A Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow 1136
Ponca City, We love you writes "NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes; but for scientists who study the climate, there's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow. 'The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was... in the 1970s,' says Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist. 'So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, DC, for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming.' Increased snowfall also fits a pattern suggested by many climate models, in which rising temperatures increase the amount of atmospheric moisture, bringing more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures."
Science or Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
One question for the warmers reading. Can the theory of AGW be falsified?
If it gets hotter it is because of Global Warming.
If a hurricane hits it is because of Global Warming.
If there is a drought anywhere it is because of Global Warming.
But if we get a blizzard it is bacause of Global Climate Change.
If it floods it is because of Global Warming/Climate Change.
If the North polar ice shrinks it is Global Warming.
Yet when the Antarctic ice grows it is Climate Change.
When the Northern ice returns it is nothing to see here, move along.
When Phil Jones says there has been no warming for fifteen years, it doesn't mean anything. In fact, to date only the Moonies at the Wash. Times and Fox News consider his statement worthy of repeating. (He said it to the BBC, btw, not known as a bastion of Deniers.)
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
Sherlock Holmes (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this finding facts to fit theories, or theories to fit facts?
Or not (Score:5, Insightful)
Support Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Since a shortage of fresh water is our next big crisis, doesn't that mean that global warming is a good thing?
weather is different than climate (Score:3, Insightful)
A non-warming planet can also mean more snow year-to-year. And anyway it doesn't say anything about human-caused warming since we know the planet has gone through many warming and cooling cycles naturally.
Meanwhile, the ex head of CRU (Score:4, Insightful)
Phil Jones has pretty much admitted most of the data is BS and nobody knows what it really means.
Global Warming!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
It all seems such a moot point to me... Honestly no matter what humans do to save or destroy the earth, in 4-5 billion years the sun is going to engulf the earth.
Save the whales, save the tree's, save yourself.... Death is the inevitable outcome of life.
On a more cheerful note I am going back to playing the Wii and enjoy my time here!
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Global Warming means More Weather (Score:5, Insightful)
I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated this simple notion. The weather is all about water moving around in the air. More energy into the water means more water into the air. More water into the air means more weather... more storms, more hurricanes, more snow... and what's really interesting is a new distribution of water. We will see deserts turn to jungles and jungles into deserts. The geologic record shows this kind of thing happening a lot. Some people think changes like these killed the dinosaurs.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that AGW predicts an increase in Antarctic ice right? But I suppose it's easier to continue being an armchair "expert" on global climate. The prediction of Antarctic ice growth was a falsifiable one. Had it not occured, it would have been evidence that the AGW models was flawed to some degree.
Re:Support Global Warming (Score:5, Insightful)
Since a shortage of fresh water is our next big crisis, doesn't that mean that global warming is a good thing?
And food; increased heat, water, and CO2 will make crops grow like crazy.
Re:The time for debate is over... (Score:1, Insightful)
It no longer matters if AGW is real (even though I think it probably is). It will never EVER go bye-bye, because there are now thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs, research grants, professorships, researchers' egos, bureaucratic hegemonies, and enforcement regimes riding on it. Too much money is flowing now for this thing to be put to bed, EVEN IF tomorrow we discovered a magical proof that AGW is bunk.
At this point the incentives are in place and we are stuck in a self-reinforcing pattern. Truth mattered thirty years ago, before the patten was strong enough to self-reinforce. It doesn't matter now.
Re:Global Warming!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming means More Weather (Score:5, Insightful)
It IS a simple notion. It's just too many people find it easier to distort their perception of data in order to allow them to continue their existing lives with as close to no change as possible. Anything that requires one to perform effort, change, or that reduces ones comforts obviously must be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias [wikipedia.org]
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
To clarify [newscientist.com] on the growth of Antarctic ice in some areas while receding in others. The overall ice growth in some areas exceeded ice loss in other areas although this is starting to change. Climate models win again.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Reputable citations needed, particularly on the "Everyone publishing used those 2 as the ultimate source of their data" part.
I say that not because I think this is Wikipedia, but because I find this allegation/claim to be quite interesting so I would be quite happy to hear that this claim is true. Because I don't want global warming to be true. If it isn't true, we can keep burning as many greenhouse gases as we like. But without something to support your claim, you're just a random person on the internet who has yet to be modded troll ;)
Sometimes it seems pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
A guy I know ran with this today and was going on and on about it, going off about how climate-change advocates were such idiots and how this was a huge slap in the face for them, etc etc. He tried to sound really educated about it, talking laws of thermodynamics and saturation of 14.77 micron absorbtion and so on. I countered all his points but he wouldn't let up, of course selectively responding to the stuff I countered with and bringing up some new zany thing each time. I ran out of energy to deal with him, and was simply reminded of why I never really liked the guy.
It's unfortunate to let him have the last word, as of course all his fan-club will read the thread (I confess... this was on Facebook) and of course they will all just see it as a victory and continue to reinforce each others' delusion... but I really don't see how I could ever change his or any of their minds on the subject. My only real hope is that all these curmudgeons with their lazy conservative and antiquated views on things will eventually die off in time for the newer generation of educated youth to step in and hopefully turn things around in time.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Few if any of those scientists are climate scientists
2) Only a small minority (~9000) have PhDs
3) 31,000 is a small minority of the American scientific community
The only opinions that count are expressed in peer-reviewed journals of climate scientists (which virtually requires a PhD), not publicity stunts such as this.
"the more you keep repeating something (or the louder you state it) the more inclined people will be to accept it. "
Which is the tactic of the global warming "skeptics." The people who actually have a truly informed opinion on this are generally too busy conducting research to be bothered trying to sway public opinion. I have an MS in Software Engineering, but I wouldn't ever pronounce an opinion on if we'll get a computer to pass the Turing Test. I'm not an AI researcher, I don't know hard core Computer Science topics like Recursion Theory, and I never spent years earning a PhD to obtain a truly informed opinion. The folks who signed this petition can't really say they know what they are talking about.
The future matters more than the past (Score:5, Insightful)
To some extent I think the question of whether the globe is warming (or climate is changing, or whatever terminology comes next) is secondary.
Whether or not it's already happening in any measurable way today, I think we can all agree that it *could* happen in the future, so we (as a country, and a global society, and a species) need to be careful that it doesn't. To that end, studying human civilization's side effects on the biosphere seems obviously worthwhile.
