Satellites Show That Earth Has a Fever 596
Roland Piquepaille writes "A recent study from NASA says that satellites are acting as thermometers in space. Contrary to meteorological ground stations which measure the air temperature around two meters above the ground, satellites can accurately measure the temperature of the Earth's skin. And this new study, which covers the 18-year period going from 1981 to 1998, shows that the Earth's temperature is rising 0.43C per decade instead of the O.34C found by previous methods. Unfortunately for us, if satellites can more precisely measure this rise of the Earth's temperature, they cannot cure this fever. This overview contains more details and a spectacular image showing the European heat wave of the summer of 2003."
So? (Score:2, Insightful)
And all of these ice ages and thaws (global warming if you will) happened without cars, humans, or anything. It just happened, and l
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, are we inadvertently changing the climate for the worst? I personally don't think we are (at least not on a large scale), but there's no good way of telling right now. We probably won't know that we are until it's too late enforce negative gains
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this whole debate is moot until people can decide on how to determine such fundamental things. Saying stuff like "because it will cause certain species to die off" doesn't mean anything in an amoral, evolutionistic world view: is it bad for species to die off?
I also like to point out for all you who like their statistics: correlation does not imply causality. (For instance: the fact that trees always move when there is wind does not mean that the movement of trees causes wind.) I do not yet think it is possible to set up an experiment to test the relationship between millions of variables and some average global temperature reading. The inertia and chaotic nature of the terrestrial atmospheric system also makes it quite difficult to put into a control system - do you use a PID controller? H-infinity? What *should* the setpoint be? The answer to most of these is "nobody knows".
*shrug*
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what really gets to me in these debates. Most people are unwilling to view humans as merely a part of the complex biological system that exists on the surface of the planet. I see no logical reason why the human species should be set apart specially from everything else, and no reason to arbitrarily define human actions as "unnatural."
I think the reason people are unwilling to consider this idea, is that they assume the reason it was brought up in the first place was to justify the trashing of the environment, under the guise that we are simply behaving "naturally." But seriously, that isn't the point. The point is, the Earth must be viewed holistically, as a system of many interacting and not always distinct parts. To think that we, as one small part, can somehow direct our actions in such a way as to favorably control its evolution, is arrogant and mistaken.
Life and climate are dynamic, chaotic systems. We've all heard of the Butterfly Effect. Even the smallest, insignificant action has profound effects on everything, given enough time. Are these effects good or bad? What causes them to be good or bad? Suppose that we are causing global warming, and in 100 years the world will be a tropical rainforest. All sorts of new species will evolve in the hot jungles of northern Canada. What "right" do we have to alter the Earth's climate, cooling it down, and preventing those species from emerging?
The fact is, global warming is a problem because it is a problem for humans. I don't think the Earth cares if species die off, and new ones emerge. It is a continual process of trying to come into equilibrium -- except the equilibrium is always shifting because of the billions of outside influences. Except this term "outside influences" is also a misnomer, because there are no truly "outside" influences -- the universe is one big system of cause and effect, and the closer you look at it, the harder it is to make distinctions between any of the parts.
Does any of this mean that we shouldn't do our best to curb our production of CO2? It depends, first of all, on what the immediate consequences to human civilization would be. Are we going to flood all our coastal cities? If so, it hardly makes sense to argue about whether the decision is "right" or "wrong" -- it's a matter of practicality. But if not... Suppose species are wiped out, migration patterns shift, ecosystems turn to deserts, deserts to to jungles, evolution gets a kick in the pants in general... Can somebody give me a fundamental, justifiable reason why that is "wrong?" Are natural changes only "right" if they are not guided by conscious awareness? Can you provide a justification for such an arbitrary viewpoint?
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
What "right" do we have to alter the Earth's climate, cooling it down, and preventing those species from emerging?
Either we're a part of the natural system as you posit in the first paragraph, and have the "right
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hydroelectric dams are unatural, the Great Wall is unnatural, huge areas of land cultivated with plants of highly uniform genetics are unnatural.
