Scientific Understanding).
People forget there's different definitions (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to be real careful when you see estimates across countries of many things because often they don't use the same metric. There's not a global poverty metric and really, there can't be. The US is richer and thus it makes sense to consider poverty to be at a higher level than a severely impoverished country. That doesn't mean their plight is the same.
Re:ya but.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ya but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate [google.com] is the average of the weather in an area over a long period of time. Climate, therefore, does not equal weather, but is directly defined by it.
Re:ya but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, repating "correlation does not equal causation" is not an excuse to ignore any line of statistical evidence you choose. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but often it is damn suggestive. Most of the evidence linking lung cancer to smoking is "merely" correlation too.
Beside that, experiments do not show merely a "correlation" between CO2 and warming. It is known and very obvious adsorption physics that greater absorption in the IR spectrum than in the visible causes greenhouse warming, when the gas is subjected to visible light and coupled to a heat sink ("the Earth"). The heat sink re-radiates in infrared, and a gas which absorbs more re-radiated heat than incoming visible radiation will inevitably lead to overall warming. As noted by the grandparent, this is easily demonstrated by laboratory experiment.
This is, in fact, the reason why the entire planet is not a frozen iceball: if you leave the greenhouse effect out of the energy balance equations (incoming radiation = outgoing radiation), you'll find that the the temperature of the Earth should be much lower than it actually is. Something is trapping heat, we know for sure. The greenhouse effect is a proven mechanism, and lo, the amount of warming you should get from it is equal to the missing component of the energy balance.
People still debate about global warming, but I can't believe that people are still skeptical of the very existence of the greenhouse effect.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't the first time I've heard that other planets are warming too. Additionally, the Sun being warmer is apparently quite accepted and I would think fairly easy to measure. The "fact" is, it is warmer. Yes, humans may be contributing to Global Warming but it was going to warm up anyway and human contribution is an almost insignificant percentage. Its enough of a percentage, however, to capitalize on now isn't it!
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll call a man crazy if he disagrees that the Earth orbits the sun, and it is not just because he disagrees with my "opinion".
Re:Well Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the special interests are the 95% of Americans who like Air conditioning, cars that get less than 40mpg, people that have homes of greater than 1,000 square feet, americans that travel more than 1 mile to work (using any form of transportation, including walking), americans that use computers for more than 30 minutes a day, americans that don't wake and sleep in tandom with the sun rise/set.
Any deviation away from natural organic atmospheric processes is going to have an impact (either locally or globally). The question is, to what degree do we suppress the efficiencies that derive from consumptive energy. Any suppression of consumption necessarily correlates to a reduction in efficiency.
As a law maker, would you mandate that all cars sold today must be hibrids? This pretty much wipes out the US auto-industry, since they are several years behind. This would cause real-estate prices in the city to sky-rocket, because the added cost of a hybrid car makes living closer to work a necessity for many.
There are consequences to every action.. And more often than not, law makers do not properly guage the cost-benifit analysis. Thus it is USUSALLY best to not act - unless there is overwelming evidence that the known benifit of removing a known hazzard far outweighs the likely consequences (such as reducing smog emmisions in a large city).
The reason US lawmakers are hesitant to act on global warming is that law makers are being elected to INCREASE US jobs, to INCREASE corporate productivity, to REDUCE the trade deficite, to REDUCE the cost/price of commodities like fuel and food. All the anti-global-warming ledgislation has the exact opposite pressures on those topics. If you choose the environmental route, you're pretty much shunning every other demographic by necessity. So the question is, is it worth becoming yesterday's news as a nation for something which has the possibility of being not worth it. I say yesterday's news, because 1) We would have to give HUGE money gifts to 3'rd world countries to offset emmissions (kyoto protocol), further straining our trade-deficit / devaluing the US dollar 2) cost of US industry sky-rockets (retooling for emmision control), making 3'rd world country factories 2 to 5 times more profitable than they already are compared to the US - think labor outsourcing is bad today? 3) Cost of energy regionally sky-rockets as manditory rationing or environmental taxation (think tobacco) is requried to reduce regional pollution 4) cost of machinery sky-rockets as all energy burners require retooling and thus repurchasing and thus overt demand of the temporarily scare high-efficiency machinery.