I think the original batch of climate scientists were well-intentioned but did themselves (and us) a disservice by overplaying the initial data. They saw a potential problem in the future and tried to rally the public by saying "it's already happening!", but when that ended up not being very obviously provable, people started dismissing the entire concern. That, to me, is a huge mistake.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the Republicans are suggesting that we do: keep pumping out billions of tons of CO2 a year and see what happens... There are easier ways to falsify AGW's predictions than to wait 40 years and take a look at the climate... Ocean acidification, changes in weather patterns over a statistically significant period of time that can not be explained through purely natural warming processes etc..
Re:The time for debate is over... (Score:3, Insightful)
The "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995" headline is simply false. That's not what Professor Jones said at all, and in fact if you'd bothered to read the article you linked to, you'd know that.
Actually it has warmed, but he said the warming was not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. I assume most people on Slashdot will know what that means, even if the headline writer at the Daily Mail (and you) do not.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, if one variable out of thousand variables moves according to the model, it's a "win" for the model.
I assume you're reasonably familiar with the main models?
Maybe you can be more persuasive if you can nail down the major predictions. I mean, calling it "climate change" is like saying "time-moves-forward". No one's disputing either - what exactly are the specific potential problems being predicted whose catastrophic nature requires us shifting trillions of dollars?
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a ball falls down it is because of gravity. If it bounces back up it is because of gravity.
Actually, when it bounces back up it is due to inertia but thanks for playing.
Re:Sometimes it seems pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
Science is the search for facts, not the bending of data for political aims.
Disgusting...
Re:Or not (Score:5, Insightful)
I read in a children's science book written 20 years ago about how global warming could make places like Africa more temperate. It even had the map of predicted temperature change, showing large swaths cooling and others warming.
This has been known for a long time. The only reason scientists are reminding others of it now is because of all the blowhards over at Fox et.al that are too stupid to comprehend the difference between global climate and local weather (with a healthy dose of long-term trends vs. short-term outliers).
This stuff really isn't that complicated. Most people are taught the basics of climate in like 6th grade. The only way somebody couldn't understand it is if they were abjectly stupid, or had an agenda.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Give an example of one that is sourced.
This is what often happens when initial estimates are conservative.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
What we dont know.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
> Well, maybe for 2009 to not be the hottest year in recorded history, or 2000-2009 to be the hottest decade in recorded history, for one.
Ok, but 2009 wasn't and 2000-2009 wasn't. Don't believe me, believe Phil Jones. And believe is all you can do since he lost all of his original data and there doesn't appear to be a clean temperature dataset ANYWHERE. Politics and science don't mix. Politics, science and trillions of dollars make an especially toxic stew.
Remember when 1998 was supposed to be the hottest ever? Then that was debunked and it was 1934. Now Hansen & his asshats are saying they have massaged the data some more and it is 1998 again by a nose. I say so what? If it is a statistical tie it really doesn't matter, the Warmers were yelling the warming was "unprecedented" yet that doesn't square with a virtual tie with 1934 now does it? But saying 'It was just a cunthair higher than back in 1934' doesn't make a good argument for seizing trillions of dollars of economic output and redirecting it into politically connected pockets.
> Maybe not for a clear upward trend in average global temperature over the last 100 years, for another.
Well if ol' Phil is right and we haven't seen any statistically significant warming for fifteen years.... And if the recent high was inside the error bars with 1934. Your point is?
> Weather != climate.
I know that. But if Al Gore can make Hurricane Katrina the centerpiece of his farce of a movie and not ONE Warmer call him out on it it is equally valid for the other team to toss this blizzard right back in his face. Don't go all heads I win and tails you lose on me, don't treat me as an idiot and I'll return the favor. K? We both know the difference between science and arguments to win points in the mass media and influence the electorate, right? Why should we let your side get away with it while we take the noble path? Besides, Copenhagen's blizzard and now this blizzard to greet the creation of the new Climate Change dept [attackcartoons.com]. is such rich irony it would almost be criminal not to exploit the situation being handed to us by Mother Nature Herself.
And I notice you avoided the question. What would falsify AGW theory?
And yes I must be willing to take the opposite question. But I have one advantage there, AGW is probably the most extraordinary claim in the history of extraordinary claims and the proposed solution (seizing most of the world's wealth, eliminating most of the current industrial base, etc.) is so far beyond extraordinary I doubt any human language even has the proper vocabulary for describing it properly. I simply demand extraordinary evidence. Since the evidence offered to date is pathetic and weak I laugh at it and call it a silly thing for silly (or evil) people.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
2009 was the hottest year on record? Huh. News to me, I have heard otherwise. Not locally or nationally, but globally.
AGW is most likely a fact, but the EXTENT of AGW is certainly not. Is there any explanation as to what causes earth's natural climate shifts? Do we have any idea if we are in a natural upshift or downshift? No and no. We don't know. We're basing the entire AGW on very shaky ground -- that our climate should NOT be increasing naturally through mechanisms we still don't understand, and that CO2 is the primary cause of climate change. Um. Sorry, but both of those are wrong. Matter of fact, just yesterday saw that someone (iirc in Spain?) has been studying submerged caves and found evidence that ocean levels 100,000 years ago were higher than they are today. Maybe it was 80,000. Then there's the medieval warm period. Then there's the little ice age. What caused those two climate shifts?
Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere does, yes, verifiable fact, act as a 'greenhouse gas', and that would tend to increase temperatures globally. Anything beyond that point is just conjecture. We really have no clue if increased CO2 levels in ice cores are caused by or caused warmer temperatures (huh, nevermind those findings I read about recently that casts doubt on the infallability of ice cores -- that is, that gases and such aren't as static in ice cores as we thought, and they're not as accurate as we believed).
It would be GREAT if we could actually go back and look at records, but huh, apparently East Anglia hasn't ever heard about keeping records and threw out everything that was actual hard unadulterated data.. so we'll just never know. All we have are the numbers they hand-picked and corrected. We have only their word that the numbers they have are any good. Sounds a lot like faith to me.
Faith and trust is antithetical to the progress of science. Science is built upon doubt and distrust -- and that is a noble and commendable thing. Science doesn't give a shit what you say, PROVE it, prove it with evidence that is concrete. Don't wave your hands with a bunch of numbers and not let others peek behind the curtain. Frankly, I'm more inclined to call the whole AGW a hoax JUST TO SPITE those assholes who label themselves men of science but who wrung their hands and conspired to REFUSE FOIA REQUESTS. What the FUCK? What fucking scientist doesn't show his work to others so that they may verify it? A charlatan does that. Not a scientist.