The fact that a thing is unnatural is not bad by most measures, but good and bad tend to be highly subjective. In the context of the environment good and bad relate mostly to the long-term impact of humanities activit
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
We humans, on the other hand, have our own agenda. For better or worse, our agenda does not at all times mesh well with nature's. We don't just die when
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
True the average temperature of the earth is rising, but your argument is not logical in the sense that fact a does not support argument b.
CO2 emissions cannot be correlated to the increase in the earth's temperature. CO2 emissions and the people who sprout its affect have in no way proven that emissions equal an increase in the Earth's temperature. In fact go to www.pubmed.com and type in Carbon Dioxide Emissions, the scientific co
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not fact.
We have pitifully little data about the long-term temperature on this planet. We've only been ON the planet for a relatively short time (in geological terms). We've only been collecting temperature data for a pitifully short fraction of that time. For almost all of the time we've been collecting data, we've collected very sparse samples, and almost always near or in population centers (since people are usually only interested in what temperature is
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
The copyright on Mickey Mouse would finally expire.
Natural Vs contrived? (Score:3, Interesting)
With respect to changes in the Earth itself, this may be part of a natural pattern, or some core activity which is causing a general increase in the outer skin. I wonder if anyone has done a "deep probe" to see how far these changes are penetrating.
We can't wait millenia. (Score:4, Insightful)
If pollution is causing unnatural global warming, then we can't wait until said warming is undeniable fact before we act.
I suggest an experiment: let's attempt to drastically reduce our emissions, as if we were addressing a real global warming problem. Then we can study temperature changes. If the rise in temprature decelerates or reverses, we could reasonably conclude that our pollution was the cause. If not, then we've made our air and water cleaner for no good reason, but at least we'd know!
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
moreover, the whole "ecological" movement can also be shown as a frivolous endeavour, since at some point in the future, the Sun is going to bake this planet dry, then swallow it and blow apart in a supernova.
come to think of it, why are we doing all this science crap? why do we go to work?
nihilist homeless bums are starting to look damn smart now, dont they?
Re:So? (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't think we have anything to worry about, personally.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
We have to look beyond what our personally kept records are and look into history to see what may be coming our way.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
They are looking at a couple hundred years of data and trying to explain why something that's been around for 4.3 billion years is suddenly warmer.
These same scientists would be blaming SUV's for an ice age if it were suddenly getting colder. When it's well know that there are cycles to temperature change on the planet.
Yeah maybe in the last 18 years it's gone up relatively alot, but who know's in the next 18 years it may average out.
You gotta look at the big
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, yeah, the "anti-environmentalists" have quite effectively presented the case that global warming might not be happening. Which, don't get mw wrong, is fine and dandy and a voice which should be heard. But, just as we don't have the information to conclusively prove the existence of global warming, we similarly don't have the evidence to disprove it, either. Given this, the message being presented by the (possibly mistaken) environmentalists is still a valid one: taking steps to reduce the factors that might be causing global warming are, at best, going to prevent us from broiling ourselves off of this planet, and, at worst, have little effect at all.
To put it in other terms, if I decided to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel, I might only get scraped up a bit, or I might die. But, if I don't have to do it in the first place, why put myself at risk? Even if I could promise myself a 99% chance of survival, what's the point at risking that 1% chance of death if I can avoid it?
Warming isn't the only concern (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not an expert on the North Atlantic Current, but I think it works like this:
There's a world wide system of ocean currents, the most famous of which is called the North Atlantic Current. They're all inter-related, and the said current brings millions of power stations worth of heat to Europe (each day I think).
Now the current is driven by a delicate balance of ocean temperature differentials (I think), and flows straight past Newfou
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
Global warming not only increases, but accelerates in a self-feeding reaction that extinguishes all life* on the planet Earth.
Don't you love worst case scenerios?
* - Well, any life worth talking about, anyhow. Do we really have to count those microscopic volcanic organisms?
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
The worst case scenario is that most of tropical Asia and Southern China becomes a desert. As a result you get 2 billion of hungry people on the move which are part of at least three nuclear armed nations (China, India, Pakistan) and are bordering a fourth one (Russia).
And that is scary...
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
No, the *real* worst is that the Earth heats up just enough to be considered a warm, sunny vacation destination by aliens who will spend their recreation time anally probing us with tools devices that are something like a cross between an industrial drill press, a belt sender and a soldering iron.
