Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Globe Warmer In Time of Vikings 93

Posted by timothy from the too-darn-hot dept.
SEWilco writes "A record of recent global temperatures has been assembled by piecing together the hundreds of studies with past temperature estimates [Discovery, Harvard]. The record shows there was a "Medieval Warm Period" warmer than the 20th Century. This was followed by the "Little Ice Age", which ended around 1900. We're having average climate now. Numerous sources indicated this, but apparently were not gathered into one document" This adds some more background reading to the previously linked Telegraph story.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Globe Warmer In Time of Vikings More

Globe Warmer In Time of Vikings

Comments Filter:
  • The Yukon permafrost hadn't melted for thousands of years -- until now. They can try to spin it every way they like, but the fact is that something really significant is happening to the worldwide climate, and it's certainly the biggest since writing was invented.

    I'm frankly disappointed at each of you who is falling for that spin game.

    • Re:One Word: Bull (Score:4, Informative)

      by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @10:18PM (#5796330) Homepage Journal
      Feel free to give us some citations for this. I'm sure you're right, but saying so doesn't make it so.
      • Melting permafrost was discussed in the 1999 Arctic Science sessions hosted by the AAAS.

        http://www.cgc.uaf.edu/aaas/aaas_sessions.html

        There was also one or more articles published in Science about that time. There are also numerous references to the issue and articles about it in Nature. You can also search the NOAA site, since NOAA provided some of the original data.

    • Re:One Word: Bull (Score:1, Interesting)

      by GnarlyNome ( 660878 )
      Wait a sec Mammoths found frozen in the Siberian Perma frost had undigested vegitation in their stomachs. Even if the Elephunt sized beast was instantly killed, the body's internal heat would have rotted the vegitation.So... does that mean that the tempiture plunged fast enough to flashfreeze a couple of tons of meat?

    • Re:One Word: Bull (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dausha ( 546002 )

      . . . it's certainly the biggest [thing] since writing was invented.

      Fortunately, writing is a relatively new invention in the history of the Universe. IIRC, if that History were compacted in a day, then humanity is the last few seconds before midnight. So, writing was invented 'just a second ago.'

    • Perhaps the spin's on you? It is so sad to see people woh think they are intelligent fall hook line and sinker for pseudo-science. When does your magnetic wrist band arrive?

      BC
    • Yeah, just cause there is evidence that there were warmer temps when there were vikings running around doesn't mean I have to believe it!

      Yeah! I believe what I want, regardless of what anyone tells me. If you don't mind, I'm going over here to stick my head in the ground cause the sky is falling, I just know it.

    • Re:One Word: Bull (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jackjumper ( 307961 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @03:02PM (#5802560)
      Don't be so quick. The vikings abandoned their greenland settlements when the temperature dropped.

  • In too deep now... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by heldlikesound ( 132717 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @10:07PM (#5796282) Homepage
    This isssue has be politicized to the point that even with the three or four recent findings that seem to support the case that our quickness to attribute shifts in climate to the actions of man may be completely off base, the side screaming bloody murder for the last 10 years will never admit that they may have been wrong.

    Having said that, I am sympathetic to the evironmental movement, there's just nothing I hate more than bad science that persists due to politics.

    • Re:In too deep now... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @11:20PM (#5796534)
      No offense, but I'd say *you* are engaging in poor science. You yourself use words like "seem" and "may be" (and I do like how you chose to bold the next word, de-emphasizing the speculative nature of the results), but you insist that people who don't immediately admit that they may have been wrong are bad scientists. This is very poor reasoning on your part.

      Look at what's been shown: it *might* be the case that Earth's climate has shifted rather rapidly in the past. Without seeing the details of the study and not being myself an expert in the field, I think most of us will accept that. So what? So Earth's climate may have changed rapidly in the past. There have been mass extinctions in the past too (the Cretacious-Tertiary event, for one), but that doesn't mean mankind isn't responsible for the current massive number of extinctions planet-wide.