AGW may be real -- in fact, I'd lean towards that pretty strongly -- but the wizard's been exposed and some of the leading men in the field have been shown to be nothing but frauds. Even if they're right, their refusal of FOIA requests, their destruction of original data.. that's just immoral and criminal in severity. Science without hard facts and data is not science, it's religion, and that's what AGW has become. Bow at the altar of Al Gore. Don't question. What's this shit about "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", have whoever said that shot for questioning AGW. Who needs proof when these guys in white coats are telling us that they're really very clever and most probably totally right, we should believe them you heathen.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I lamented. Who can I trust?
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".
Now... this doesn't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding. Which means all new scientists entering the field will pick research were they can GET funding. It's a feedback loop of bad science, in my opinion (not necessarily the research).
An inconvenient Snow Storm (Score:1, Insightful)
Hacked emails showing less than ethical behavior from prominent scientists. check
United Nations reports with future weather predictions based on he said she said data rather actual scientifically vetted data. check
A large number of recording stations being taken off line around the world in remote areas that tend to record lower temperatures (due to costs), but retaining stations in urban areas that are easily affect by the city heat island affect. check
Satelilte data that does not back up the "sky is falling" temperature predictions, but show a much slow temperature trend upwards. Check
Watching the Church of Global Warming froth at the mouth on the news at the audacity of mother nature for dumping record snows and low temperatures around the globe. Priceless
I could buy into global warming if it weren't for all the douche bag polititians using it as an excuse for a power grab and if the scientists would pull their collective heads out of their asses and conduct all the, you know science above the table in an organized manner. Until they do its all bullshit and hearsay.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the one they lifted off a WWF propeganda sheet? No where in the models was such a prediction made; the IPCC along with the WWF fraked this up. The problem isn't so much the actual research being done, it's the IPCC being lax on the finer details of AGW which is as you can imagine, of great concern to the public.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:1, Insightful)
As anybody living in Russia knows the above is utter bullshit. For example in Novosibirsk forecast http://weather.yandex.ru/29634/ promises snow this Sunday and -24 - -41 C.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
The debate is over. There is concensus. The debate is over. There is no debate about climate change.
Ive heard that repeated for years now, and its been getting louder recently...
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or to put it another way: AGW is the theory that explains everything and predicts nothing.
If the U.S. was currently having a warm winter with a snowfall deficit, rest assured that the mantra would not change: "AGW is real, you deniers!" If this year's data contradicts last year's model, just change the model to fit the new data. The only thing that will not change is the conclusions: "AGW is real, we must all be punished to save the earth, all political and economic power must be handed over to us to prevent disaster."
I remember how after the terrible hurricane season of 2005, we were told in no uncertain terms that global warming was leading to "super-hurricane" seasons, and we could expect things to get even worse. Now we've had five consecutive seasons of minimal hurricane activity. Oops, let's just ignore that little fact - but don't worry, AGW is still real!
Pick any climate-related topic. If the observations match the AGW predictions, wonderful. If they contradict them, just change the predictions, and keep right on talking. As others have pointed out, that kind of thinking isn't science, it's religion.
Re:A LIE - Climategate; 30 Year in the Making. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and Galileo was in the minority once too. What's your point? Science is infallible, scientists are not. It is possible for human passions to mislead people on either side of an argument/debate regardless of how many degrees they have. I am glad there are those here willing to ask, "Do the facts fit global warming/climate change?" instead of "How do the facts fit global warming/climate change?"
Sorry, the majority can, and has many times, been wrong. The skeptics have every right to speak up and it is the duty of scientists to speak up from time to time and question, "Is it so?" instead of "How does this fit with what we already 'know'?" No one doubts, "2 + 2 = 4", but that doesn't apply to every "fact" we think we know.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that all of those behaviors are predictable according to the theory of gravity. You can precisely predict how that ball will bounce, and how that comet will travel through the solar system, given sufficient data.
If the theory of gravity was like the theory of AGW, you couldn't be sure a ball would fall down or up when you let go of it.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
To clarify [newscientist.com] on the growth of Antarctic ice in some areas while receding in others. The overall ice growth in some areas exceeded ice loss in other areas although this is starting to change. Climate models win again.
So, let's see if I understand.
If your first post, you basically said:
AGW predicts increasing Antarctic ice. We see increasing Antarctic ice, so the AGW models are correct. Therefor the earth is warming and it is man made.
Then in your second post, you said:
Oh, wait, I just learned something. It appears that Antarctic ice is increasing in some places, but receding in others. This was predicted in AGW models so the AGW models are correct. Therefor the earth is warming and it is man made.
Did I get that right?
Ever stop to consider that there is a reason we don't believe this shit? And I don't mean to rag on you, but this is the kind of crap that we hear all the time from what are supposed to be scientists. It's hot, so it proves AGW. It's cold, so it proves AGW. If there are more hurricanes, its AGW. If there are no hurricanes, its AGW. There is no snow at the Olympics because of AGW. There is too much snow in Washington because of AGW. Warmer temperatures mean AGW. Colder temps mean AGW.... and so on and so on and so on!
See, when you change historical data to make your model match current conditions, it's fraud. (AGW climatologists tend to throw out data that doesn't make sense to their models) You change the outcome of your model to match current conditions, it's fraud. (You see this one A LOT! Remember all the predictions that said hurricanes would increase and then we had a year with virtually no hurricanes? Remember the scramble to claim that the LACK of hurricanes was due to AGW?)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly is wrong with diminishing our emissions of CO2? It also usually comes with a more power-efficient, less polluting source of energy. Whether you think AGW is bullshit or a message for heaven, following the suggested courses of action is still good.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no single AGW theory. There are thousands of them.
Now coral is dying in USA east coast because the water is too cold. Soon someone will show a "theory" which shows this is because AGW.
There is no weather condition which can prove AGW wrong. Every weather condition is predicted by some AGW theory. So no matter what happens, it is clearly a proof of the AGW and there is never a contradiction therefore AGW must be true.
Is that science?
Re:The time for debate is over... (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's the relevant Phil Jones quote, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm/ [bbc.co.uk]. Decide if Dailymail (a highly politicized news source, similar to Fox News in the US) reports it honestly.
"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
Score one for the Daily Mail. In other words, "I desperately tried to cherry-pick some better numbers by manipulating the cutoff date, but even that failed. But it almost worked."
And later,
"How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"
Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
In other words, "I stand by the conclusions that my funding depends upon, no matter how thoroughly discredited the research becomes, no matter how much data I fail to produce, or how many FOI requests I have to ignore. Dude, it's all about the funding!"