Yes, you can phase all these things in, grandfather, etc.. But then we're talking 20 years (rember Bush proposes a 5 year mandate of 5% gas efficiency??).. By many counts, that's too late. To be "serious" requires radical change, and I have zero trust in our government to manage such a massive nation-wide shift.
In my opinion, the market needs to generate high-efficiency, low cost technology.. Benevolent Billionaires would better serve the world by investing in such technology instead of wasting it on politics. The right technology entices the invisible hand to adapt...
Then, when a rational upgrade policy is evident, congress can mandate it's effective use (meaning industry must at least achieve 90% of the effective efficiencies as the current state-of-the art, without explicitly mandating a particular product's use).
Hybrid cars are a joke to me. All they are is a recognition that humans like to accelerate. We push a big-battery high-current high-torque electric motor for acceleration boosts. But you still have to burn the same amount of energy to recharge that battery.. Where is the savings? The smaller engine? Doubtful, because it gets horrendous mileage on the open-r
Re:Well Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
We are less certain about the extent of future climate change, largely because we don't know by exactly how much feedback effects amplify the greenhouse effect, and we don't know what future CO2 emissions will be like: a lot will depend on what we choose to do and when we do it.
Even more uncertainty arises when it comes to predicting the costs of climate change, and the costs of mitigating it. We do know, however, that it's better to start mitigating early and prevent some of that CO2 from entering the atmosphere in the first place. It thus may be better to ramp up mitigation and taper it off if we find that the climate change is less than expected — the "better safe than sorry" approach.
You are, however, correct in saying that global warming is not a threat to the survival of our species. Its effects will be mostly economic, although at least some deaths will probably result (be it from more extreme weather, droughts, crop failure, spread of disease vectors, etc.)
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's religion. Calling it "science" doesn't make it science anymore than my calling myself a duck enables me to fly.
A better way (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stand and deliver! (Score:3, Insightful)
All that is missing is a post from you calling the non-GW-deniers "alarmists".
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:3, Insightful)
HERETIC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ya but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the thing about science; it's not about `truth', it's about progressively more accurate approximations of reality. For a lot of cases, a fairly coarse approximation is all that is required; Newtonian mechanics is valid for all of the situations 99% of people will find themselves in. If you are on the leading edge of science, however, then relying on superseded approximations is a mistake.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Got any data to back that up? We are talking both accuracy and precision. I want to see the manufacturer specs on the actual equipment that has been used at the hundreds of temperature measurings stations around the world for the past 100 years or even 30 years. Go ahead and try to find that data. Or are you claiming that it is not relevant to the discussion? I want to see numbers. After all numbers, quantitative data, is what we are talking about here. If it is so obvious then show me. If you can't do that at least talk about the temperature measurement tech we are dealing with here. Do the temperature measurement stations use infrared tech? At least cite which type [wikipedia.org] or types of thermometer have been used around the world to measure these obvious changes.
The simple fact is that temperature measuring technology that is actually used to measure the air within a useable temperature range is highly imprecise and highly inaccurate. Most will only be able to measure temperature to within +/- 2C! And that assumes calibration that needs to be performed on a periodic basis. And digitals generally fare even worse than analogs at least if you ignore miniscus parallax issues (which of course you should not). It is interesting to me that everyone (on both sides) seems to dance around the very issue of where the rubber meets the road, the nature of the very equipment that seems to be predicting the end of our species, not in the distant future, not 10,000 years from now, but in less than a century. That would seem serious enough to at least warrant a discussion of such issues.
Francis Bacon, the great philosopher of science, cautioned against letting a theory stray too far from the data. This theory is so far from it that hardly anyone even bothers to talk about the uncertainties in that data. As if our methods of measurement, not just in the US in 2007, but in the Soviet Union in 1943, were perfect and absolutely without error. And what about human error, errors in recording the data? We seem to be assuming no human error whatsoever in the the recording of the temperature readings. Did they have automated computer temperature logging in the 1920s in Indonesia or Siberia? Do they even have it today? Such questions should at least be occuring to you. The fact that they are not makes me wonder about whether you really care about the truth.
I would sneer at the idea that it would mean the end of our species and openly laugh when you claim to have evidence that would prove it without the slightest doubt. So much so that any person to deny it is a crank. In fact, barring any unproven, unforeseen, effects, I would quite like an extra 5-10F increase at the lattitude where I currently live. Just means that there would be some migration away from equatorial regions. Some of us already regard them as inhospitable, especially at midday. Bad for some, good for others. On the whole, it sounds like a wash. Certainly not the end of all terrestrial life on our planet.