      In fact, it's worse that that. There are many studies showing that the warming probably *is* anthropogenic. The warning trend tracks smack-on with the rise in atmospheric CO2, for one thing. There are studies on glaciers that must have been quite cold for millenia, but are now suddenly warming up. Computer models - starting with the basic physics, mind you - show the same warming trend. We have a mechanism that points to human involvement, we have evidence that it is humans and we have evidence that this hasn't happened in the past.

      You bring in three or four new studies which don't even actually contradict the anthropogenic theory and expect people to just suddenly change their views, especially when those new studies don't do anything to explain away the previous results as *non*-anthropogenic? I'd be disappointed with any of my fellow scientists who *did* suddenly switch views based on such poor arguments.

      The fact is, politics or not, scientists very rarely suddenly drop old theories and embrace new ones. Evidence seldom comes in so strongly that it makes sense to do so. Usually, it's a slow trickle of data, often over decades, that shift views.
      • "There are studies on glaciers that must have been quite cold for millenia, but are now suddenly warming up...We have a mechanism that points to human involvement, we have evidence that it is humans and we have evidence that this hasn't happened in the past."

        How do you reconcile these statements with a broad based study that concludes that the global climate was significantly warmer 1000 years ago? I reconcile them by concluding that statements like "this hasn't happened in the past" and "glaciers that m
        • How do you reconcile these statements with a broad based study that concludes that the global climate was significantly warmer 1000 years ago? I reconcile them by concluding that statements like "this hasn't happened in the past" and "glaciers that must have been quite cold for millenia" are false.

          Global climates are the product of complex processes. What we DO know is that enough dead carbon has been poured into the atmosphere from industrial sources that it has affected the accuracy of radiocarbon date

    • Re: In too deep now... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @12:07AM (#5796712)


      > This isssue has be politicized to the point that even with the three or four recent findings that seem to support the case that our quickness to attribute shifts in climate to the actions of man may be completely off base, the side screaming bloody murder for the last 10 years will never admit that they may have been wrong.

      > Having said that, I am sympathetic to the evironmental movement, there's just nothing I hate more than bad science that persists due to politics.

      Thing is, we have good sound physics to explain how various gas mixtures deal with radiated heat, and we have good sound evidence that the amounts of some of the relevant gasses in the atmosphere have grown exponentially as civilization has progressed.

      Where's the bad science you're talking about? Do you dispute scientists' claims about the role of atmospheric gasses in the temperatures of other planets?

      Just because the earth's temperature fluctuates as a background noise, doesn't mean we should ignore what we're doing to the atmosphere. Yes, distinguishing signal from noise is going to be difficult until the signal is so strong we're fuxored. But there's lots of good science in this beyond the daily weather report.

      • Re: What I don't get. . . (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @01:53AM (#5797017)
        Is why so many people seem to want to oversimplify the situation.

        As with any set of data, it's not all signal and it's not all noise. Much of the research in global warming may be due to political motive. (Though personally, I'm not inclined to agree that environmentalism is a purely political issue. I have a lot of reasons to be concerned by the idea that Florida might start shrinking in the next century, and none of them have to do with politics.) However, the focus of all the stuff I've heard about lately is on trying to figure out just how much of the change in global climate over the past century is due to natural fluctuation and how much is due to pollution.

        Besides, even if it turns out to be entirely due to nautural fluctuation, it seems that it would be in our best interests to still modify the actions of humanity as a whole to promote a global climate that is best suited to humans. People don't think irrigation is a stupid idea because Mother Nature didn't put a body of water in the middle of every cornfield. The issue at hand should be what action is ultimately the most beneficial to the world.

        • ...it would be in our best interests to still modify the actions of humanity as a whole to promote a global climate that is best suited to humans.