The "debate" is just a confidence trick (Score:3, Insightful)
The scandals here are as relevant as thinking that whatever a police photographer paid for lunch after taking a photo of a crime scene has any bearing on the murder they photographed.
If you think scientists are all evil tricksters then go talk to an old farmer or someone that has been involved with a ski resort for decades.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
It really isn't. You'd do well to try and claim that people without degrees in structural engineering are fit to design bridges, or that doctors who never went to medical school are okay to be surgeons.
In the same way, something as insanely complex as climate science needs a level of understanding that only a PhD can recognise. To claim otherwise is totally ignorant, but I suppose a little popularist.
Finally, 9000 is quite a minority. Numbers are meaningless without context. It's a long way to the sun, but thats nothing to the centre of the milky way.
Re:The time for debate is over... (Score:3, Insightful)
My country (Canada, clouded in shame) declared 4 years ago that the time for studying climate change was over, and that it was now time for action. The action was to fire all of the climate scientists that disagreed with idiot^hlogy of the government. Your title is eerily reminiscent of that BS. [ ref John Baird, Minister of Environment, Canada, 2006-2007 ].
Everything that ever lived deposited its stored carbon into the ground. Now we are releasing it into the atmosphere at levels unprecedented in the history of human civilization. Does it actually take a scientist, that is somebody whose plodding methodology makes lawyers look like they are actually alive, to notice this is a road to nowhere?
I have next to zero expertise in evolution, paeleontology (see, I can't even spell it) etc... I do know that people, with roughly identical abilities to us have been hanging around for at least 100000 years, yet there is next to no trace of their accomplishments until the last 10% of that time. That time roughly approximates a narrowly stable climate which permitted the rise of farming and the subsequent developments we have all grown to love.
I get that some people want to believe the end is near - it fits both a fatalistic or theocratic disposition.
I get that some people want to believe there is no problem - it fits both an optimistic or ignorant disposition.
What I don't get is how those that fit neither have stuffed their heads so far up their asses as to believe the world is an endless sink for everything they want to dump in it; and somehow believe there will be no repercussions.
I don't want to save the world, but I wouldn't mind if my kids (and maybe their kids) got to enjoy a little of it.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
If something is economically sound, it need not the support of politicians.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps, but I don't think archaeology really qualifies as science any more than forensics. Both use scientific apparatus to figure out what happened in the past rather than using the scientific method to uncover the secrets of life and the universe.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you were modded interesting, I'll respond.
Now please note that before excessive snowfall, no fucking global warming campaigners said ANYTHING about "there will be a blizzard in 2010 and it will prove global warming".
That's because no climatologist would ever make such a prediction, and none have made such prediction. For two reasons: NOTHING will ever PROVE any scientific theory. The same way that nothing will ever prove gravity - merely that datapoints keep supporting our current scientific model. Second, climatologists are as of now unable to predict something as localized as a specific snow storm in a specific area at a specific time more than a few days out. You are working with a two-body gravitational model, they are working with a trillion-body feedback loop. Give a bit of respect to the complexity here.
The predictions that are made are of the order of: over the next 50 years, ice will melt at rate x, and temperature will rise at rate y. What they're seeing is that over the last 20 years or so, data points have been consistently in the ranges of the most catastrophic models. Does it prove anything? No. See above for why. But it cause for concern when the aggressive models are consistently the ones that most accurately predict the evolution of average data points.
So please. Do us all a favor and go fuck off in the room where we keep all the creationists and come back when you have a working understanding of scientific research.
GW? Sure. AGW? Harder to say. (Score:4, Insightful)
If it gets hotter it is because of Global Warming.
The consistent and scientific standard you're looking for is if mean surface temperature decreases over time. Global Warming, by contrast, is indicated by a rising mean surface temperature over time.
AGW is more complicated, probably a topic to wait on for people who haven't digested the above, but essentially comes down to trying to doing accounting for different warming contributions based on related measurements. The closer the accounting is to adding up, the more credible AGW looks. The farther, less.
what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
A complete investigation on the part of each individual is a rather time-consuming proposition, so a lot of us use heuristics. One of mine tends to be that opponents of AGW are often doing things like:
(a) making no distinction between individual weather events and climate
(b) confusing the term "Global Warming" with " monotonic temperature/ice thickness increase across every point of the globe
(c) asserting there exists some input or dynamic that accounts for most of the warming and implying that climate scientists supposedly have ignored it, when in fact it turns out that there exist climate scientists who have considered and done the accounting on said input or dynamic (see increased solar output)
Now, I'm not a true believer, so maybe my bar is lower than some others, but I'd say that if I can go 2-3 years where less than 10-20% of the AGW criticism I read has one of these features (or similar ones: the list I gave is hardly exhaustive), I might start to give the opposition as much credibility as the proponents.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
See now how that's nothing like the denial you spun it as?
I don't see that at all, but perhaps that's because I understand statistics, as perhaps the OP does and you, very clearly, do not.
"Not significant at p = 0.05" means "not significant at p = 0.05". Or, given that p = 0.05 is the usual bound on statistical significance in even the fuzziest subjects, it means "not statistically significant."
"There has been an uptrend that is not significant" is more properly interpretable as "there has been no warming" than anything else. Anyone who understands anything about statistics understands this. If you don't, I can only presume it is because you don't understand statistics.
Declaring your ignorance of statistics, and your belief in global warming, does not make the truth of global warming any more plausible.
And you have quite significantly failed the answer the OP's question: what would it take to make you question your faith?
In particular, what do the models say about warming in the past 15 years? Are they consistent with the observed data? The interesting scientific question is regarding the validity of the models, which are radically unphysical parameterizations of a very complex, nonlinear physical system. Why is no one asking that question? Because this is what scientists do, in the normal course of events: we test ideas, other people's and our own, to destruction. Which is why, by the way, that only someone violently anti-scientific would withhold data from people who might use it to argue against them.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Eh that probably came off a bit trollish. Especially considering your points about it coinciding with "more power-efficient, less polluting source of energy".
I'm just trying to point out the irrationality of saying we must inconvenience ourselves now because there's a chance something bad might happen in the future. Without taking into account the probability of it happening, and the cost of taking those actions it's meaningless scaremongering.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds a bit more measured and reasonable than your biased histrionics. Yes?
No, it sounds like he has said there is no warming trend in the past 14 or 15 years. "Almost significant" means "not significant." Nor is p = 0.05 exactly a stellar level of certainty. Physicists like things at the three sigma level, for the most part.
