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.
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.
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:Surprise (Score:0, Insightful)
They're Norwegians, a country who at the first opportunity will tell you that if they stop whale hunting the entire planets ecosystem will collapse.
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!
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".
Re:Surprise (Score:1, 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.
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.
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. There is also a very noisy group of lunatics who deny all evidence and make up conspiracy theories. We can't prejudge this study, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept it prior to it being thoroughly reviewed by the international scientific community--not corporations or politicians. Science self-corrects, which means that there are occasionally flawed studies and occasionally revolutionary studies. I hate to break it to you, but flawed studies outnumber revolutionary studies by orders of magnitude. This is why the scientific process is so rigorous. Science is hard.
How is this "contrary"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Surprise (Score:1, Insightful)
The simple fact that so many people who oppose addressing environmental concerns have produced false evidence and fraud to support their agenda, to the point where they even manufacture similar accusations based on similarly shoddy evidence against those with environmental concerns, is a far bigger problem with the entire climate change discussion.
It's not a debate, it's a discussion.
That distinction is important. But don't pretend that your "contrary evidence producers" are the persecuted victims. That's just a false martyrdom meant to exploit people's emotions.
Re:Global Warming and The Sky Is Falling (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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: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: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: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.
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: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: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: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 presupposition. I can only reiterate my argument and hope that your reading comprehension is stronger this time around: the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, but not popular with certain groups. For this reason, there are a lot of bullshit arguments and conspiracies thrown at it. These bullshit arguments and conspiracies are then labelled 'debate'. Now a new study comes along that partially contradicts several other studies. Should we have a 'debate' about this before the international scientific community can respond?
Re:Surprise (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 activity for a hundred years
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Now given your premises are incorrect, do you think you may go back and check to see if you've been led astray?
Maybe there's no debate, but to the OPPOSITE conclusion you took because of your faulty reckoning?
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
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.
Re:Surprise (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 conclusion drawn, but also 100% incapable of being biased. Not that I'm holding my breath, btw. We haven't seen any aliens yet, and even they might have some ulterior motives.
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.
And it's a legitimate question to ask what bodies you're hiding in your backyard that might be uncovered as a result of a police action in your backyard. Oh, it isn't? Yeah, didn't think so.
Because of the politicization of climate science, individual scientists now have to eliminate personal bias, politics, and economics from their research.
Now you're getting hilarious. I'd like you to demonstrate a single action that was taken by anyone anywhere at any time that had no personal, political or economical bias, and didn't even have the chance to appear as such. What I'm getting up: you're setting up an impossible scenario, and then acting surprised that no one can complete it. That's dishonest arguing 101.
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.
You mean, like the climate scientists doing the actual studies? No? You mean, like random people on the Internet like you? Oh, I see where this is going. Since skeptic has been so utterly tainted by people like Watts and Monckton, you're tried to frame yourself as a "neutral" party just asking some questions. Here's what I know: every one of your questions has already been answered, if you'd just bother to read the scientific articles. Since you aren't, I can only assume that you're trying to throw out random words to derail the discussion.
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: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.
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:Surprise (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 tremendous pressure applied on the scientific community by the government and the media to comply with the AGW agenda or be labeled a pariah, and given how vitriolic and visceral the attacks on skeptics are (even going so far as to relabeling them "deniers" so as to pull their credentials as thinking individuals), there is no credible way to claim that there is no outside bias. Any claims to the contrary are down right insane.
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:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
it *started* with substantial political and corporate interests framing it as certain and apocalyptic
Why do people believe this shit when it is so fucking simple to refute [wikipedia.org]. Also you have got the various organizations all muddled up. The IPCC is purely for scientific review, it does not "do science", it does not have it's own scientists, nor does it pay a dime to any of the ~2500 scientists who donate their time to write the reports. Their budget is available on their site, it's a modest $5-6 million a year sourced from over 100 nations of all political colours, most of this is spent on airfares and conference rooms and salaries for 3-4 full time admin staff.
Just to be clear, the UNFCCC is where the political haggling takes place.
All of your suggestions of how they should conduct themselves before doing anything have been done to death, you simply have not been paying attention. Your sense of fair play has allowed vested interest to pull the wool over your eyes and insert FUD into your brain.
they have generally missed or skipped peer-reviewed research contradicting the apocalyptic GW scenarios for the past five years
Despite the fact you leave the word " apocalyptic" undefined could you link to what you consider the best three example of this hidden treasure trove?
Neutral parties are also smart enough to still ask what that rate of change is
Currently 0.14degC/decade, however the rate of change itself is also accelerating.
what the error bars are on those models
You mean like this [wikipedia.org]?
I find it very hard to believe you are making these basic mistakes and have also researched the subject for yourself. Forget the idea that you are neutral, your not and I'm not. Question your own assumptions and use reputable sources, then come back and look at your post. When you figure out who has been misleading you will probably get very angry, I know I did. Fool me once shame on you and all that...
Re:Cue Alarmists (Score:2, Insightful)
First, it's likely to be quite a bit faster than 500 years. Try 100 - 200 on the outside.
That's still at least an order of magnitude too slow for rapidly evolving human societies.
Perhaps you'd care that here will be a substantial reduction in arable land for crops causing massive, widespread famine.
I don't know about the original author, but sure I'd care if that were happening. But it's not. 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, we still don't have a cause of massive, widespread famine since we can just use the arable land that is left more effectively. We do have plenty of room for improvement in that respect.
It's sick how callous people are about the future and future generations.
Fuck you. You haven't even demonstrated that future generations will be in the slightest, inconvenienced by AGW, much less that there would be those famines and such. And yes, there really is a limit to how responsible we can possibly be for other generations of grown ups.
It's especially reprehensible to push this generational responsibility thing using the remarkably poor standards of evidence used in climatology. My view at this time is that while there is a bit of merit to AGW claims, most of it is a scam, an attempt to pull hundreds of billions a year in public funds from a hysterical public. Where do you consider the cost of that to your future generations?
My prediction is that around the time of the Warsaw, Poland climate conference (as well as many other future conferences in the years beyond) in November, 2013, we'll see the same propaganda pattern we saw in the climate conference at Doha, Quatar. Alarmist studies will show that AGW (and other bits of "climate change") are worse than feared in the weeks ahead of the conference (even when there's no evidence to support those claims), while more reasonable studies will show that AGW is less harmful than feared in the months after the conference is over.
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.