Norwegian Study: Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared 468
Numerous news outlets are reporting the findings of a study from the Research Council of Norway — a government agency — which concludes that (in Bloomberg's version) "After the planet's average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized." The New York Times' Dot Earth blog offers some reasons to be skeptical of the findings.
Cue Alarmists (Score:5, Funny)
It's real! Panic!
Even if it's not real, the world will be a better place if you panic!
Frankly, I don't give a crap what the world will be like for my great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren. If they're too slow to get out of the way of a 500 year long rising tide, screw em.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cue Alarmists (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no substantial reduction of arable land since new arable land will be created to replace what might be lost. Even if we were to grant you that claim
You're the one making wild, specious claims. There is no evidence that more arable land will be "created" to replace what "might" be lost on any time scale that will benefit us, but you state it as a given.
Fuck you. You haven't even demonstrated that future generations will be in the slightest, inconvenienced by AGW,
No, Fuck You. Present generations have already been more than inconvenienced by it, and you're ignoring this so that you can justify not doing anything about the ongoing collapse of the global ecosystem because it would be an inconvenience. You're a willful killer for convenience, as are all of us in the developed world, but then you're also lying to yourself about it, and that's not just sad — it also justifies not changing anything, because you deny that there's a problem simply so that you can continue to be part of it.
Re: (Score:3)
You're the one making wild, specious claims. There is no evidence that more arable land will be "created" to replace what "might" be lost on any time scale that will benefit us, but you state it as a given.
What do you mean by "no evidence"? The greatest predicted temperature increases are in the northern taiga forests and tundra. That would make a lot of arable land. As to the "time scale", we move pretty fast on transforming land to farming use when it suits us.
Present generations have already been more than inconvenienced by it
Get back to me when you have evidence for your opinion. This is really one of the more ridiculous claims made by some on the pro-AGW side. There's no evidence that anyone has been inconvenienced by AGW.
and you're ignoring this so that you can justify not doing anything about the ongoing collapse of the global ecosystem because it would be an inconvenience
What collapse? You mean the usual stuff that's be
Wouldn't it be good news? (Score:5, Insightful)
For god's sake, it's just one more piece of analysis. If true, it will be followed up on, if not, it will be followed up on with corrections.
Re: (Score:3)
It has not been published yet
Published and peer reviewed.
Nature (Score:3, Insightful)
A peer reviewed study that doesn't quite jive with the prevailing line of thinking appears in the prestigious journal Nature.
But don't worry, some blogger says it may not be correct. Alarmist Rejoice!
Re:Nature (Score:4, Funny)
How do you know? It's quite possible this study refuses to dance at all with the prevailing line of thinking.
I'd be more comfortable if... (Score:5, Insightful)
the 'reasons to be skeptical' weren't by a journalist and had a bit more meat than "doesn't *quite* fit the received wisdom and thus is fodder for the deniers".
Poor summary (Score:5, Insightful)
This study finds warming at the low end of the IPCC projections. Other studies find warming at the high end of IPCC projections. There is uncertainty, and that why the IPCC publishes a range - but this study is not outside the published range. If this study is right then we will be committed to 2C of warming by 2050. We are trying to stay below 2C to avoid hitting some of the more worrisome tipping points and impacts.
Hopefully this study is right. If so then there is a chance that we can get off of carbon based fuels before we hit the tipping points. I wouldn't bet my kid's future on this one study though.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If so then there is a chance that we can get off of carbon based fuels before we hit the tipping points.
Which of course is making the assumption that there even is a tipping point, which isn't clear.
Re:Poor summary (Score:5, Informative)
Tipping point is typically considered to be the point when waters get warm enough for methane emissions increase from sediment becomes self-sustaining. We have significant evidence from excavations that suggests that once methane saturation in the air reaches certain point, it will become a self-sustained and very fast paced acceleration.
This is known because we can assess methane content from excavating ground layers. In other words, we know that this has happened in the past, several times. We also know that sediment contains high amounts of methane that is currently not being released into atmosphere in significant amounts and we know that warming water on top of that sediment will cause these emissions to increase rapidly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You use "the tipping points" and "the impacts" as if they were scientific certainty. In fact, they are just speculation at this point.