Now that's a worst-case scenario...
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
The next question, however, is whether us humans are really the cause of it... would the Earth still be getting warmer even if we weren't creating manmade polution? It may just be that even if were we able to eliminate all of the anti-ozone polution in the world, the global average temerature might still go up anyway simply because the Sun keeps throwing more energy our way.
It may be possible that the environmentalists are identifying a real problem, but not proposing a strong enough solution... that we'll actually have to somehow reflect-away a good chunk of sunlight in order to keep the Earth's temperature stable.
Re:So? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, yes, there is natural variability. But humans have dumped enough GHGs into the atmosphere that our contribution is an order of magnitude larger than the sun's variation over the last 250 years. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf page 8, for a reference.
Finally, s
Ozone is ANOTHER issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh, the ozone issue and greenhouse gasses that cause global warming are 2 different environmenal issues. They are both atmospheric pollutant issues, but they are not the same.
Ozone stops ultraviolet rays from reaching the surface, greenhouse gasses stop infrared heat
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not just that - even if the earth were still getting warmer without manmade pollution, would it be getting warmer as fast?
This is what the environmentalists are trying to say - but it keeps getting drowned out by people who don't want to hear it.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
The mass migration you describe is certainly possible, and if temperatures rise enough to melt enough ice tochange coastlines, it's what will happen. Even if the coastlines don't change, there will still be disruptions, and we'll deal with them. Humanity will survive. Life will go on. That's a good thing.
But millions, perhaps tens or hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of people will die in the ensuing chaos. You may be sanguine about that; I'm not. I've seen mass moveme
Riiiight... (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of timescale do you think we're talking?
~Berj
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
At a rise of .024 deg C a year, I seriously doubt the flooding and and mass migration will happen in a short enough span to cause "chaos", much less the kind that kills billions..
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
Really? Do you know the difference in global temperature between the last ice age, and now?
Approximately 3 degrees celsius.
How long ago was that?
10,000 years.
If the temperature is now changing
so this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so this... (Score:3, Insightful)
God didn't create Holland, the dutch did. [about.com]
Re:so this... (Score:3, Funny)
On the other hand, as much as 30% of Canada may someday become habitable if this trend continues.
Re:So? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I see that you admit at least there is a global warming phenomena. Most scientists finally agree with that. But you question two things:
1. Whether humans are causing global warming
2. Whether global warming is a bad thing
Let's address these two issues:
1. Do humans cause global warming?
1600 scientists, include over 100 NOBEL LAUREATES, agree that human activity is causing global warming. I trust them FAR MORE than you:
http://dieoff.org/page123.htm
It's obvious that climate has changed on Earth with or without humans, but it's also a known fact that human activity is accelerating climate change in a way different from natural causes
2. Is global warming a bad thing?
Here's where the troll part comes in. Do you actually believe the only consequence of global warming is rolling up our pants and walking inland a couple feet? The economy falls apart when the prices go up on oil. What do you think will happen when we are asked to MOVE LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK INLAND??? What happens when the phytoplankton are no longer able to survive in the ocean water with low salinity? Well, let me tell you that phytoplankton produce most of the oxygen you breath...
LS
LS
100 Laureates (Score:3, Insightful)
Now someone with a Nobel prize in physics is going to be a very smart person, but he or she will be no more able to assess claims in climatology than myself.
Re:100 Laureates (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer to one is almost certainly yes. Reduction of C02 output will definitely slow global warming. There is a secondary question that should be asked along side this one: is there anything we can do to reduce the natural component of global warming?
The answer to 2 is unknown. It is probably best to err on the side of
Well, actually, (Score:5, Informative)
A case in point is the atlantic conveyer (the 'Gulf Stream' to us Brits). If the conveyer stops, an absolutely massive amount of energy will cease to be delivered to where it currently is. The knock-on effects aren't really model-able, we just don't have the knowledge, but since staggeringly enormous amounts of warmth would cease to be delivered to the UK coastline, you could assume it will get colder, even if you don't know quite how much. To give some perspective, it generates a difference of approximately 20 degrees celcius between points at the same latitude. 20 degrees of delta-T over several hundred billion tons of water is a lot of energy to be dependent on far-easier-to-change salinity level.