And you have ignored the OP's quite reasonable question: what data would make you change your beliefs regarding global warming/climate change? If any climate event whatsoever constitutes "evidence" for global warming/climate change in your mind, then you are acting on faith and the kinds of arguments that rational individuals might use to convince you of the error of your ways are quite different than if you are acting on a rational basis.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
He did, rather succinctly, and you quoted, and responded to, his answers.
I think there are far more extraordinary claims out there: flat-world theory and most religious claims, to name a couple. But if Climate Change is an extraordinary claim, yours is rather extraordinary as well: that carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane don't affect the climate despite reams of planetological data - not simply Earth-based - to the contrary. Your characterization of the proposed solutions is rather hyperbolic, too. Why can't an economy run on energy derived from sources other than the burning of fossil fuels? And who would seize most of the world's wealth? Where would it go? How would it be spent once it's seized? How would a conversion to non-carbon-emitting energy eliminate most of the world's industrial base? People will still need stuff, even if it costs more.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time politics is dragged into what should be solely a scientific question - debated and handled in the scientific method - we the ordinary people will end up losing because what comes out of that process is not good science but good politics. I don't want our world to be run based on politics, I would like it to be run on good science.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thankyou for your homely words - I do enjoy a rational discussion with someone who although may strongly disagree with my point we still manage to be civil and treat each other with respect.
I made nothing up. I am merely reiterating points of view I picked up elsewhere from well known sceptics such as Anthony Watt's, Monckton etc etc. Of course I am cognisant of the fact that their contribution to this issue may be shoddy and to this effect I made reasonable effects at due diligence to ensure that I was not merely parroting the views of mere crackpots and liars. But if I am indeed operating of incorrect data - by all means feel free to correct me
A small tip - calling someone an idiot from the comfort and security of your keyboard does little to advance your argument. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and wait for your reply that demonstrates what I posted above is in some way incorrect.
And to save you some trouble - please don't bother me with all that peer review literature vs grey literature stuff. I am of the view now it is to some extent just self validation from the climate science tribe where its practitioners have figured out there is no better way to keep the grant money flowing than to keep peddling the AGW. That the checks and balances within the climate community to keep them honest and on target are insufficient to the task : no human institution of endeavour is above scrutiny or groupthink or the risk of politicisation or outright corruption or any number of issues that can result in sub-optimal output - not even the scientific community. An issue as far reaching as AGW requires broader audience treatment. If you are of a different view and you think that I am a complete idiot then you and I cannot possibly share any reality on this issue so there is no point discussing further so don't bother wasting your time engaging me further.
Re:Texas was once... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's an interesting argument, trying to phrase the pro-AGW argument in terms of dollars. Ineffective, but interesting.
You claim that previous temperature changes were caused by changes in the Earth's orbit --- that may be a contributing factor, but certainly not the whole story. Earth's atmospheric makeup has changed many times.
I *am* concerned about mankind's impact on the global ecosystem, but I don't understand how something so poorly understood can be seen as requiring the drastic, harmful changes proposed by the left's current cap and trade agenda, the Kyoto Treaty, or a myriad or other legislative burdens in the works.
This is *especially* true since America actively discourages the use of diesel in small automobiles, while other countries enjoy the cleaner emissions and higher efficiency vehicles. Meanwhile, we subsidize corn production for ethanol - starving people who were purchasing that corn for food. If you want a good fuel source, try sugar beets, they have a much higher yield than corn.
Let me put it this way -- the far right in this country has an element of steadfast opponents to AGW. They don't believe it is happening, period. They are so venomous in their accusations, though, because they perceive that a dangerous legislative agenda is being pushed because of it - when in fact, the legislative agenda if fueled by simple corruption in state and national politics, and AGW is simply the diversion used to shovel tax dollars into friendly companies via grants and government contracts.
If you truly believe AGW is real, and that it has immediate and catastrophic consequences for the world, the absolute best thing you could do would be to try to put a halt to all the legislation being proposed in its name. Nail down the science, and get it well understood - then take simple, opportunistic steps to combat the problem. That means paying farmers to raise crops that are efficient in the production of biofuels, removing the subsidies on undesirable industry, and lower taxes on desirable industries.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
It used to be the case that scientists had a good theory about what weather there would be in different seasons, and this theory was usually right. They couldn't predict daily weather all that well, but they could predict that you could reasonably grow oranges in Florida without worrying about it being colder than Maine for a week and snowing a month later, and they could tell you that there would be snow in Vancouver and not in Dallas.
Now conditions are outside the boundaries that climate models are based on, and scientists really have no clue any more. And it's not just the scientific climate models that don't apply; common sense and experience are no longer relevant, because we don't have history that tells us what happens in this environment, measured, anecdotal, or otherwise. In all of our past experience, the arctic wind has blown eastwards around the pole. Then one year it blows across the pole into Europe. Two years later, it blows across the pole into North America. Is this going to be a regular occurrence? Nobody knows.
The extent to which climate change has a falsifiable hypothesis, it is rejecting the null hypothesis. That is, you can ask: is the environment now following the patterns we have previously observed? We find that we are observing patterns that we had not observed previously, including some that we would have noticed had they occurred in a substantial time period. On the other side, we've previously been able to demonstrate enough of an understanding of climate to know how to build houses and what crops to plant where. But the evidence that you should build houses in Florida to keep heat out and houses in Maine to keep heat in is getting less certain. The issue is not that scientists know that something bad is going to happen, it's that nobody has any clue if something bad is going to happen, even after taking into account that some bad things never happened before, because the situation is just different in some measurable ways.
Personally, my guess is that the planet has major negative feedback, or it wouldn't have stayed in a reasonably narrow range of climates long enough for life to get this far. More greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will trigger more cooling by some other mechanism, which might be okay or might be all of the continents turning into highly-reflective deserts instead of light-absorbent arable land. We really can't make an accurate prediction.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the world where you can make PREDICTIONS about the tide and the moon which ACTUALLY COME TRUE EVERY SINGLE TIME WITH A STUNNING DEGREE OF ACCURACY and show you have a useful model with gravity.
Can you predict how high up the beach the water will be, at any given second ?
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is absolutely nothing in structural engineering someone without a degree cannot understand that someone with one magically does. This is proved by the huge number of bridges build before there even were schools for engineering.
No doctor fresh out of the school can do medical surgery alone without assisting - i.e. learning in practice - first. Could someone without the school learn it? During war a few have ...
There is nothing in climate science that somehow makes the owner of a paper which says "PhD" magically smarter than someone without one.
Claiming anything else is utterly idiotic.