          Sure, but lets make sure we aren't wearing blinkers when we consider "best suited to humans". We need a working ecosystem, which means that sometimes our direct short-term interests are outweighed by our long-term interests. So, slow down on that oil use until we have alternatives lined up. Stop hunting those endangered species, they'll be extinct soon (and us i

          • I agree with you. I think people(western society) tend to only look at their actions impact in the short term if at all. Our actions long term impact is what we will be remembered in the future by, if humanity survives long enough. Do we really want to be remembered as a culture that raped the land, and left nothing for its children? Or maybe we could be remembered as a culture with enough foresight to take action in preserving our little home in the stars for future civilizations to enjoy.

        • Re: What I don't get. . . (Score:4, Interesting)

          by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @10:27AM (#5799549) Homepage Journal
          Though personally, I'm not inclined to agree that environmentalism is a purely political issue.

          I used to think that too. Then a conservative friend of mine noted that he had quit the Sierra Club after repeatedly having to sit through tirades about Republicans that had not one damn thing to do with actual environmental issues. Looking around, talking with him, reading some of what passed as "discussion" in environmental circles, it became quite apparent that the majority of "greens" have hooked their wagons to a particular rigid point of view about what is and what should be, and have stopped thinking about the general point of science, which is to be flexible and seek truth.

          Of course this goes on in most scientific fields--an orthodoxy is established, moves some sort of progress forward, and eventually something comes along to break down or modify the orthodoxy in strange new directions--but in environmental science, and particular around the issue of Global Warming, the orthodoxy is particularly entrenched and fighting particularly hard to hold its position regardless of the facts.

          I don't think any reasonable person is going to argue with you that the right thing to do is to modify human behavior to best balance between "progress" and the environment (my conservative friend is among those reasonable people). Unfortunately, most of the so called "environmentalists" have already made up their mind and don't want to discuss it any further. It's like trying to have a religious discussion with Jerry Falwell, and people are just as incensed when these people try to shove their environmental religion down our throats as they are when the (im)Moral Majority does.

          • "Besides, even if it turns out to be entirely due to nautural fluctuation, it seems that it would be in our best interests to still modify the actions of humanity as a whole to promote a global climate that is best suited to humans."

            But what does promoting a certain global climate look like? One side of this argument says "Of course human CO2 prodution is causing the warming" and the other side says "it is not at all clear that human CO2 production is a significant cause of warming." IF human CO2 produt
      • It might be useful to have a link to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [www.ipcc.ch]. Some of their pretty pictures [www.ipcc.ch] (graphs, whatever) are hard to ignore.

      • Thing is, we have good sound physics to explain how various gas mixtures deal with radiated heat, and we have good sound evidence that the amounts of some of the relevant gasses in the atmosphere have grown exponentially as civilization has progressed.

        OK, give me the good sound physics. In particular:

        • What is the wavelength band absorbed by CO2?
        • What percentage of outgoing radiation in that band is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere?
        • How much difference is it possible for more CO2 in the atmosp

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Ok, you don't like being lied to. Fair enough. I don't like it either, so I'm kind of wondering where you pulled that Schneider quote from?

          For those who are interested, the quote actually reads:

          "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well.

          • Re: In too deep now... (Score:2, Insightful)

            by taphu ( 549739 )
            Your misquotation of Schneider total changes what he was trying to say.
            I don't understand how this is a misquotation. Considering your expanded version of the quote, several things are clear:
            • He has some data.
            • He has drawn some noteworthy conclusion from that data (i.e. there is a risk of potentially disastrous climatic change)
            • He is not 100 percent certain about the conclusion (he would not talk of failing to mention doubts otherwise). Yes, he may be 99% certain, but not 100%.
            • He feels that in order to
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Having said that, I am sympathetic to the evironmental movement, there's just nothing I hate more than bad science that persists due to politics.
      I can agree, the world needs a good environmental movement.

      Damn pity the fools we have are more religious than the pope!

    • We already know that earth, at times, was much hotter than it is now, and at other times, was much colder. But just because it may have been hotter during the middle ages doesn't mean that climate change was or is harmless or unavoidable. Even the natural climate changes over the last few millennia have caused empires to crumble, diseases to spread, and cultures to disappear. If we are already on a warming trend, all the more reason not to contribute to it further through human activity.