The atlantic conveyer depends on salinity in different parts of the world. If it rains more (in places that it currently rains little) and rains less (in places where it currently rains significantly) the saline levels will change, and the conveyer will be affected - at the critical point, it will simply stop. There's no obvious way we could restart it either. Shifting several hundred billion tons of water is way beyond our capabilities, and restoring the initial conditions may not be sufficient.
I guess I'm sufficiently worried about the consequences (which we will not be able to counter) to pay some heed to people who try to assess risk under next-to-impossible scientific conditions. I guess, given the potential consequences, that I'm willing to listen more to those who get off their backsides and put some effort into the analysis than people who sit around saying, 'hell we've had ice ages before and we will again'.
Actually humankind hasn't had ice-ages before, and to suggest we'd just cope is hubris of the highest order. We live in a highly technological society, and yes, given an immense struggle I think we would probably cope, as in 'Western civilisation' would cope. Countless millions would die in poorer, less developed, and simply unluckily-positioned countries as weather systems went out of control. One other thought is that a highly-structured, lean-and-mean (due to commercial pressures, mainly) society is a vulnerable society. If central America were reduced to a desert (unlikely, but possible) then the food chain would break within the US, and other countries would have a hard-enough time to feed their own. 280 million people is a lot of mouths...
Simon
Re:Well, actually, (Score:4, Informative)
From a google search [216.239.59.104]
If that's 'peachy', I'd sure-as-hell not want to come across anything 'hard'. Granted it's just one view, but then any one person (you and I included) only have one view as well...
Re:Well, actually, (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying those are opposite ends of a spectrum. I'm saying that they are identified possible consequences of climate change; I'm saying that the best science on the subject to date suggests that we are contributing to that change; I'm saying that we should act now on what we strongly suspect while trying to find out more. What's so unreasonable about this on
Satellites Show That Earth Has a Fever... (Score:5, Funny)
What? I'm the only one that thought that?
Satellites cannot cure? (Score:2)
Never use the word 'cannot' in the body of a story submission. Or was it 'never' that we're not supposed to use? Oh well. SOMEONE will prove me wrong!
A question is raised. (OT) (Score:2, Funny)
Q) Do you know how to tell the difference between an oral and a rectal thermometer?
A) By the taste.
Re:A question is raised. (OT) (Score:3, Funny)
Energy content of the wind (Score:4, Interesting)
If the ground measurements are 0.34 degrees/decade, and the external measurements are 0.43 degrees/decade, then presumably the extra energy is contained within the circulating atmosphere. Certainly this ought to make the global dissipation happen faster (air tends to move more than water and earth (!) and has a fairly good heat-sink at the space boundary, not to mention the poles). I wonder if they've taken that into account.
On a slightly different note, I've always felt a sense of wonder when thousands of billions of air molecules synchronise their motion and hit you full in the face. I've always thought it ought to have a more poetic name than 'wind', considering the breathtaking nature of the phenomenon. Just a thought
Simon.
OH NO THE END IS COMING! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OH NO THE END IS COMING! (Score:2)
Who needs more than 20 years. I'm sure scientists will try to extrapolate the next 10,000 years based on these findings.
To Cure the Fever (Score:2, Funny)
There is a cure! (Score:2)
Re:There is a cure! (Score:2)
Doesn't she just call on Captain Planet to cure the earth.
Earth cycles (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Earth cycles (Score:3, Insightful)
Grapes were grown in winneries in southern Scottland by the 1200's and 1300's. I believe its still too cool today to grow them there but I dont know. Also the Vikings described greenland as a warm place like their native homeland. They wore jackets of course but not heavy ones like the eskimo's.
If we study history or read the b ible, we know that grains and large grasslands and farms as well as animals
I for one (Score:2, Funny)
When in doubt... (Score:2, Insightful)
they can not cure it nor (Score:2, Insightful)
is it nature or is it humans.
we do not know, all we have is correlational data which is far from proof of anything at all.
Come on already (Score:5, Insightful)
Assume global warming is real, and then enviromentally friendly policies are needed.
Then assume it isn't. Its not like enviromentally friendly policies require you to sacrifice your first born son. We enact them, maybe have fewer SUV's, and live in a slightly cleaner world.