Yes, additionally Celsius/Kelvin is an arbitrary scale (even when it's based around water properties at some specific pressure), so there's no physical meaning to a 2.000000000000000K difference as opposed to 1.999999999998K or any other value in that general area. It's just more convenient to quote a short number, since it's not that exact anyways.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Huh? Tipping points at any temperature within a few degrees of current temperatures are pure speculation, and actually quite unlikely given climate history
Climate change is longterm (Score:2)
Ten years is too short time for any conclusion.
Re:Climate change is longterm (Score:4, Funny)
My god those scientists must be idiots. Thank the very same god we've got Hentes to clear things up for us!
As if it matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Not like we have world or national governance that can do anything about it.
The US government can't make a budget or run a money system of their own creation -- yet you think they can absorb science, understand it, and react to it in an effective fashion?
Such things only exist so that there can be sides for people to join and so there can be issues to argue about.
And we should all piss our pants if someone publishes that its slightly higher or slightly lower than expected? Laughable.. argue on children.
The leveling off was predicted (Score:3)
due to solar and (lack of) el nino cycles coinciding. Its quite temporary and we're already coming out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see a source for that prediction.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't pass the sniff test (Score:5, Informative)
It's doubtful their study will hold up to scrutiny. After reading the actual study, they're using a simple climate model to feed a Baeysian statistical model to generate their results, which fails to take into account numerous factors. This seems exceptionally weak, especially since a few years of data can drastically alter the results. For example, if the last ten years had a few strong El Ninos that gave a warming signal stronger than the expected signal, their model could be made to show warming beyond even the worst IPCC projections. And if you applied their methodology to a decade where some slight cooling took place (like the late 60's to early 70's), it would appear that by this time we would be well on our way to an ice age by now. That's an incredibly wide error margin, and more than enough to cast doubts on their results.
Re: (Score:2)
The data shows that temperature rises *precede* CO2 rises. We would expect it the other way around if human-released CO2 was causing the rise, but the data shows the *opposite*. Citation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
And yet ... (Score:4, Insightful)
the paper makes no challenge to the proposition that GW is occurring and is indeed anthropogenic, only that it us perhaps somewhat less severe than other recent estimates indicate.
So why again are the climate change deniers crowing in "vindication?"
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And why are the climate change alarmists vilifying this study?
Because both groups are driven by political agendas and personal beliefs that are largely unconcerned with science or figuring out what is actually going to happen or how best to fix it.
Gentlemen, let me be the first to coin the term (Score:2)
GLOBAL BAKING, which seems to be more to the point.
Look at the data (Score:5, Insightful)
Until recently I believed the human-induced global warning narrative. On closer inspection of the data there are several aspects that need to be examined:
Global temperature increase data: The data shows that global warming is correct at least since the 17th Century (when there was a 'mini-ice age', possibly due to volcanic activity). This is undeniable. However, if you go back to data from two thousand years ago it appears that the climate is actually cooler than it was two thousand years ago. Please look at the data (and note that the trend is a very slight cooling over 2000 years):
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-climate-northern-europe-reconstructed-years.html [phys.org]
Human induced warming: The narrative given to us is that human activity in the form of burning fossil fuels has caused the supposed warming. If this was the case then we would examine the data and expect to see a carbon dioxide rise (CO2) from humans burning fossil fuels and then the temperature would rise as a result. In fact we see the opposite, we see that the CO2 rise *follows* the temperature rise, not precedes it. This means there is something wrong with the narrative that human-induced CO2 emission is causing global warming because the data does not support this. Here's the data
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
Global warming models: Much of the global warming information is based on 'extrapolations' (projections) of short-term trends. Looking over the last hundred or two hundred years and projecting will result in temperature rise estimates that are alarming. Looking at the long-term data results in projections that are far less alarming (which this Slashdot thread is talking about; and I am also trying to inform you about). The other thing about models is that they are iterative and are subject to all sorts of instabilities. From what I know some of the models also were rather crude in the fact they didn't take into account many significant effects, like the eccentricity of our orbit etc, which results in periodic changes in solar radiation levels. Having a model is always better than no model - but that doesn't mean the model you have corresponds to reality, it only corresponds to our best guess. I know, as a astrophysicist turned IT guy used to make scientific models all the time - they are tricky beasts and most people (even those graduate students making them) don't always understand their limitations very well.