      In any case, the

      • Re:you are completely missing the point (Score:4, Interesting)

        by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @10:34AM (#5799634) Homepage Journal
        No, the real question is why you are assuming, a priori, that our greenhouse gasses are the sole cause of the current warming trend. Especially in light of evidence that in the past we had warming trends that were much more significant in the absence of the same greenhouse gas production you're trying to stop.

        Show me the money. Show me the proof (not a computer model which can be jiggered any old way to fit your biases--and I don't mean that people are doing so consciously or with malice, but it does happen) that our own contributions to the climate are more significant than those of the sun or of other factors.

        I think given that we don't even half understand all the things that influence climate (we can't predict weather reliably more than a day or two in advance even now) it is far too premature to say we know for a fact that this tempurature spike is our fault. Reality is, it would be good to limit things, but we have to negotiate from the standpoint of where we really are: we SUSPECT rather than we KNOW. People who run around saying we know are only damaging the credibility of anyone else who has honest concerns about our contributions to global warming.

        • I think its obvious that humans are not the sole cause of warming trends. The point is that our green house gases are causing warming of some degree. The basic physics shows these gases cause some warming (as in they don't make the planet cooler), but we just don't know the how much warming. It could easily be that the warming by our gases are insignificant and we can't stop the warming trends or it could be that we are the central cause. The point is either way, the emission of greenhouse gases is not

  • The Vikings and those Damned SUV's! (Score:5, Funny)

    by R2.0 ( 532027 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @10:50PM (#5796444)
    Traipsing all over the world in those huge boats, putting out all sorts of greenhouse gasses (methane), when they could have been conserving their energy and travelling only on inshore trips in lightweight, hybrid fuel (sail and oar) dinghys.

    All because of their imperialist, war mongering culture.

    Bastards.

  • Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @10:56PM (#5796466) Journal
    Too late. In Western societies, more people believe in Global Warming than believe in God. It is to good a story to stay anything but the global boogeyman it is.

    • Re: Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @08:01AM (#5798249)


      > Too late. In Western societies, more people believe in Global Warming than believe in God.

      Some of us think that's a good sign, given the relative amounts of evidence for global warming and the existence of God.

      • Anyone who says the global climate isn't warming is smoking crack.

        However, anyone who says they KNOW that we're significantly contributing to it is also smoking crack.

        It's not about who believes in global warming, it's who believes in "Global Warming" which is largely dogmatic scare tactics to turn us back into luddites.

  • Just not well known to anyone who hasnt studied the subject. We may hve jacked global warming up by 1 degree celcius in the last 100 years, but were due to rise 3 degrees anyway due to, well, historical patterns. Look up paleloclimatology(sp) and do your own research. Were just coming out of the ice age that killed off roman civilistaton.

  • Bush and Kyoto (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ogerman ( 136333 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @11:20PM (#5796536)
    If these increasing numbers of studies disproving man-influenced climate change turn out to be true, we can all thank Bush for not plunging our economy further down the toilet by signing the Kyoto treaty.

    That being said, I am entirely in favor of *real* environmental protection laws and the promotion of cleaner technologies. By 'real' I mean factors that actually affect people--water and air quality, landfills, etc. And I also think we should switch to a hydrogen economy ASAP, not out of worry about so-called greenhouse gasses, but as the single most effective way to fight terrorism--shut off the money flow to the middle east!

    • Re:Bush and Kyoto (Score:4, Interesting)

      by derubergeek ( 594673 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @02:17AM (#5797085) Homepage Journal
      I'll start off by saying I predominately agree so that this doesn't look like an argument. I'm only quoting your one line because I'm feeling lazy...

      And I also think we should switch to a hydrogen economy ASAP

      The only concern I have with the push toward a hydrogen economy is concern about the source of all of this liberated hydrogen. Those who say H20 are going to have to deal with the idea that nuke's are our current best bet toward that economy, at least if it's going to happen in the near future.

