Koch Bros Study Finds Global Warming Is Real And Man-Made 769
bledri writes "The results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature are in and Richard Muller, the study's director (formerly an AGW skeptic) declares, 'Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.'
The study was funded by the Folger Fund, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates), the Bowes Foundation, the Koch Foundation, and the Getty Foundation."
But the real question is... (Score:4, Interesting)
...is global warming good or bad.
For some it will be good. For some bad. The diversity of life has historically increased with warming. Coastal cities won't like a sea level rise though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
At the current guesstimates as to rate of sea level rise, the population of Florida will need to start worrying about it in two-three centuries.
Either that, or they can build a three foot high floodwall around their property right now.
Re: (Score:3)
What's going to get Florida is not the straight sea level rise but the storm surge that comes on top of a slight sea level rise. That will chase the people from most of the state before it actually goes under water.
Re:But the real question is... (Score:4, Informative)
I challenge you to find any peer reviewed published paper that says Florida would be under water now. They don't exist. For the most part predictions of sea level rise from scientists has been on the conservative side. Occasionally they do speculate about the possibility of non-linear events such as the sudden collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet [wikipedia.org] but we have little scientific evidence to point to such a possibility.
Re:But the real question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the damage done by speedboats, I'm not sure being a Manatee is any day at the beach either.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:But the real question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Manatees, being mammals must regularly rise to the surface to breathe.
Re:But the real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Manatees don't need any feet, especially not three more...
Re:But the real question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
...is global warming good or bad.
For some it will be good. For some bad. The diversity of life has historically increased with warming. Coastal cities won't like a sea level rise though.
Darfur. The huge mess down there is being exasperated because traditional sources of water are drying up, forcing social and political change.
Personally, I'm less worried about the coastal cities getting submerged as I am about the majority of farmland becoming arid deserts. Combine this with peak oil also driving food prices up and we have quite the clusterfuck on our hands.
Re:But the real question is... (Score:4, Funny)
My stock broker is advising me to invest heavily in canned foods and shotguns.
Re:But the real question is... (Score:4, Funny)
The phrase "we'll chat later, I going to do some shopping over at Walmart" should not be construed as investment advice in canned foods and weapons.
Re:But the real question is... (Score:5, Interesting)
The question is, which god to buy? There are so many choices...
Diversity of life increases w Asteroid impacts too (Score:5, Insightful)
" The diversity of life has historically increased with warming".
Sure, but the same can be said of asteroid impacts; new studies have indicated that after as short as 10 million years, the biosphere has recovered and maybe even opened up a few new ecological niches by dislodging the old dominant species (bye bye dinosaurs!).
The problem is the word "short". On any human timescale, ten million years is a long time. In a few centuries which really is the blink of an eye in a geological sense, we'll be altering the climate substantially. For many species (millions?) it will be too fast for them to evolve.
So they'll die.
Global warming will NOT extinguish life on earth (well not unless we manage to cause a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus). It does have the potential of creating a less diverse world filled with crabgrass, cockroaches and rats and other generalist species (like us) that will take over. Our descendants for TENS OF THOUSANDS of generations may curse their selfish, short-sighted ancestors of the 21st century.
And Americans in particular.
Re: (Score:3)
You're thinking short term. Run away global warming could be the end of life as we know it.
Perhaps not in our lifetime. And perhaps that's why many people would rather deny it or claim it's not all bad.
That's Not What The Study Says Anyway! (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing Berkeley has done so far is to gather their own statistics about land surface temperatures. That data does -- roughly -- tend to support other climate scientists statistics about PAST surface temperatures. But that's ALL it does. So far they have not even compiled ocean temperatures yet... much less come to any conclusions about CAUSE.
This article is nothing but more propaganda. The Berkeley study ONLY tends to confirm PAST, LAND, temperatures. That's all it does. They do not even have the data yet to even TRY to make conclusions about causes.