Minority or not (I would not sign that petition for several reasons), science should not be done by popularity voting. 9000 is such a big number that it raises some questions.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
> AGW is probably the most extraordinary claim in the history of extraordinary
> claims and the proposed solution (seizing most of the world's wealth,
> eliminating most of the current industrial base, etc.) is so far beyond
> extraordinary
While I feel way too underqualified to judge the science of AGW, I don't understand these oft-repeated hyperbolic claims that carbon reduction strategies will "eliminate most of the current industrial base."
On the contrary, even in the absence of evidence of AGW, most of our strategies are just common economic sense and good health policy -- reduce dependence on oil (which will continue to rise in price as demand outstrips supply); decrease destructive mountaintop coal mining (which imperils the health of countless rural residents); improve public transportation availability and usage; improve our electrical grid and accommodate supply elasticity; etc
Where carbon reduction or carbon taxes would add costs to some manufacturing industries, it will also create economic opportunities in new technology, alternative energy production, new batteries, nuclear energy, etc.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:1, Insightful)
Pick any climate-related topic. If the observations match the AGW predictions, wonderful. If they contradict them, just change the predictions, and keep right on talking. As others have pointed out, that kind of thinking isn't science, it's religion.
Actually, that is science exactly. No god has come down and expounded a perfect science for man kind to follow. The bible etc doesn't really count since they just don't have much to say about climate science.
I don't know who "told" you about the hurricane season stuff. It was probably your run on the mill unreliable TV news, am I wrong? Those guys love to hype stuff up. The scientists may have just said that the hurricanes will get worse _somewhere_ in the world, and worse in general. But within that situation, some areas can get more mild while others get much worse.
Again, the prediction of AGW is that some areas will get better, some will get worse, and overall, things are going to get worse. This counts for all the weather.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
So much of this whole post is simply not true.
Look, a few proponents of AGW sceintists have falsified some data, that's true. Many opponents of AGW have falsified data as well-- I don't see you screaming about them.
The bottom line is that the Earth's temperature is going up every year, give or take, while its CO2 content goes up-- and CO2 is well known to retain heat within the atmosphere.
This isn't "innocent until proven guilty," folks. The anti-AGW folks have to make their case, too. They haven't. All they've done is try to muddy the water and nitpick. There's a good reason they haven't made a case-- the evidence that AGW exists is overwhelming. The specifics-- whether it will cause more hurricaines or snow, more precipitation or less, these things are being hotly contested, just like with any young scientific theory. But the overwhelming arc is that iAGW exists and that it ain't going anywhere.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers),...
Nice try. You don't really know what "peer review" means, do you?
Scientists don't talk about their "peers". They talk about their "reviewers". Often in language that is not fit for public consumption.
A better term than "peer review" would be "competitor review". It gets ugly. There is occasional misbehavior of course, but its often just plain rough and feelings get hurt.
As for science being "groupthink", you're halfway there. It's groupthink with negative feedback which alters the group consensus when it strays too far from the facts. The feedback mechanism is peer review.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Snark aside and back to your example, gravity is an extremely simple system when only two bodies are involved. And it takes a supercomputer to predict the local velocity field at a particular place in a galaxy. And comparing that local velocity field to direct observation of the motion of the stars at that point is an exercise in futility. Does that falsify gravity?
Don't confuse a global prediction (climate) with a local stochastic process (weather).
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that all of those behaviors are predictable according to the theory of gravity. You can precisely predict how that ball will bounce, and how that comet will travel through the solar system, given sufficient data.
So what? The point I was making is that anyone can gloss over the details of a theory and make it appear to be false.
The fact that gravity is simpler and generally more predictable (at least in cases where there are only a handful of interacting bodies) actually reinforces the point that cherry-picking deliberately misleading examples can cast doubt not because of a bad theory but because of a lack of understanding by the person posing the questions.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
WOW! Seriosuly, WOW!
1. IPCC corrected the error relying on one person's speculation in some paper.
2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm
3. Yes, many things are "worse then they thought'. THis includes melt of Greenland. How melt water accelerates glacier melt is poorly understood. It turns out ignoring melt water resulted in models not predicting the rate of melt which is MUCH FASTER then old models show.
The best thing about science is you can go and get your own data. Unfortunately you seem to fail, like most deniers and "experts". All you rely on is "gut feelings" and "OMG, winter is cold and snowy in my backyard! I totally disproved Global Warming".
But don't worry. Science will win in the end because people will do jack shit to cut CO2 emissions. They will just go up and up and Earth will not warm 0.5C like now, or even 2C or 4C but probably it will be 10C by the time mankind realized WTF is happening. There is enough dirty oil (ie. tar sands, etc.) to make Venus out of Earth.
Now, how about denying antibiotics save lives? I mean, there are side-effects. I can pull up cases where people died due to allergic reactions to antibiotics. Therefore it must prove that antibiotics kill people and should be banned? Per your thought processes, that must be the only conclusion you would reach. Which doctor can I trust!?????!!!?
Anti-Intellectuals Easiest To Fool (Score:3, Insightful)
Oddly enough, you accuse Scientists of fear mongering when the media driving the anti-intellectual movement uses the exact same method and gets away with it.
The ages old "X will raise taxes" is the most widely used anti-climate change argument, also the most transparent and entirely based on fear mongering. Yet the somnabulant public tends to buy this like it's going out of fashion. Remember, most of this centuries tragedies were caused by one person saying that another group was destroying their livelihood, it's a big lie [wikipedia.org] that never gets questioned.
Does mentioning the Big lie, count as Godwins Law?
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for finding a source.
However lets see how much of this actually supports the claim that all that:
Everyone publishing used those 2 as the ultimate source of their data. The data currently published cannot be trusted. None of it.
First of all
"I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”
He isn't saying global warming isn't happening. He's saying global warming isn't man-made.
My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit
He's welcome to his belief. He's also welcome to publish his beliefs in a scientific journal and to support these beliefs with data so the debate can be further continued. Writing to a committee is hardly the same.
some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results
Great. SOME scientists have done this. Awesome. Let's throw out all the published papers (even the papers that don't support global warming) because an unspecified group of "some" scientists have manipulated data.
Also, why was the term manipulated use? Why not use the term "falsified"? Manipulating shit is what statisticians do. Its why they're so distrusted.
"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
Alright, whose they? I'm assuming given the context in the article "they," are referring to the some scientists who have manipulated data. So because SOME scientists aren't making their work transparent, all climate model forecasts are suspect? This sounds like someone with an axe to grind and is looking for political clout.