Vilification of scientists: scientists who where skeptical of the data are being vilified. Their careers are being destroyed and they are ridiculed for saying, "Hey, the data suggests something else than the human-induced global warming narrative" despite this being not only consistent with, but *required by* the Scientific Method. These scientists are labelled by the media as "climate change deniers" when in fact they agree with recent climate warming, disagree that human-released CO2 as the primary agent for the warming, and disagree that the climate has gotten warmer over the last two thousand years. All of these positions are supported by the data (as far as I can see). The media is especially bad at mocking the scientists who "don't follow the (Liberal) Party Line" despite the courage of those scientists to not cave in (which would be easier) and follow the scientific evidence as they see it. The US mainstream media
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If these are the questions that you're asking now that you don't believe the "global warming narrative," you clearly didn't have a very thoughtful basis for your original belief either, if you're indeed being truthful about your personal conversion, which I must say that I found doubtful. Honestly, I would have expected a heck of a lot more thought out of an astrophysicist.
What is of concern is not prehistoric change and long-term trends. There are many ways to influence a physical system and the concern
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Responding to your points:
Global temperature increase data: Don't make the mistake of extrapolating the results of one study from Lapland to the whole globe. Unless you can present corroborating evidence from reasonably globally spread sites it's more about local conditions than global conditions.
Human induced warming: Of course there is nothing "supposed" about the warming. It has been measured. Where is your evidence that CO2 rise has to follow the rise in temperature? If that it true then where is
Re: (Score:3)
The process doesn't run away because each increment of CO2 causes less warming than the previous increment so the curve asymptotically approaches zero. If each increment caused the same or greater warming than the previous then it could run away.
As far as CO2 following temperature, where is the evidence that CO2 levels significantly changed because of periods like the Roman or Medieval warming periods? The evidence suggests that CO2 levels has remained near 280 ppm for the past 8,000+ years. Shouldn't th
Re: (Score:3)
one finds that even the 1.9C raise predicted by the study this story is
I don't disagree with this. What I'm saying is how do we know that human activity is the significant cause of this? If temperature's appear to be leveling off at 2000 levels but human activity has not then what is going on? That's the question to be answered, IMHO.
Why we should doubt this (Score:3, Insightful)
Why to be skeptical of the findings?
The main reason they doubt it is because it contradicts quasi-religous dogma.
Not "Less Severe" but "Slower" (Score:3)
This study doesn't say anything about the "severity" of the phenomenon but is a statistical modelling of the sensitivity of the surface temperature to the concentration of co2. In other words, the rate of the warming. However, it is written : "When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis. But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a “mere” 1.9C." That doesn't look to be a very solid model ...
my fear (Score:4, Insightful)
sunspot activity indicates we're in for some global cooling
which will counteract the obvious global warming our CO2 output is producing
so the debate will get shattered
then, in a decade or two when sunspot activity picks up, the temperature and violence of the atmosphere will shoot back up, and we'll be totally caught by surprise
Re: (Score:3)
According to NOAA [noaa.gov], we should be nearing the peak of a solar cycle. Sadly, it's been a terrible 'peak' for radio propagation. I've only got so many 11 year cycles left to live - come on, Sun, give me a break!
Norway ya say? (Score:2)
You mean a climate study (that is critical of aaalll the other scientists in the world who have been screaming things have, thanks to VERY recent evidence in the last few years not to mention last year which saw huge droughts, storms, and heat (Australia had to come up with a new colour for their frickin'
weather map it was so hot), gotten far, far worse), from the Norway who's entire economy derives from oil?
What a co-inky-dink.
yet another variable (Score:3)
the problem with climate study in general is there are literally millions of possible variables to affect global climate. are there things we can do to prevent it? possibly, it's also entirely possible that there is nothing we can do to stop it. it all depends on the variables a study takes into account. I'm not a denier, and I do think there are things we should be doing to lessen our impact on the environment. Climate change is a very new science, there are a lot of factors we don't know about, and new factors come into play in each new study. It's still science, proving and disproving hypotheses is the foundation of the scientific method. Shutting down the findings of a study because you don't believe in it is as short-sighted and self-serving as creationists denying the evidence of evolution.
I actually like seeing more studies being done on this, rather than just towing the party line...
frankly...
the more studies the better.
Based on an almost true story (Score:5, Funny)
DENIERS, BUUUUUUUURN THEM!
Wait wait. How do we know they are deniers?
Because they look like it!
Yes, but, we have to prove it.
Uuuh... they're made of oil... so they float?
Yes, and what else floats?
Ducks?