      Now, I'm not nuke bashing here. The problem I have is that, the current best source for H without using H20 is oil. It takes significantly less energy to get hydrogen from oil than from water. And the only byproduct is carbon (which I would imagine we'll find plenty of uses for if we have an abundance of it). Which means that it's much more likely that our hydrogen economy is going to be oil based.

      I'm also not oil bashing here. The real crux of this is that O2 + HC => CO2 + H20. The cool thing is that plants take CO2 + H2O => O2 + HCs. So we've got at least a cycle here.

      But what happens when we take HC => H + C, then toss the C, and recombine H + O2 => H2O? We start depleting oxygen from the atmosphere and don't provide a natural path back (although we do get a lot of extra water out of it).

      Just something to think about.

      For all the pedants out there: 1) Yes - I know my equations are totally unbalanced and 2) Yes - I know my HC oxidation reaction is ideal - in reality there are also NOx, COx, yadda, yadda, yadda, but the focus of this is on the CO2 issue.

      • Re:Bush and Kyoto (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Josh Booth ( 588074 )
        It's funny how many environmentalists want everyone to switch to electic cars. The problem is that the electricity comes from coal and oil burning power plants that are far worse than the heavily regulated gasoline cars.

        • Re:Bush and Kyoto (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Veramocor ( 262800 )
          The idea to switching to electric cars(if an efficient battery design was ever created) is that a large gas turbine power plant is more efficent than your typical diesel or otto cycle engine. Furthemore its easier to clean up pollutants such as particulates, SO2, NOX, from a single source then it is from 1000,s of cars.
      • Hydrogen-based energy is pure and unmitigated bull***.

        By weight, H2 is the most energetic nonuclear fuel - which is why the use liquid cryogenic hydrogen in shuttle despite problems with keeping cryogenic material close to zero Kelvins (they actualy boil off about 1/3 of all hydrogen in shuttle, depending how long sits on the pad - they just keep filling her up).

        But otherwise hydrogen it is completely nonpractical. There is no good way to store it and there never will be unless new, yet undiscovered laws

    • Re:Bush and Kyoto (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dausha ( 546002 )

      But, I thought the US Senate was supposed to ratify treaties--not the President. If so, then blaming President Bush ignores US law. I found this article [144.16.65.194] that indirectly brings up this point.

      For your reading pleasure, I also cite an article [junkscience.com] from the opposing viewpoint stating why the treaty is not in the short- or long-term interests of the United States. Additionally, the article futher points to the Senate's perogative in ratification of treaties, stating, "[t]hough the Senate hasn't ratified the treaty .

    • And I also think we should switch to a hydrogen economy ASAP, not out of worry about so-called greenhouse gasses, but as the single most effective way to fight terrorism--shut off the money flow to the middle east!

      Alright, I agreed up untill this last part scared me. Labelling terrorism as a by-product of the middle east falls too close to racism for my liking. Have you forgotten about Oklahoma City, or even Waco? I sincerely hope this was meant as a joke that I'm simply missing the humor in.
      • Alright, I agreed up untill this last part scared me. Labelling terrorism as a by-product of the middle east falls too close to racism for my liking. Have you forgotten about Oklahoma City, or even Waco? I sincerely hope this was meant as a joke that I'm simply missing the humor in.

        This is not an issue of racism and I do not harbor hatred for anybody or any race. I am, however, highlighting the reality that the majority of terrorism worldwide is spawned by radical Islamic fundamentalists sponsored (and
        • This is not an issue of racism and I do not harbor hatred for anybody or any race. I am, however, highlighting the reality that the majority of terrorism worldwide is spawned by radical Islamic fundamentalists sponsored (and perhaps brainwashed, if you will) by theocratic middle-east rouge nations.

          That's the best summary of American propaganda I've seen yet. Do you have any statistics to present showing this majority? What constitutes a terrorist attack and what is 'legitimate' guerrilla warfare? Dependin
          • That's the best summary of American propaganda I've seen yet. Do you have any statistics to present showing this majority? What constitutes a terrorist attack and what is 'legitimate' guerrilla warfare? Depending who you ask that question, Africa and South America must witness countless terrorist actions each day. Most of them likely unrelated to Islam, and almost certainly none of them related to middle-eastern oil.