The GISS adjustment have received criticism (a potted summary here) for revising the historic record in an upward direction - and making undocumented and unexplained revisions.
See, now that's more credible and actually supports the claim. But following that link again doesn't provide any conclusive support for tarball's claims. It raises questions, but doesn't provide any answers.
Conspiracy Theories (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you believe in heaven and live a good christian life?
No and yes. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and all that claptrap. Of course living a good "christian life" as depicted by modern christians isn't quite the same thing as the one ascribed to Christ himself in the bible, but that's a minor detail.
The parabel stands though. Just because there isn't a beared guy in the sky or emissions commitee that is going to punish you for not doing so doesn't making doing the right thing a bad idea.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Please keep this line for Religion. Not Science.
What exactly is wrong with keeping our emissions of CO2?
There's no right answer because no one knows. Maybe decreasing emissions will make things worse. There is no way to determine what's going to happen because we have only one Earth to test theories on.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it just me, or does your reference quite explicitly say that 2009 was not the hottest year on record - 2005 was?
Spot all the modders who just thought "he's posted a link - mod him informative".
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are certain things that are science (easily verifiable).
1. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its increased concentration does lead to overall increase in average temperature.
2. That antropogenic CO2 emissions are proportionally large enough to significantly contribute to natural ones - enough so to change the atmospheric concentration balance in a pronounced way.
3. That solar activity is not a highly variable factor contributing in global average temperature in short to medium term.
If you add them together, the conclusion that global average temperature will keep rising if we keep pumping CO2 into atmosphere at present (or higher) rates is also a scientific fact.
What exactly happens at that point is definitely debatable, yes. If you want to argue that the overall effect on climate will be beneficial to humans, by all means, go ahead. But denying that the basic heating process is going on, when it has to do that according to all laws of physics, is rather silly.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Err ... you know which variable has the biggest influence on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere?
Global average temperature.
This means that any increase in average global temperature purely from CO2 will result in an even larger temperature increase due to more water vapor in the atmosphere.
And CO2 causes more problems than just increased greenhouse effect. Ocean acidification, anyone?
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
"There has been an uptrend that is not significant" is more properly interpretable as "there has been no warming" than anything else.
Actually, no. "There has been no warming" is a positive statement, one that would need its own significance test. "No significant trend" means "the data over the last 14 years, taken in isolation, cannot provide conclusive evidence for or against warming." Which is quite different.
Now if you look in the previous record, you see that 14 years is simply too short a range to reliably detect significant trends, even when they are really there (as verified by using longer timespans). That's what Jones says in the bits you conveniently left out.
If the record was such that 14 years trend could predictably detect trends, then the absence of a significant trend in the last 14 years would be evidence against GW. Since they can't, it isn't. OK?
Now if the last 14 years' data cannot speak conclusively for or against GW, we need to ask the second best question, namely relative likelihood: given the recent record, even though no hypothesis reaches significance level, which is more likely than the other - warming, or no warming ? The "nearly-significant uptrend" is a coded way of saying that, even over the last 14 years alone, warming is "more likely" than non-warming, in the sense that if there was no warming going on, there would only be about 1 chance in 9 of getting similar or more extreme results.
If we add in prior knowledge, the overall long-term data [nasa.gov] says that warming is going on. The last 14 years of data, alone, cannot prove it, but they support previous data, rather than contradicting it, as you seem to imply.
tl;dr: "no significant trend over last 14 years" doesn't mean "no warming", it means "14 data points is not enough to establish significance in trends for noisy timeseries" (duh!).
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
What you are saying is that quantum mechanics and general relativity are not real science!!! There are numerous physics Professors around the world for example that don't have a full grasp of the standard model or general relativity.
The suggestion that a random person of the street could make useful comments on the validity of either without years of study is utterly laughable.
I have a physics masters should my views on black holes be given as much weight as say Stephen Hawkins?
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no meteorologist. I can't tell what weather we will have tomorrow, but I can reliably predict that the average temperature (where I live) will be higher six months from now. It's called summer. Strange, huh? No idea about short term, pretty good idea about long term average.
So... we're not supposed to bother our pretty little heads trying to understand the basics of the earth's energy budget, how much comes in vs. how much goes out. But trying to "read between the lines", however, like some kind of psychoanalytic literary critic, that is supposed to tell us something? Sure.
You're right, though. Both sides are full of shit. Both the climate "skeptics", and the people like you who pretend to be "fair and balanced" without knowing shit.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
>"There has been an uptrend that is not significant" is more properly interpretable as "there has been no warming" than anything else. Anyone who understands >anything about statistics understands this. If you don't, I can only presume it is because you don't understand statistics.
No it doesn't. It just means that that particular data set, taken by itself, doesn't *show* warming, not that it shows a lack of warming.
It doesn't provide evidence of no warming either. By itself, it shows nothing. Combining it with other data may do.
Or, to put it another way, absense of statistically significant evidence is not statistically significant evidence of absence.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that "if something is economically sound, it need not the support of politicians" is factually incorrect. Opium was freely traded with the Chinese who fought and lost two wars to prevent it. Arguably this mistreatment in the name of European profit led directly to the communist revolution. The Federal government maintained low interest rates for too long after the twin towers and allowed the global financial system to blow up in the name of good business. You and your family will be paying for this mistake in the name of profit for decades. The role of modern politicians should be to factor in the externalities to supposedly free markets - because the markets are broken and the profit motive alone will destroy us.
Global climate change has been investigated by an independent panel of scientists funded by the United Nations rather than people funded by industry or individual governments. They have not told us what to do, they just set out to the best of their analytical abilities what the consequences of various actions are predicted to be. They have made a few errors in specific predictions which are now being used as propaganda by the vested interests who may lose if we take action against climate change. This hasn't changed the overall conclusion and it is vital that the errors have been found and corrected, this is how science works.
Personally I am on the side of the precautionary principal and would rather our spare cash got spent on accelerating clean technology than wars over resources like oil. The only people likely to loose in this upgrade are the super rich who own the oil companies and are too lazy to get off their backsides and make money out of difficult techy stuff like renewable energy. If you want the world to be run by the super rich for the super rich then ignore climate change and I hope you and your offspring enjoy dying in your own effluvia.
Too many people ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's get some simple facts out on the table. The Earth's climate IS changing. It has been changing since it was created (long before humans infested it). The Earth's climate will continue to change up until the "day" it ceases to be (astronomers tell us that in a few billion years the Sun will swallow the Earth; now THAT is real global warming). There is NOTHING humans can do to STOP climate change. NOTHING (even "modifying" the non-anthropomorphic climate change is CHANGING the climate).