Yes, so fetch me a duck and I get my scales out....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
"DENIERS, BUUUUUUUURN THEM!"
I know this was tongue-in-cheek.
But even so, if you take another look at the article in OP's last link, it was updated yesterday. Their "reason to be skeptical" was a case of jumping the gun; it no longer exists.
Re:Surprise (Score:4, Funny)
But they're Europeans so they have to know better than us. No, no, it is even worse--they're Scandinavians, the only people who have formed perfect governments on Earth that maximize the potential of every citizen. How can we dump apes criticize them?
Re: (Score:2)
Norway and Sweden are very different; some conflicts even exist between the two.
Norway has a bigger territory, and has control over all the areas where there are natural resources.
Norway has a much smaller population.
Sweden has a more vibrant society and prettier girls.
Norway is much more rich thanks to all the oil.
Re:Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Norway and Sweden are very different; some conflicts even exist between the two. Norway has a bigger territory, and has control over all the areas where there are natural resources. Norway has a much smaller population. Sweden has a more vibrant society and prettier girls. Norway is much more rich thanks to all the oil.
Well, they're both former Danish colonies :)
:)
Okay, joke aside (I'm a Dane of course).
Sure they are different in many aspects (language is just one), but when it comes to having a democracy that works and is trusted by the people, which is what GP talks about, Scandinavian countries aren't that different.
So whilst, Norway is an oil producing country, I seriously doubt the Norwegian government faked a study about global warming...
Anyways, maybe we should read the article and see if the summary is even right... I mean the conclusion of the study might very well conclude that we'll be cooked at a slightly lower temperature, but still very much cooked
(I'm just saying doesn't trust the media, especially not Slashdot, read the study).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are great, they eat all the wasted food thrown into the trash. Natural habit is garbage dumps. One of the great adaptations of the world after man arrived. Probably last longer than us (with the cockroaches).
Re: (Score:3)
Disclaimer: Am Norwegian, but I've never hunted whale. Asking question out of genuine interest.
Re:Surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Because the whales being hunted for "research" are not only endangered, but are being fished on a commercial scale.
That's Japan. It's in Asia, not in Europe, you know. I specifically said "in a well regulated way on a population which is large enough". Try answering the question.
To be specific, the quota for Norwegian whale hunting has been between 500 and 1000 whales per year for the last decades. This is of a species called "common mink whale", estimated global population 184 000 individuals, being cited as "of least concern" on the IUCN Red List for endangered species. That's the same "endangeredness" category as Alaska Moose. Should we stop hunting that as well?
And regarding the temperatures leveling off post-2000, that's fairly easy to find data for (GIYF): here's a plot [forbes.com] showing the global temperature anomaly from Hadley data, NOAA data and NASA data. All are roughly flat for the ten years following 2000.
Re: (Score:3)
Norway != Japan
Re:Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple fact that anyone who produces evidence to the contrary is automatically suspect is perhaps THE biggest problem with the entire climate change debate.
How is this "contrary"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But 1.9 is not between 2 and 4, so those dumbass scientists have no idea. They just keep changing their minds and can't agree on anything, so obviously they have no idea what they're talking about!
Yes, it's ridiculous, but if you need any excuse not to believe in AGW, it will do just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is the estimates previously made by the Alarmists have included the recent natural cyclical temperature increases of the nineties, which were exagerated by poorly documented adjustments and thermometer siting issues, while minimising historical temperatures. This has lead the Alarmist's to much gnashing of teeth looking for missing Heat, which hasn't been found simply because they are looking for twice as much as actually exists because they grossly over-estimated climate sensitivity.
Because of th
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the current trends, not only has there been no statistically demonstratable temperature increase for the past 16 years, there is a decline over the last 5 years.
If you use only the last 16 years you can't reject the idea it's just short term noise, but there's obviously more data than that. Claiming the last 16 years is not enough to show there's warming in the same sentence as you claim the last five years is enough to show cooling is just absurd.
If you look at the data [woodfortrees.org] it's easy to see the amount of years have been cherrypicked to coincide with a peak in temps anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
It's "contrary" to the IPCC's mean extrapolation and the even more dramatic predictions on the high end that get all the publicity and people seem to think are "fact."