You don't stand to lose anything by assuming global warming is real and going from there. You stand to lose a lot by ignoring it and having it turn out to be real.
Re:Come on already (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. People stand to lose their lifestyle.
But isn't it easy to order others to make sacrifices?
Re:Come on already (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of our "lifestyle" is still possible with more energy-efficient technology. Inefficient engines don't really add much to my lifestyle.
And in the process of moving to more efficient tech, we get an economic dividend, as well... Not to mention the defense/political benefits of moving away from a fuel primarily obtained from politically unstable parts of the world.
Re:Come on already (Score:5, Insightful)
B) Do things for the good of yourself, possibly at the expense of everything.
It's perfectly alright to chastise, and excommunicate for (B). It's not alright to do it for any other reason. Most people hit a balancing point in their own life. If being environmentally friendly is beyond your balance, you're an asshole. Not believing there is any problem despite any amount of evidence is B, and pretending to have an argument about it is B and lying about it.
Re:Come on already (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Come on already (Score:4, Insightful)
Therefore people keep rationalizing that measurements could be false, or warming is happening but it is not due to human causes etc. etc.
While I am not yet convinced that the warming has a human cause and am annoyed by those that bluntly claim so while the statistical and scientific evidence cannot proof it yet, I think it is extremely stupid and shortsighted to not act as if it might be true. Yes it is not certain, but there is a good chance that we are seeing an extreme speed of temperature rise which is caused by humans. Just to be sure we should take measures to stop it. It also has some other beneficial side effects such as leaving some oil and wealth for future generations, i.e. just being decent and responsible also for the future of mankind.
How egoistic and selfish many are. I don't know if this is a typical slashdot thing, or because it is because slashdot is mainly populated by americans and if the general opinion/mentality in the US is such. If I talk about it with people here (in Switzerland or elsewhere in europe) I can hardly find anyone who doubts a human caused greenhouse effect. Some, like me, think it goes too far to claim it as an abolute truth, but almost anyone thinks it might be and thus it is a good idea to behave a bit more responsible and try to reduce CO2 emissions and save some oil for future generations.
You drive an SUV for jesus? (Score:3, Interesting)
Be careful, or Jesus might run you over with his Prius. Assuming he's not just a fictional thing some really old authors made up. In which case, this is all there is and screwing it up by polluting will end your afterlifeless life that much quicker. Either way, you're screwed. So be nice.
Re:Come on already (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll avoid the moronic statement that emissions reduction goals would have no meaningful impact on the environment. There are so many different ways to impact the environment that its just a plain-old-stupid comment to make.
Now, would you please give evidence, as I'm sure you've thoroughly researched the situation, to provide support for the statement "To really "stop polluting" you would drive the economy to a screeching halt."? I'm curious to see your evidence.
How about this statement?
In either case that means lost jobs.
You mean like the current loss of jobs we've already seen? I suspect that research/development/production of new technologies to help reduce emissions would actually create new jobs. I still don't get why it would cost jobs when there are new opportunities available. This is always the argument I hear against doing anything about our impact on the environment and its a bogus argument.
So please understand there is no we might as well argument to be made here, its more of a we should'nt unless type of situation.
Actually its not. There is absolutely no good reason not to start doing something now.
Unless we are reasonbly sure we are damaging ocean currents and screwing up the climate it makes no sense to certainly RUIN many people well being over it.
. Many scientists are sure we are screwing up the climate and I'd bet their credentials to say so are far more extensive than yours.
What is called for is some money and time to conduct real unbiased studies and learn what we can, and to get all the people spewing forth the "bad science" on both sides of this issue to sit down shutup and move over for legitimate study.
So in your infinite wisdom and knowledge you know that all such studies up to this point are biased and illegitimate. You've read them all?
Re:Most disagree on the cause... (Score:3, Interesting)
How about that controversial Theory Of Gravity? I mean, why should we support it, because after all it's "just a theory?"
This rant sounds like something straight out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh and the other right-wing "there is no problem here" people. Most of
Re:Priorities.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I was going to point out that getting 25mpg when you could get 40mpg hardly counts as decent gas mileage.