Re:That's Not What The Study Says Anyway! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's Not What The Study Says Anyway! (Score:5, Informative)
Judith Curry's comments apply to last year's paper, which you might be able to tell because it was written last year. Muller's comments pertain to this year's paper.
Opening statement of the PDF from the Berkeley page says:
Seems like the Berkeley study is saying exactly the same thing as Muller.
Re:But the real question is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait a minute! (Score:3)
You may be correct about the whole "global weirding" thing ... but where's the evidence that us spending billions on "drastically reducing our consumption of carbon" would provide benefits in a reasonable time-frame??
That's the "sticking point" I see that's not adequately studied or addressed. It's too easy to spread fear around, and motivate people to "Start acting now!" (which usually equates to convincing government to fork over big subsidies to specific industries who claim to sell some of the solution
State =/= government (Score:5, Informative)
Since this is the second time that line is misread that particular way, I'll offer an explanation, even though it should be obvious. California's government happens to go bankrupt from time to time. That doesn't make the state poor, because there are also people and companies in the state who own and produce assets that are valuable. Interesting that you would think that only the government can create or maintain value ;-)
As for why the state of California regularly goes bankrupt: having the populace vote on every tax increase is a surefire way of never getting taxes increased. If at the same time people vote pro-spending, government becomes unsustainable. Not that hard to figure out, definitely a construction failure, and fairly unrelated to the question of regulations.
(BTW slashdot sitll doesn't allow unicode? Why can't I put something as innocous as the not equal sign into the subject? It's 2012, not 1992)
Re:But the real question is... (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, you're the moron, as that wasn't a Godwin, you damn Nazi.
Re:But the real question is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Brittle infrastructure is a problem for the developed world and our comfort but pretty minor.
The big issue is migration, the normal response to climate change. Migration causes conflict. That worked OKish before we filled the planet, today mass migration will be a catastrophe that could push half the planet to war.
Sure, the species will survive. The well armed ones.
Re:But the real question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
That assumes that the infrastructure still exists to supply the goods you need to build that home and that locations exist to move farming to. That's not a given.
Re: (Score:3)
Where's the evidence that infrastructure is brittle? If a home breaks, build another. If a farm ceases to be productive then move to a location where farming is more productive.And energy production is particularly resistance to climate change since it's widespread and very diverse.
Have you considered the cost of the actions you describe? It's not just the cost of materials and labor, but also the lost productivity incurred by lack of access to the infrastructure during the transition. Worse even than that is the (inevitable) case where the people already living at your new location don't want you (and all your thousands of dirty refugee friends) crowding their primo living space, and make their displeasure known with laws and/or guns...
Re: (Score:3)
Let's follow your logic.
If a home breaks (or gets submerged) we'll build another one. Okay - how much is Miami worth? Or New Orleans? Let's say we need 1 million new homes - at $150k each that will be $150 billion. Now we also need the infrastructure - roads, schools, power lines, gas lines, highways, etc. Let's call that another $150 billion. Now we'll need the factories, buildings, strip malls and all the other places for these people to work. Call it another $150 billion. So, to ballpark it, we n
a bit sensational headline (Score:5, Insightful)
The Koch Brothers were among several funders, some of whom actually had decent motives. For example, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab are not partisan conservatives. And FICER (the Gates-funded organization) actively depends on global warming existing, because their whole raison d'etre is pushing geoengineering as a solution, which would obviously be unnecessary if there were no problem for geoengineering to solve.
In fact that's probably why the outcome was actually scientifically legit: it was a study by actual scientists with a fairly broad set of backers, done at a university rather than in the private sector.
Re:a bit sensational headline (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely true - But in the interest of trying to save the planet from ourselves, we should focus on near-legendary conservative sponsors such as the Koch Brothers.
The average climate change denier doesn't give a damn about the NSF or hippies from Lawrence Berkeley. But Bush-the-Elder's friends? Now that carries some weight!