            I see your point. My wording was certainly imprecise and depends largely on how you defin
          • What constitutes a terrorist attack and what is 'legitimate' guerrilla warfare?

            Damn, if you have to even ask that question you are dumber than a box of rocks.

            Guerilla warfare -- involves attacks by small but organized groups against a usually larger/better trained/better equiped opponent's military and/or military industrial complex. Anything that degrades the enemy military's ability to fight are valid targets. Targets of purely civilian nature are avoided as much as possible. By this definition ambus
            • Damn, if you have to even ask that question you are dumber than a box of rocks.
              Guerilla warfare -- involves attacks by small but organized groups against a usually larger/better trained/better equiped opponent's military and/or military industrial complex. Anything that degrades the enemy military's ability to fight are valid targets. Targets of purely civilian nature are avoided as much as possible.

              I guess Hiroshima was an example of terrorism then? If the definition of terrorism is simply the targettin

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @12:06AM (#5796708)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I believe it was Greenland. I believe you would find this in Julian Simon's writings.

    • Re:iceland (Score:4, Informative)

      by oraevi ( 411024 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @04:21AM (#5797417)
      Around the year 900, when the vikings first came to Iceland, the landscape was "filled with trees from the highlands to the see". This is stated in Icelandic scripts, which were probably written in the 13th century. Today there are hardly any trees left. The vanishing of the forests has been attributed to the introduction of the vikings' sheep into the fragile ecosystem but also to a change in the climate.
      In Greenland, which is an island almost totally covered by an ancient glacier, we can find hints about how the climate was a thousand years ago by drilling deep into the ice and studying the tiny air bubbles that where trapped there a long time ago. It also shows that the climate was warmer a thousand years ago.
      However, Iceland never had "large fields of grapes". These were the words the viking Leif the Luky used to describe the land he found sailing south-west of Greenland. In the year 1000 he discovered America and called it Wineland the Good.
    • Liberate Vinland from the Yoke of Canadian oppression!

      Seriously, Black currant (Ribes nigrum), vinbär/solbær, makes excellent wine grows in cooler climates. Wine from grapes is probably an artifact of mediterranean culture / continental Europe. However, mead was more common as the wax was a sought after trade good for the Byzantine empire.

      Cooling of the climate in the 1200's seemed to have killed off the Greenland colonies. The Viking groups (Goths, Svear, Danes, Norrmen) had tradroutes from

      • there were no vineries in Iceland (or Greenland) and Vikings had knack for blueberries anyway. (Having their teeth stained blue was a sign of good oral hygiene)

        The vineries were in England at that time, though. The englishmen transition back to beer and whiskey coincided with the little ice age of 1200'.

  • Research sponsored by who? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Glass of Water ( 537481 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @01:07AM (#5796914) Journal
    The trolling was quite predictable on this one. If you RTFA, you'll note that:
    The study - funded by NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the American Petroleum Institute - will be published in the Energy and Environment journal.

    (from the Harvard article)
    I think the conclusion hastily drawn by many of my fellow slashdotters is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc [intrepidsoftware.com]. In other words, the argument that is being made goes like this: Global warming is caused by a factor other than pollution. Therefore, pollution does not cause global warming.

    That said, I agree that bandwagon environmentalism is a bad trend. It does not seem, however, that the current US administration is in danger of subverting our economy with overzealous environmental regulation.

    • Re:Research sponsored by who? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jellisky ( 211018 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @02:33PM (#5802218) Journal
      In other words, the argument that is being made goes like this: Global warming is caused by a factor other than pollution. Therefore, pollution does not cause global warming.
      --------------

      Hate to break it to you, but that argument is perfectly valid since it's just a restatement of the first statement. It's a perfectly valid and logical argument.