It's also interesting that SUVs don't appear to actually be any safer for the driver, despite being more dangerous for everyo
The map of Europe was interesting but... (Score:4, Interesting)
And it looks like most of the rest of Eastern Europe was cooler.
It seems to me that most people think that it's getting hotter, well, it probably is.
But I don't think that people realize that they have to take into count mroe than the most recent 200 years of history, that's a pretty small time table for something as old as the earth.
Re:The map of Europe was interesting but... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's wrong with change??? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would assume it's because we humans are resistant to change and like what we know. But we are highly adaptive so, I'm sure we will be fine.
Re:What's wrong with change??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate change (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really correct (Score:5, Interesting)
For those who just skimmed the linked article; the article links to another, which says the satellites can only detect temperature on land, but not over snow covered land. Hmm... seems like a skewed data set to me.
How do they know that the colder, snow-covered regions aren't getting colder, to balance out the average temperature? Or maybe the oceans are getting cooler which might also brings down the average temperature to what the ground stations recorded.
Maybe the scientists do know, and this is just a case of bad reporting...
Re:Not really correct (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a case of bad reporting. The loss of ice in both the poles and Greenland is well-documented and goes back more than two decades, with some pretty spectacular and sudden melts or glacier break-aways occuring within the last half-dozen years.
However, as a number of people have pointed out, there's absolutely zero evidence that this is due to human activity. It could very well be natural, as was the case in human history for both the 'little ice age' and period of abnormal warming during the previous millennium which allowed the Norse to colonize the southern tip of Greenland. Both of these changes were more extreme than the changes we're currently seeing.
Hell, it could just be due to a tiny increase in our sun's thermal output. Most people don't know that our sun is a VARIABLE star, which means that it's energy output changes on an irregular, unpredictable basis. If the solar output were to increase by less than 1/10th of 1 percent over a sustained period of time, you'd get much the same thing we're seeing today - and since the alteration itself would've happened a couple of centuries back (it takes awhile for minute changes to broad impacts) we wouldn't know about it today, since two centuries ago there was no reliable way to accurately measure solar energy output.
Max
Re:Not really correct (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that we receive about 340 W/m2 of solar radiation, and given that the forcing due to human induced greenhouse gas emissions is _already_ 2.4 W/m2 and even if we stabilize CO2 concentrations at 550 ppm it will rise _another_ 3 W/m2, we are going to be effectively adding 1.5% or more to solar luminosity. (Yes, there is some cooling effect due to aerosol emissions, but aerosols are a flow pollutants, GHGs are a stock, which means that the aerosol influence won't grow the same way).
So if you are stickin
Re:Not really correct (Score:3, Insightful)
I said that _if_ "you are sticking by your '1/10th of 1 percent' would make big changes" _then_ you would have to admit that we are making huge changes. Or are you saying that the sun changing by 1/10th of 1 percent is significant, but humans changing its effective radiation by 1 percent is small? Or are you saying that humans haven't effected the radiation budget of the earth?
It is quite likely that humans are responsible for much of the last several decades of warming. There
Re:Not really correct (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't seen anyone credible suggest that we turn back the clock. What I've seen, primarily, is suggestions that we find ways to reduce our impact on our environment. The "global warming skeptics" tend to use language similar to yours, about simple black-vs.-white worldviews... and then go on to paint everyone arguing for restrictions, changes or even just more careful planning as anti-technology neanderthals. This is just as much of an excluded middle fallacy as what the skeptics are accusing the scienti
Re:Not really correct (Score:3, Insightful)
The vast majority of the models out there agree with the "emissions folk" (here I include, in no particular order, the GFDL labs, the PNNL labs, Wigley et al, the AGU, the MIT Joint Program on Climat
Re:Not really correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple- glaciers are retreating everywhere [bbc.co.uk] and polar ice [bbc.co.uk] is melting too. This of course changes albedo...
As for the oceans? They are getting warmer too:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/observe/s
It is incredible that we are still asking whether warming is actually real.
[freak-out]IT'S REAL DAMN IT, IT's REAL![/freak-out]
I can understand people questionning what causes warming, but for chriss' sakes people- it's getting warm down here, and weather patterns have become rather erratic:
Even without the satelite data, we should know by now that things are changing, and likely not for the better.