Re:a bit sensational headline (Score:4, Insightful)
The Koch brothers are G.H.W. Bush's friends?
I didn't know that.
And, oddly enough, I didn't (and don't) really care.
Now, wake me up when the AGW loons decide that nuclear is better than coal, and I'll start taking them seriously.
Re:a bit sensational headline (Score:5, Interesting)
Now that carries some weight!
I hate to disappoint you, but no, it won't. There is some (shaky) evidence that conservatives tend to be much less strongly influenced by facts when dealing with political topics, and that education level does not change the outcome. Chris Mooney [alternet.org] wrote a book about it, I haven't read it, but it seems that there isn't a silver bullet so much as a lot of studies suggesting, but not proving, the same thing.
Whatever the reason, the point is that it doesn't matter who funded it, the conservatives won't accept climate change, no matter how many facts or studies you perform. If you confront a conservative with a climate change argument, and show them this study, I guarantee that they will shift the argument to saying that Muller now says, yes there is climate change, but it isn't what caused Katrina, nor what caused the drought in the U.S., nor is what is killing polar bears. If you were to fund a massive to study to prove those things, they would shift the argument to something else.
It's utterly depressing, because it suggests that a lot of the political divide in this country is insurmountable (although it explains a lot about why we had to fight a devastating civil war in order to free slaves).
Re:a bit sensational headline (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly.Just look at Anthony Watts, who said - officially - that he'd accept any outcome of the BEST study because he trusts Muller.
Now see how Watts is squirming, but of course he won't change his mind. WUWT as the echo chamber for deniers makes way too much money from ad impressions. Those are obviously on gullible people so they must be worth more per click that the average.
Re:a bit sensational headline (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that conceding the Koch brothers AREN'T modern-day Satans might spell the end of your whole worldview, but why then would they support in any way a study that they couldn't control/manipulate/predict?
I suppose one could claim that they stupidly didn't realize this, but considering that for the last 10 years they've been pilloried as the Gray Eminence behind all things dark and malign, suggesting that suddenly they're dopey doesn't quite fit with the script.
Re:a bit sensational headline (Score:5, Informative)
I agree it's been overplayed, though they do also fund a bunch of quite partisan stuff. There is some difference between the brothers as well: David Koch's foundation does a lot of fairly apolitical philanthropy, funding various art and science organizations, whereas Charles Koch's funds mainly libertarian and pro-business organizations.
The complaints about the Kochs go back a lot more than 10 years, though. The term "Kochtopus", implying a tentacle-like network of organizations grasping control of things, was coined by a Rothbardian libertarian in the '70s, who was angry about what he saw as Charles Koch trying to strong-arm other libertarian factions out of the libertarian movement, e.g. by kicking Rothbard out of the Cato Institute. Liberals picked up the term a bit later.
Re:a bit sensational headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:a bit sensational headline (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems quite likely that the Koch brothers actually don't / didn't think anthropogenic global warming was real, and thus funded the study with that assumption thinking it would support their position.
Yeah, since they put a "skeptic" in charge of it. Bad luck for them he actually looked at the facts and changed his mind.
Missing the silver lining (Score:2)
TFS obviously tries to throw the results of this study back in the Koch Foundation's face, by singling them out when the study was funded by numerous other groups. It's just another insufferable "I told you so", which we can all relate to as making people cling ever more tightly to their beliefs or just refuse to change their ways for spite.
So wouldn't it make more sense first to sit back and see if the Koch brothers become converted skeptics like Muller? Imagine having their billions behind efforts to ad
Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (Score:5, Insightful)
(Bjorn Lomborg) as two prominent if not THE most prominent AGW skeptics to change their minds. (I've heard of these guys and if I've heard of them, since I'm not a specialist, I figure they must be prominent).
So what's it going to take? Convincing every last person that this isn't real? That's going to be pretty damned impossible because as Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.". Substitute the word "salary" with "lifestyle" (or even "SUV") and you'll see how the average American thinks.