      If the argument went:
      Global warming in this study is caused by a factor other than pollution; therefore, pollution does no cause global warming.
      then there'd be a logical fallacy.

      I'm also not seeing where your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is occuring. Perhaps you are insinuating that the scientists in the study are claiming that, since pollution is a modern effect and there was global warming before modern times, pollution was not a factor in the climate change, and thus, is not a factor in global warming at all. From what I read of the articles, I don't see any place where they say that pollution is NOT a factor in current climate. The insinuation of the articles seems to be that perhaps we are overestimating pollution's effect on the climate system, which is not a bad insinuation given recent studies on the carbon dioxide budget (see almost anything published by Dr. Scott Denning over the last two years). As for the /.ers making logical fallacies, let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised... but your example leaves much to be desired.

      As an atmospheric scientist, I've seen enough global warming results from people on both sides of the fence that I feel comfortable saying something that may surprise many people: we don't have enough of a clue of what's going on to make any sort of accurate prediction of climate. These big old climate models that run for months on our supercomputers aren't very useful since they rely on so many parametrizations. And how these parametrizations are implemented can seriously affect the results of the models. We're finding out that the climate is so chaotic over even long times with averaging that prediction is difficult, at best. But, we're making strides in understanding the feedback mechanisms that are present... slowly but surely. In other words, expect even the most basic ideas of the climate scientists to be in constant flux for another decade or two. Climate science is much like nuclear science was during the beginning of the 1900's.

      -Jellisky
      • The argument's not valid.

        What I'm saying is fallacious is this: It is false to conclude that since there are other factors that effect global warming, and since the Earth was warmer in the past, therefore man-made atmospheric gasses don't cause global warming. The discovery of other factors does not disprove the theory of global warming.

        Death is caused by auto accidents. Does that make smoking good for you?

        The sponsors of the research are not exactly a bunch of bleeding hearts. In fact, one could

  • Typical Slashdot Reasoning (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @02:00AM (#5797031)
    It's been proven that the dog farting can clear a room. Therefore, Joe's farts can't clear a room.

    There's no reason to believe that there can't be two or more contributing factors.

  • Warmer in the time of Vikings (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jo.Calder ( 668212 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @04:02AM (#5797373)
    Required reading for anyone entering this thread: Still waiting for Greenhouse [john-daly.com] which has a pretty comprehensive treatment of the whole greenhouse show.
    • The problem with John Daly, is that he is a liar.

      For example, take his critique [john-daly.com] of a paper by Micheal Mann.

      He makes three statements that are all incorrect

      "Using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Mann completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole'..."

      "At that point, Mann completed the coup and c

      • The problem with John Daly, is that he is a liar.

        Ouch. I think this language is immoderate. I don't know the Mann paper and so can't comment on that. On issues such as sea-level rises where less technical knowledge is needed, it's pretty clear to me that Daly can build substantive cases through thorough argument. Then one only has to worry about the veracity/plausibility of base assumptions.

        There is a real issue with the presentation of the Little Ice Age and other temperature excursions in IPCC

  • I bet it was killing all the hot air windbags eco nuts that lead to the mini ice age afterwards. Maybe we need to take a play from Erik's playbook and do the same. :-)
  • What I keep reading here from slashdotter classic enviro's is that we havent been this warm for 1000's of years, so humans are responsible. This doesn't make any sense to me. The first part of the statement disproves the conclusion. If you switch this statement around, it is clear that people are saying we were just as hot on this planet 1000's of years ago. And since we clearly did not have IBM, MS, Ford, GM, etc around back then, then you can not say that simply because it is warm now, that the increase i
  • I just don't understand these findings. If we are indeed warming up, fine. However 100 years of sample data in this regard is like saying the haystack is turning into needles, when there is only one needle in the stack. (Don't know if that made sense lol)

    100 years of sample data, by any researcher, would be considered rediculious. Especially considering that in earths past there have been hundreds perhaps even thousands of ice ages. You can't tell me that after an ice age, the world warms up because of

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close