Since I'm commenting... the next stage of uncertainty and doubt is what portion of climate change is caused by humans, with the implication that we shouldn't do anything about it. And the F of FUD, being we'll run the economy.
Well, none of this is true or relevant. Moving beyond fossil fuels can be good for the economy.
Fever and Agent Smith's golden words (Score:5, Insightful)
The temperature increases for a number of reasons:
* Chemicals, called cytokines and mediators, are produced in the body in response to an invasion from a microorganism, malignancy, or other intruder.
* The body is making more macrophages, which are cells that go to combat when intruders are present in the body. These cells actually "eat-up" the invading organism.
* The body is busily trying to produce natural antibodies, which fight infection. These antibodies will recognize the infection next time it tries to invade.
Taken together with Agent Smith's insightful words [hackvan.com]:
"Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague. And we are... the cure."
I think the message is clear - Mother Earth is trying to get rid of us.
Just more data (Score:2, Insightful)
The Earth's weather is a chaotic system. About the only thing you can be sure of is that things will be different tomorrow, compared to today. With a lot more research, we may be able to find strange attractors for some places at certain times, and use them to predict what is going to happen.
The human concept of "climate" is entirely that: a human concep
I can fix it. (Score:2, Funny)
Paint everthing white (Score:4, Funny)
Reflect the sun's energy back into space.
I know you're joking, but... (Score:3, Informative)
I know you're joking, but parking lots and roads are responsible for altering weather patterns and causing local climate changes. Birds have even adapted to following highways because of the thermals they generate...
Hands on ears, shout very loudly (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is surely not that the Earth gets hotter and colder. I accept that (where I live I can look out the window and see some leftovers from the last glaciation or so.) /.ers announcing that everything is just fine does nothing for my peace of mind. You are the intelligent people, for the most part. If you aren't taking it seriously, what are the morons doing?
Rather, it is that the heating up is very, very rapid in geological terms. During the 19th Century when the age of the Earth was realised, it was understood that natural processes were very slow. Now they are happening really rather fast, and the satellite data suggests it is faster than previously believed. There has been, in geological terms, a step change in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and a lagging step change in temperature. (as an aside why can't a geek site manage subscript and superscript? Step changes are usually bad news. I have just become a grandfather and I can't help contrasting when I was born into a post-WW2 world rather full of optimism despite McCarthy et al, and my granddaughter being born into a world where accelerating climate change, population migration, hydraulic, food and energy wars may be the norm. A load of
The technology behind these satellites... (Score:5, Informative)
MSU - 1970s era air temperature
- http://ghrc.msfc.nasa.gov:5721/sensor_documents/m
s u_instrument.html [nasa.gov]
AMSU - next generation of MSU, several are flying on US and European satellites- http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/ [colostate.edu]
- http://aqua.nasa.gov/AMSU3.html [nasa.gov]
ATMS - next generation AMSU, scheduled for first flight in a few years- http://www.ipo.noaa.gov/Technology/atms_summary.h
t ml [noaa.gov]
SSM/T-1 - old 1970s/80s era air temperature sensor, the last one launched in 1999- http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/uso/readme/ssmt1.html [nasa.gov] (about the only decent information that's left about it)
SSMIS - next generation SSM/T-1 that also combines functions of 2 other older sensors (atmospheric water vapor and a ton of surface data like ice concentration, sea surface wind speed, soil moisture, etc), the first of 5 launched in October of last year- http://xenon.aerojet.com/Weapon_Systems/Earth_Sen
s ing/SSMIS/ [aerojet.com]
- http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/IMAGES/ssmisdoc.htm [noaa.gov]
- http://www.metoffice.com/research/interproj/nwpsa
f /ssmi/ssmis_ug_moud001_v2.pdf [metoffice.com] (PDF gets pretty technical but lots of good info)
CMIS - next generation SSMIS scheduled to fly by the end of the decadeAll of the above are what are known as microwave sounders or radiometers. They look at radiation in specific bands in the microwave region of the spectrum (based on oxygen absorption lines) to infer air temperatures.