Re: (Score:2)
The simple fact that anyone who produces evidence to the contrary is automatically suspect is perhaps THE biggest problem with science.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty standard behavior when a specific set of events has been documented at nauseam. If someone says that gravity is weaker in NYC than in San Francisco, there's a good amount of skepticism that has to be overcome. Same with anyone who argues that Global Warming isn't taking place. They better have some real good data collection and a real good explanation at hand.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the biggest problem is that there are economic interests involved. The "debate" is between evidence and special interests, in the same way as, say, the evolution vs. creationism "debate". The main difference is that accepting the evidence with regards to climate change implies a need to concrete action - specifically, giving up fossil fuels, whi
Re:Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice thought-terminating clichee you got there.
How conveniently it wipes away all rational thought and “but”s.
PROTIP: While what happens is fixed, that which is perceived by our senses, minds, and from our state in space-time, is not. And it's not easy at all, to determine what happens just from that. That's call science.
And you don't even seem to realize, that with your rigid ignorant mindset and dismissal of the scientific method, that includes you. ... Mixing people who ask valid questions in with the actual ignorant deniers/lunatics of both "sides" (including yours).
It's just that your conspiracy theory is that everyone who doesn't blindly follow your mindset and dares to question anything, is an evil lunatic conspiracy theorist.
Like the ones you criticism, you have to right to speak in the name of science. Your mindset is the opposite of a scientific one. It is one of boneheaded stubborn belief. Yes, you believe in the right view, from what I can tell. But you do not think . You believe. And that's where you're a complete fucking nutjob too.
Re:Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
How conveniently it wipes away all rational thought and âoebutâs.
Things do simply happen. The evidence is now very strong, though not as strong as evolution, relativity, QED or QCD. I can't remember the last time I saw a "but" that actually stood up to inspection. So rational thought says now that unless you have some really strong evidence then the rational thing to do is assume global warming is happening.
Rationality doesn't mean challenging everything all the time.
Rationality means accpeting things as facts until further notice when the evidence is strong enough. I accept the existence of gravity as a fact. I now accept climate change as a fact because the evidence is strong enough.
All your sophistry does not change that.
Re:Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have constructed one hell of a strawman here. And I must say, you have masterfully taken down an imaginary argument. I can only imagine that you somehow interpreted my post to mean that anyone that questions climate change is a lunatic and that questioning climate change is questioning science. And if that was what I wrote, then your post would be insulting, but correct. But it wasn't what I wrote. There really isn't much of a way for me to respond to your argument since it is based on a false presuppos
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) No such thing as "global cooling era":
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/#love
2) Those models got pretty damn close. Hansen's 80's model would, if given the actual emissions scenario that took place, would have gotten a 3.4 C per doubling climate sensitivity to CO2 rather than the 3.2 that would have been spot on.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
3) We're NOT at the 11yr solar cycle peak. We're at one of the lowest levels of solar
Re: Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
I love how you ask the same, hackneyed "questions" that climate change deniers have been trotting out for a while now.
Read his post carefully. He is not "denying climate change" as you claim but is acknowledging that it is an established fact. What he is asking is how much of the current change is due to man-made influence. Frankly as a scientist (though not in climate change) I have the same question. The debate is not about climate change - that is a fact established so well that even recorded human history provides clear evidence. The debate is about how much of recent change is due to us burning fossil fuel, killing forests etc. and how much we should do to stop this.
My own opinion is that it seems plausible that we could be having an effect on the climate and, since we don't yet understand what that is, we should take steps to lessen our impact and research not only ways to do this but also how to better understand what impact we are having as well as understanding the natural forces which change the climate. If you want to argue for a wholesale dismantling of the economy you need to have some really hard evidence that this will prevent global warming...showing that this dismantling will be less disruptive than the global warming that would otherwise be caused would also be a bonus.
Re:Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you know what the problem with that argument is? The problem is that regardless of what the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming actually is, it *started* with substantial political and corporate interests framing it as certain and apocalyptic. In addition, while the scientists of the IPCC may actually be neutral parties, the fact that the IPCC is a UN organization doing research on a subject that blocs of countries could leverage into significant economic advantages at the very least suggests conflicts of interest. And it's a legitimate question to ask what research has been suppressed or minimized as a result of the initial politicization of the issue. (Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Slashdot even decided to report this one, since they have generally missed or skipped peer-reviewed research contradicting the apocalyptic GW scenarios for the past five years.)
Quite right, but in ways you didn't think of. Because of the politicization of climate science, individual scientists now have to eliminate personal bias, politics, and economics from their research. There are suggestions that scientists on both sides are unable to do this, which makes finding out the "truthiness" of climate science very difficult.