Now, if the REAL issue is the "anthropomorphic" in anthropomorphic climate change (or anthropomorphic global warming if you prefer) that then please deal with it honestly. Get rid of the people and there's no more anthropomorphic ANYTHING.
The proponents of ACC (or AGW) typically point out how terrible things have become since the industrial age began and use of fossil fuels began in earnest. Well folks, we've added about 5 billion people to the world population since then. What if we got rid of those extra 5 billion people?
In the 1970's there were a number of studies done to determine ecologically sustainable populations. At the time the numbers for the US were about 110 to 120 million. We've pretty much busted that into 200 million pieces. The US is now a bit over 300 million and heading up. Imagine the impact (or lack thereof) on the ecology and climate if the population was only 5 milllion as in the beginning of the 1800s. Now repeat that exercise for the rest of the world.
The only real answer is to quit having kids. Quit providing incentives for having them (instead of providing tax breaks to parents they should have to pay more taxes to make up for the "force multiplier" effect of their "bundle(s) of joy"). Provide health care only to the level that was in effect at the beginning of the 1800s (no antibiotics, no immunzations) and let the populations die off.
Yeh. Not very palatable or likely. But IF the problem is the with "anthropomorphic" part of climate change (or global warming) then deal honestly with the "anthropomorphic" part of it. Otherwise, trying to stop non-anthropomorphic climate change (or global warming) is an irrational fools errand (or a big time money maker if you get in on the "carbon tax" gravy train).
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
saying 'It was just a cunthair higher than back in 1934' doesn't make a good argument for seizing trillions (sic) of dollars of economic output and redirecting it into politically connected pockets.
Neither does saying Iraq had WMD's, but the right got its way on that one. I didn't see you objecting to the billions that got redirected from our schools to Haliburton. So don't act high and mighty on the subject of redirected government spending.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just awesome how now even people who say they aren't experts go into the same discussion as the experts they're talking about: Saying flat out contradictory things, and noone having any reliable source to find it out...
I'm starting to think i really need to treat this as religion, and call my self an agnost... All i ever read seem to read about AGW is just people contradicting each other, and good luck finding any good sources...
Lets say you're right, and what the guy you replied to is all wrong... why all the hostility? he did his best to word what he (thought?) he knew as politely as possible, and if you think it's all nonsense, back up your claims... Your hostile opinion, which just ends up in nothing but contradicting him is extremely annoying, and just contributes nothing at all to the discussion....
is there anywhere that would be a reliable source about possible problems with the current claims of AGW? because you're not gonna tell me it's all perfect, that all predictions became true, and that no errors were ever made. But somehow, whenever someone mentions such criticism, it all ends up the same. Either that claim was never made, or the data contradicting it is wrong, or whatever.... and we're back where we were, everyone contradicting everyone, and not a shred of backing it up -_-
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
P.S. If you don't have a Masters degree or equivalent in a physical science, then you are absolutely not qualified to interpret any climate data or its validity, so stop trying. If climate studies seem clear to you, it is because they have been dumbed down so that you will *think* you understand the issue. The best you can do is ready a lot of studies and attempt to read between the lines in each of them, but you will never actually understand what is going on... the climate scientists aren't even at that level.
You don't have to have a PhD in the relevant field to know when some is doing science wrong. When a research facility hides its data and refuses to reveal the precise methods -- in this case, source code -- by which another facility can duplicate its results, that is doing it wrong.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh... If the peers only have the erroneous, doctored data to go by, what conclusions would you think they would arrive at when they review the "research" that you're giving credence to?
Just because it's peer-reviewed, it doesn't make it much more valid than those blogs and YouTube videos you deride- all those are are where someone says validates that the research was done "properly" and there's no off in left field assertions and theories with the paper. To be honest, that's all peer-reviewed really means- there's less risk of crackpot ideas being promulgated (though it's completely possible if you've got people clandestinely massaging the data...) as good sound theories by way of peer review- it doesn't really validate things all that much.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
What you say is technically correct, but you're missing the point.
Given that there are a lot of smart people without PhDs and a lot of idiots with them, I think that we can still be pretty safe in saying that the average PhD on a subject knows a lot more about that subject than someone without a PhD in that subject.
So, on the subject of climate change, it is reasonable to assume that those who make careers studying climate will know more about those who don't, as a general rule. Just like we would trust software engineers on a software issue more than we would trust house painters.
We are not talking about smart vs. dumb. We are talking about informed vs. uninformed opinions.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
You give two examples of how government interference in the market can be damaging, then proclaim the markets are broken and need governmental interference. Why should anyone take anything else you have to say seriously?
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
"I've been arguing peacefully, rationally, and with links for about 10 years. I'm tired of it, others are still doing, and at this point I'm blowing off steam caused by other people's ignorance fucking with my future."
Congrats on your shitty argument. No wonder people don't take you seriously, nor the many other "scientists" who have said the same thing. Is this the mantra of science today?
I WAS peaceful, BUT the commoners were too fucking stupid, so NOW I'm an ASS!
The person you replied to was 100% correct. I am an agnostic leaning towards the non-believer side of this argument because of the cult-like behavior of people like yourself. Quit making excuses for your inability to function socially in the world and get your point across. The way you act is YOUR fault, not someone else's. When the AGW "scientists" can debate calmly without using terms like "denialist" or "denier", and admit that scientists have a history of making mistakes, just like everyone else, THEN I will be happy to listen to their evidence. Right now their behavior more closely resembles Scientologists than scientists.
Re:Science or Religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to point you to the n-body problem. In an n-body system governed entirely by gravity, you cannot be sure where exactly the n bodies will be at an arbitrary time unless you actually step through the simulation - that is, simulate each of those n bodies for every quantum of time. There's no simple equation that can accurately predict the state of the system at a given time.
Now consider the climate. It's an n-body gravity problem. It's also an n-body chemical problem. It's also an n-body convection problem. It's also an n-body radiation problem. It's also an n-body nuclear problem ((IIRC) cosmic rays break down O3 in the upper atmosphere, for example). Also, all of those n-body problems are inputs to all of the other problems. Also, n is obscenely large. And I probably left out a few classes of problem that climate represents.
If you dropped a ball into the middle of three chaotically orbiting black holes, you couldn't be sure if the ball would fall up, down, sideways or widdershins when you let go of it.
Seriously, your argument boils down to "because simple things are simple, complex things should be simple too". Reality just doesn't work like that.