It looks like the study in the article was using MODIS [nasa.gov] and TOVS [noaa.gov] data. TOVS consists of some of the above instruments - MSU and AMSU in particular for this application. MODIS is another sensor that doesn't look at the microwave region of the spectrum, so it's out of my area of expertise. Look at the website for more info on that if you're interested. :)
More satallite data (Score:3, Informative)
So, which one to believe is the "true" measure of our global climate?
I know the source of the bias... (Score:3, Interesting)
More seriously though, have any of you heard about Blaise Pascal ? He didn't invented French Fries, but come from the same country. This guy just had a revelation once, during a late night studying. The revelation of God.
To persuade other people to actually give faith into his idea of christianity, he gave us a cunning scientific principle : bet (based on both probabilities and cost of opportunity). If you bet on the existence of God, and if indeed it exists, you are ready for a happy millenar fucking angel chicks. If he doesn't exist, it's all the same. If you refuse to believe, and he does exist, just bring a cooler with you. If he doesn't exist, you're dead the same way.
The analogy is relevant in the sense that global warming does exist, but the causality with human activities is not proven. Hence the bet. Of course there are a lot of people saying that it would cost us our life standards. Answer : bip ! bullshit. Go on civil nuclear (just catch up your late, Sam !), spend less oil, learn to walk, get out of your fucking basement and take the streetcar.
Gosh ! Think, before you brain freezes...
Regards,
jdif
Missing a bunch of data (Score:3, Insightful)
How much geologic activity is occurring in the region sampled? Is it active, like the Pacific Rim areas, or is it relatively inactive, like the cratonic regions of the continenets?
I consider this pretty important information if one is evaluating this kind of data.
The first-blush inference drawn from the article summary is that mechanisms contributing to global warming (i.e., anthropogenic sources) are driving surface temperatures on the Earth in the same way as air temperatures. No mechanism is described in either the long article from Goddard or from the summary on exactly how surface temperatures could be affected by human activities.
The Earth's crust varies from one or two kilometers to several kilometers in depth and there is a great deal of geologic activity that is going on all over the planet irrespective of man's presence. While the evidence of global warming continues to point to a strong antropogenic contribution, both article and summary fail to explain how this paticular information is realted to anything
Heat Wave! (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, sorry, did I get here late?...
Self Correcting Phenomenon (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Earth warms. Could be due to pollution, increased solar activity or increased volcanic activity.
2. Ocean evaporation increases. Warmer air and water means easier evaporation.
3. Increased levels of water vapor in the air leads to increased global cloud cover.
4. Increased cloud cover raises the Earth's albedo (measure of reflectivity) causing less solar gain.
5. Less solar gain leads to global cooling trend.
So the atmosphere seems to be a feedback system, like a thermostat or buffer solution. Note that the reverse happens when the Earth is too cool. Also, the increased ocean evaporation mitigates somewhat the rising sea level due to melting ice caps.
Re:Perfect Solution (Score:2)
Re:Perfect Solution (Score:2)
Re:past climates (Score:3, Insightful)
While many otherwise reasonable people seem to like to question the former point, the fact is that the best climate models we have predicted a certain amount of anthropogenic climate forcing. Observations are right in line with those predictions.
Re:past climates (Score:3, Insightful)
Who says we are causing the Earth to heat up??? How do we know it wouldn't have heated up on it's own anyway??? If you study the history of the earth you will learn that the Earth is always changing. It has had hotter and colder times in history. It was fluxuating like this before cars, aersol cans, computers and many other modern inventions. To take a look at a small window of a few years to make a judgement is like a doctor looking in
Re:past climates (Score:4, Insightful)
The climatologist, physists, chemist, oceonagrophers and geologists. You know, those people with PHDs who have been studying the climate for decades and who have run all kinds of experiments and have made lots of observations.
I know that you probably know more then all those people combined and are in a better position to make judgement, after all they are probably ignorant liberal elite collage professors who never listen to Bill Oreilly or Rush Limbaugh. So what if you have a PHD and have been stuying the atmosphere all of your adult life. That's just "book learnin". You know better. You have common sense and street smarts.
Re:What's the greatest cause of global warming?... (Score:3, Informative)
The Sun may be big, but without the magnifying glass it isn't likely to fry the ant...