And here is the irony in your post. Based on this statement, you're what neutral parties call a "believer." Neutral parties generally accept that there probably is some anthropogenic global warming going on. Neutral parties are also smart enough to still ask what that rate of change is, if the climate models are correct enough, what the error bars are on those models, *before* asking if there is anything we should do about it.
The OP asked a perfectly valid question; unfortunately, it was answered by you, a zealot.
Re:Surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
[quote]Do you know what the problem with that argument is? The problem is that regardless of what the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming actually is, it *started* with substantial political and corporate interests framing it as certain and apocalyptic.[/quote]
Actually when scientists first started warning that the consequences of CO2 could be extreme and dire there where no political interests interested at all in the topic. Fouriers warnings in the 1870s about the greenhouse effect where pretty much ignored until the early 1900s when data started to come in that the infrared absorbsion properties of CO2 he had observed in the laboratory and he postulated would affect the atmosphere where turning up localized around roads and automobile heavy areas. From that point CO2 climate change was pretty much confirmed in theory and observation but still a bit abstract until later in the 1900s when new data found that some of the droughts and changes in arctic and oceanic conditions where directly caused by it.
Unfortunately the other thing that happened in the 1900s was a growth of anti-science activism around creationism and various health kookery, and some of this bled over into physics denialism which found an apreciative audience amongst conservative audiences who had decided that tempering the carbon economy was "socialist". And now here we are with half the planet insistent on denying the evidence in front of their eyes.
We've had nearly a 150 years of physics to get here, and now its "political interests" that are making the carbon molecules absorb infra red.
Well congratulations conservatives, it wasn't us scientific folk that decided atoms have a liberal bias, you goons.
Re:Surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Fourier died in 1830, he predicted the properties of C02 in 1824 while developing spectroscopy.
Tyndal confirmed the prediction by experiment in the 1850's
The first mention of AGW was in 1896 by a guy called Arrhenius, he woefully underestimate the growth in emissions and estimated it would take 3000yrs for CO2 to double.
Arrhenius was largely ignored for 50yrs, it was believed that the spectrum of H2O overlapped and overwhelmed that of CO2. The "problem" during those 50yrs was explaining the ice ages.
In the 1950's work on heat seeking missiles improved spectroscopes to the point it could be shown that the two spectra were interleaved not overlapped.
In 1958 the national academies first warned the US government that CO2 was warming the earth [youtube.com], their confidence in that warning has done nothing but strengthen since that time.
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply wrong. In the early years, many climate scientists (like Revelle, still quoted for it today, although he absolutely took it more seriously later) didn't think there would be so much warming, and could even speculate (like some modern denialists) that maybe it'd counteract an ice age, maybe it'd
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that regardless of what the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming actually is, it *started* with substantial political and corporate interests framing it as certain and apocalyptic.
Actually, it started with a good chunk of scientists in the 70s and 80s saying that "hey, it seems temperatures are trending upwards. Can we cross-check that and see where this might lead?"
. In addition, while the scientists of the IPCC may actually be neutral parties, the fact that the IPCC is a UN organization doing research on a subject that blocs of countries could leverage into significant economic advantages at the very least suggests conflicts of interest.
Ok, so the UN is comprised of bodies that might have some ulterior motives. Instead of asking you to prove your point that they have ulterior motives (you know, innocent until proven guilty, etc), I'll give you the much easier job of just giving me one example of an entity that is not only completely disaffected from any
Re:Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
The "evidence" that exists is that it has been getting a bit warmer; few people disagree with that. The "debate" is about what that means. Is it going to continue to get warmer? Is there anything we can do about it? Should we? What are the costs?
There are a lot of people who like to confuse the little bit of scientific fact we have with issues of extrapolation, prediction, and policy. That is not science, it is just dishonesty.
Re:Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to stage 3 of AGW denial: It's taking place, it's us, but we don't know how bad it is. You're about in the middle of where the US is, and ahead of a few stragglers like Watts who still vacillate between stage 1 and stage 2. Questions 1 through 3 have been answered at nauseam, so I'll leave you to google that for about 30 seconds. As for question 4, here's a more recent study on it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/curbing-climate-change-world-economic-forum_n_2521275.html [huffingtonpost.com]. There are a number of different studies on this, including some done by the US and the UK government, all of which come to different numbers as for cost. All of them pretty much agree though that it is cheaper to mitigate CO2 emissions than to just continue with our current approach.