I've read that a ten percentage increase in electrical costs would be enough to sequester all the CO2 we're currently emitting. So the fact that a ten percentage increase in something that is not a big item in the average American budget is keeping us from potentially preventing great harm to our ecology, biosphere and a great number of species on this planet (including us!) makes me realize that we will deserve the hell on earth we get.
Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (Score:5, Insightful)
a ten percentage increase in something that is not a big item in the average American budget ...
The problem with this logic is that America is only 5% of the world. All rich countries combined are less than 20%. Unless something actually makes economic sense, it is not going to be accepted by the other 80% (and judging by current trends, it probably won't be accepted by the richest 20% either).
The solution to AGW is not convincing people that they need to sacrifice and suffer for the common good. That won't work. Instead we need to do the R&D to come up with cost effective solutions that make economic sense even on a stand-alone-basis. We have already done that with wind power, CFLs, etc., and we need to do it for solar, electric vehicles, etc.
If you focus on "suffer and sacrifice", you are being counter-productive, because you just push more people into the denier camp.
Re: (Score:3)
In terms of AGW its all about USA. USA is one of a very few select holdouts countries that refuse to do anything about AGW.
With USA on board the rest of the holdouts will be forced to join too.
USA is also the biggest contributor to AGW so if USA fix their pollution it will have a vary large impact on the world.
Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
However China is at least attempting or pretending to do something about it and not pretending that it is not a problem.
I disagree. Pretending to do something about it is the same as pretending it is not a problem, and that is all they are doing — pretending.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (Score:5, Insightful)
USA is one of a very few select holdouts countries that refuse to do anything about AGW.
You mean we didn't sign Kyoto? Many of the signatories increased their CO2 emissions over the last decade even more than the USA did. The Kyoto Protocol was just meaningless symbolic crap. There was no enforcement, no penalties. It gave people the feeling that we are "doing something" about AGW, while the whole emphasis of Kyoto on "sacrifice and suffering" was actually counter-productive. It did very little to promote the scientific research to find real workable solutions. Can you guess which country spent, by far, the most on this research? The United States of America.
With USA on board the rest of the holdouts will be forced to join too.
If the USA cuts CO2 emissions, how exactly does that "force" China, India, Egypt, Nigeria, Iran, etc. to do the same?
USA is also the biggest contributor to AGW ...
The USA is not the biggest contributor to AGW, either absolutely or per-capita.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with this logic is that America is only 5% of the world. All rich countries combined are less than 20%.
Only 5% population, but 18.7% of consumption. And the US+EU makes 33% (Numbers from here. [wikipedia.org])
Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution to AGW is not convincing people that they need to sacrifice and suffer for the common good. That won't work. Instead we need to do the R&D to come up with cost effective solutions that make economic sense even on a stand-alone-basis. We have already done that with wind power, CFLs, etc., and we need to do it for solar, electric vehicles, etc.
Most law is about making people suffer individually so that society can benefit overall. From traffic signals to taxes, genocide to homicide, and HAM licenses to fishing licenses, almost all law is about denying individuals the right to do as they please to satisfy the needs of society as a whole.
Suggesting that law which requires individual sacrifice for societal gain is counter-productive is saying that you believe most law should be abandoned.
Re: (Score:3)
But the cheap and dirty solution is always going to be cheaper than the economically responsible and affordable solution.
The dirty solution is usually not cheaper because it is wasteful. CFLs are cheaper to operate than incandescents. Attic insulation usually pays for itself in less than two years. Gas generators are cheaper to operate than coal fired generators, but produce half the CO2. Hydroelectric power (zero CO2) is even cheaper. A small turbo-diesel car is far cheaper than a gasoline powered SUV. A scooter or bicycle is even cheaper.