Actually all of them are. hehe. Okay. Sorry about that. Couldn't resist.
But in a positive way. Show me someplace, anyplace in the world where property on the coast is worth less than inland (discounting the costs within cities)? The owners of such property tend to be (comparitively at least) wealthy. It is true even in Indonesia (one of the poorest countries in Asia).
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:3, Insightful)
The simple fact is that temperature measuring technology that is actually used to measure the air within a useable temperature range is highly imprecise and highly inaccurate.
Got any data to back that up? I want to see the manufacturer specs on the actual equipment that has been used at the hundreds of temperature measurings stations around the world for the past 100 years or even 30 years. Go ahead and try to find that data.
If you want to assert that the accuracy and bias of temperature measurements is something other than what studies have shown it to be, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that — and even moreso, that these errors introduce a systematic upward bias into global temperature averages of a magnitude sufficient to render the observed global warming an artifact of measurement error.
Thermometer intercomparison studies do exist; I saw one cited in a similar Slashdot thread last month, which I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to find. As I said, if you want to dig around on Web of Science or Google Scholar long enough, you can find them too.
Most will only be able to measure temperature to within +/- 2C!
That is completely absurd. Even thermometers hundreds of years ago could accurately measure temperatures to better than 1 degree accuracy. Meteorological thermomenters in the 20th century are far more accurate.
And note again that the combined average of many thermometers are more accurate than any single thermometer.
I would love to know where you are getting these "facts".
This theory is so far from it that hardly anyone even bothers to talk about the uncertainties in that data.
Idiot. Read any paper on the instrumental temperature record and you will find discussion of the uncertainties in the data. Track the references back far enough and you will eventually find the calibration and bias estimation procedures used.
We seem to be assuming no human error whatsoever in the the recording of the temperature readings.
No, we do not. Human errors, both random and systematic, can be and are estimated. Search the literature for "bias correction", "cross validation", etc.
Such questions should at least be occuring to you. The fact that they are not makes me wonder about whether you really care about the truth.
I have not claimed that the instrumental temperature record has zero error. I merely claimed that the errors in the record are much smaller than the warming trend observed. The fact that you know nothing about how that record is calibrated and debiased tells me you certainly do not care about the truth.
I would sneer at the idea that it would mean the end of our species and openly laugh when you claim to have evidence that would prove it without the slightest doubt.
No one has claimed that global warming will "end our species". But the existence of global warming has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I would quite like an extra 5-10F increase at the lattitude where I currently live.
I doubt that you would, as temperature increase is far from the only effect of global warming. And nice of you to care so much about people at other latitudes.
Just means that there would be some migration away from equatorial regions.
Oh, yeah, "some" migration. I'm sure you would like to support the costs of that relocation, too, along with the social and political unrest which accompanies it. (More likely, you would prefer your fellow taxpayers, or ideally other countries altogether, support it.) Not to mention your complete lack of ethics in supporting climate change which results in the relocation of other populations which conveniently don't include you.
Actually all of them are. hehe. Okay. Sorry about that. Couldn't resist.
Not all of the world's population centers are located close to sea level at the ocean front,
Cause, and solution to global warming. (Score:3, Insightful)
Earth starts to have global warming.
Humans send robots to mars.
Mars starts to have global warming.
Obviously robots are the cause of global warming.
The solution to global warming is:
DESTROY ALL ROBOTS!
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, CO2 is a cause of global climate change. I'll go with that, but it's just too early to start branding those who question the current theories as unscientific, crazy, or politicized. We did this to Galileo, Newton, Einstein...
We party on anthropogenic CO2 (a small faucet on a really big bathtub) because it's easy to fall into the trap of favoring the simplest solution to a problem (if reducing anthropogenic CO2 by 70% can be labeled "simplest"). Even after one of my friends warned me not to do it, I favored trying to pin my '85 Volvo's inability to start on the fuel-pump relay. I didn't do this because it was the most likely culprit. I did this because it was only $40, and it was easy to fix.
$300 later, the car runs, and it wasn't the fuel-pump relay that needed to be replaced.
Science is more about asking questions than knowing answers. If those who know the answers scoff at those who ask new questions, science isn't being done.