Re: (Score:3)
If most scientists agreed that world was flat, and you were to somehow decide what to do on that information, the rational course of action would have been assuming the world is flat. The rational course of action does not depend on the physical reality but on the best available information. By definition, that information is judged to be better than its rivals. Whether a theory is better than its rivals is the pertinent question, whether it is actually true is not. "The truth" cannot be known as such, as i
Re: (Score:3)
The "evidence" that exists is that it has been getting a bit warmer; few people disagree with that.
A lot more than a few people disagree with that, including a significant number of people who have the authority and responsibility to actually DO something about it.
The "debate" is about what that means.
No, we KNOW what it means; we have known for decades what it means to have global temperatures get "a bit warmer". Just like we have known for decades what it means to have global temperatures get "a bit colder". The only serious debate left is what we need to do about it. Not when, because the when is NOW, but what.
Is it going to continue to get warmer?
Yes. The science is VERY sol
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
you commit the fallacy of "asserting the consequent". Overwhelming evidence? you mean like the claimed "record high temperatures" in Australia which actually are just a cyclical repeat of 1972, but for a fraction of a degree difference that is only due to more sensors and heat islands? Or the temperature rises and melting in western antartica which are more than offset by the increased formation in the MUCH LARGER east?
Re: (Score:2)
Debate? You see, that is the problem. Climate change is an event, like earthquakes, the sun rising, and cargo ships running into a pier. It is not like a gun control debate or an abortion debate where opinions matter. Climate change simply happens.
True, now tell that to all those lunatics that say it is human made for certain, and never debate (oh well, there should be a debate) how to deal with a natural climate shift, but just say we must do this or that to prevent it (like it was assured that we can prevent it).
The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate.
The same reason goes for all those mediocre scientists (the vast majority of them) who could never dream of topping the bill if there wasn't some heavy controversial and popularized debate like this. If there is no debate, it is because eve
Re: (Score:2)
I find it strange to see someone discount the idea of debate calling it "the problem", and the in the same breath talk about the rigorousness of science.
A scientific treatment of these papers would include taking each at face value -- not conferring those that agree with the status quo with a special status.
I think you are part of the problem as much as anyone else.
ENOUGH! (Score:5, Insightful)
The climate change debate is a giant distraction that only serves the interests of those destroying the environment.
At first it was 'is it happening?' then it was 'are we causing it?' and now we have discussions about the magnitude and the exact quantification, about whether it is a debate or not, about whose fault it is.
Scientists have been saying for decades now 'we are destroying the environment we live in, it is unsustainable and if we don't curb this trend it will become critical.'
Finding a new way to argue about one specific element of this problem is just another way of avoiding discussing the many things we already know are a problem, and finding solutions. The debate used to be about deforestation, fish stock depletion, groundwater and ocean pollution, unsustainable farming practices etc. After the climate debate is done and settled someone will come up with a new thing to argue about, maybe radio frequency or visible light pollution, or whatever, who knows. The point is we know we are doing things wrong, we have known for ages, why are we still arguing about it?
These are the facts: The proliferation and industrialisation of the human race is having massive consequences for the earth and the environment, the changes are cumulative and usually either detrimental or unpredictable in their effects. These changes are greatly exacerbated by the unsustainable, greedy and ultimately unnecessary excesses of our consumerist society.
Does anyone want to dispute these facts? Does anyone wish to make the claim that it would be better to exactly quantify in perfect detail every aspect and facet of each of the ways in which we are causing harm before taking any steps whatsoever to rectify any of them?
Can we start doing something about it some time soon, please?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate.
The reason that proponents of the anthropomorphic theory are much, much more suspect is that they refuse to admit that there is more money on the side of that GW camp. It's just not money coming from private hands. This theory is widely seen as a way to increase government power through arbitrarily-applied regulation and equally arbitrary government subsidies. As much money as the oil industry has, the governments get to print money, so they have more.
Science self-corrects
Only when there is no outside bias. Given the tremen
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Merely "a bit"? You hurt me! :p
I was aiming at "some insight, lots of WTF". The former is: even with such a massive warm-up, some places today inhabitable would become comfortable to live; as for the latter, DigitalSorceress' post nearby is exhaustive enough. Outlandish hyperboles aside, my point is that there's a massive tolerance, both ways, before traditional ways of human life would become impossible. Being able to sustain a large population or avoiding hardships of migration are another story, thou
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to sustain a large population or avoiding hardships of migration are another story, though.
And that's the big issue. If there were one or two billion reasonable, intelligent humans on the planet instead of 6 billion crazy assed members of Homo Industrialis then we'd be OK pretty much anything this side of a giant asteroid strike.
We're pushing the envelope at present. We've had and are having resource wars with just tiny decrements of a couple of major inputs - oil and water as an example.
Squish agriculture. Squish transport. Worsen our silly reliance on constant growth as an economic model an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the vast majority of people at the South Pole are Scientists and support staff, I'd guess they would be pretty upset if temperatures rose by 40 degrees.. especially since if "Earth temp" rose, that would be average temp and the poles would get a significantly larger share of that than the equator.
I'm guessing they'd be upset because some of them are there to actually study ice and cold and glaciers.Also, the vast majority of scientific opinion is that climate change IS happening and it's man-made, and
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a few mountain climbers wouldn't mind... would maybe make Everest a bit more comfortable to summit - then again, such drastic change would likely F*** up the world's weather patterns so much that it's hard to tell what the result would be.
Probably not much, elevation effects trumps sealevels temperatures at that elevation
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: an oil-producing country that's cold like hell, and can gain a lot from both its land getting more habitable and from it's main competitors' land getting less habitable.
If Earth got 40 degrees warmer, people at the south pole wouldn't complain.
I don't think that,
Re: (Score:3)
They already are making tons of money on global warming. They can drill and maintain their oil platforms and tanker routes for far less money during winters, they're signing deals with Russia to develop Shtokman field and so on.
The money is already in motion.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Kind Sir may I also draw notice to the fact that magnificent fjordly Norway is the home, source, and origin of trolls?
Sincerely,
Herr Underbro / Mr. Underbridge
Oslo, Norway
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Average all (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's divine the number of gods that exist by averaging the number of gods that world's religion claim to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
No need for that. The number of gods already is divine by definition. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a more reasonable approach than has been used so far.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't accuse the scientists of Norway's research council of fabricating data or anything, but they can't help but have a strong bias.
Problem with your logic is that it runs counter to observable facts. Norway has a very, very strong AGW leaning. Politicians, people in general etc. We have an ex-prime minister who said that AGW skeptics are evil (a word right out of religious debate). So, looking at what is the actual mindset of Norwegian scientists, you are dead wrong.
Funny enough, even if Norway was concerned with the market for its petroleum products in the future, they'd still probably be advocating the reduced use of oil as a fuel. E
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not saying their numbers are "fudged". But science isn't as objective as scientists would like us to believe, especially when it's about systems as complex as the earth's climate. Scientists's subconscious biases affect their results... there has actually been a bunch of research showing THAT in recent years. In this particular case I think the scientists in question saw what they wanted to see in the uncertainties inherent in the data.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your understanding of the scientific method is a bit naive. Lots of incorrect results pass peer review even in the most prestigious journals and sometimes are discovered as being incorrect only years later (or never)... because there is always some "fuzziness" in real-world experiments or data analysis. Were the experiments designed correctly? Was the data read correctly? Were there any errors in the analysis (mathematical or otherwise)? Is the logic leading to the conclusions correct? Peers who read the
Re: (Score:3)
I *didn't* accuse them of fabricating anything. I just pointed out ("informationally" if you like) that they have an inherent bias. If they were perfect scientists that bias wouldn't affect their results, but nobody is perfect. Because of this bias, even if it be subconscious, they are more likely to draw certain conclusions from the same set of data than other scientists with less or different biases.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like an Insurance Company doesn't have a financial incentive to raise rates to compensate for imaginary risks.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was one global Insurance Company monopoly, sure.
There isn't one. And competition in insurance industry is one of the fiercest in the world. Especially for major projects that also need most insurance against weather issues.
Re: (Score:3)
Study in a nutshell:
"By taking in account a best case scenario, our number just barely miss the 2.0-4.0 increase prediction by 0.1 degree. We agree with the fact that global warming is man made and happening but we think that numbers should be lower then expected if best case criteria are met".
Re: (Score:2)
Let this be an object lesson, but really you should have learned this in elementry school with "Peter and the Wolf".
At this point, we don't know whether the boy who cried wolf was called Peter. Could be, but the story doesn't say so explicitly.