Anything that emits pollution is inherently wasteful, and a better and cheaper s
Re: (Score:3)
People started buying SUVs en-masse when car companies, to keep up with CAFE standards, started downsizing their cars to the point that the average family couldn't fit in them anymore (2 adults + 2.5 kids) You used to be able to seat six comfortably in a large sedan. Such a vehicle doesn't exist anymore.
Trucks didn't count against CAFE, so that's what people could by if they didn't want to fold themselves into the artificially smaller cars.
The irony here is that the SUVs people were buying to replace their
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Please, people didn't switch to SUVs because their cars were too small, they switched because their dicks were too small. Even the Japanese compacts of the late 80s/early 90s were quite spacious, more so than some early-2000s cars like certain model Corollas that were build for hobbits and the 1st-gen Focus where the floor area of the back sear was shorter than a human foot.
Uh... I disagree... (Score:4, Insightful)
My 2010 TDI "Sportwagen" gets 35+ under constant in-town acceleration/deceleration during rush hour, gets 40+ in off-hour in-town driving, and 52+ on disciplined long trips.
Plenty of room for a custom bicycle (I am 6' 4", and the bike's frame is enlarged to accommodate exceptionally long legs). Or alternatively room for 4 people and all their luggage for a long weekend at a family wedding.
Being a slashdot poster, you should know about "refactoring". Doesn't happen enough in the software world, and it for sure doesn't happen often enough in the legislative world. But the answer is not "deregulating": which merely cedes the power to those who really want to socialize their responsibilities while privatizing their profits.
There has never been a free market. The only question to be answered is "who controls the market"? It could be, and usually is, the group who have the concentrated market power, or an entity that should be responsible to the society at large, whose capacity to design and implement the regulations is admittedly imperfect, but without that imperfect process, we're all fucked.
Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think you're exactly right about Lomborg. Yes, his first book did try to debunk some of the old evidence that was used to support global warming, but he never defended the positive thesis that global warming isn't happening. OK, maybe that's just the difference between skepticism and denialism. At his worst, Lomborg was a skeptic, and he quit that pretty fast.
The reason why he's so controversial is that even after he declared that the science is in and we are causing real global warming, which will have significant consequences, Lomborg argued that preventing these consequences is economically unfeasible, and the best bang for our buck in planning the future is to concentrate on education, health, sanitation, disease eradication and climate change mitigation. Sadly, critics of Lomborg never seem to engage directly with his arguments. They never present a study that a $Million spent on forest restoration or sewage treatment or micronutrient supplementation will have fewer good consequences than a $Million spent on CO2 emissions reduction. For that reason I remain on the fence, though I do think that Lomborg deserves a more serious hearing.
Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (Score:5, Insightful)
The nuclear power industry doesn't build new plans because it's far cheaper and easier to maintain a current one then jump though all the federal hoops while wading though all the lawsuits by the anti-nuke jackasses and not in my backyard types. Most companies aren't going to build something that is insanely expensive and requires 10years or more of lawsuits and regulatory hoops to jump through just to get a permit to even start building which will take 4-8years on its own. Making everything expensive and overly complicated just to get a permit makes it not worth money to build 4th gen nuclear capacity to replace all the current 1st gen plants. They will be replaced by modern coal or natural gas plants until fraking is banned then it will just be all coal. We should allow nuclear operators to build pre-approved new 4th gen plants directly next to existing nuclear plants with streamlined approval process as direct replacements for the existing 1st gen that must be shut down as soon as the new one powers up.
April Fools again so soon? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyhoo - the more people on _both_ sides of the argument who actually look at the data rather than just attack the conclusions, the better for everybody concerned.
We are ALREADY past the point of no return (Score:3)
Soon we will engage in apocalyptic greed, panic and defensiveness. Stock up on canned and dry foods... and ammo.
I hope you don't think this changes anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
If you didn't think the argument involved multiple parts, then you weren't paying attention. I find this to be one of the biggest problems with many self-proclaimed proponents of AGW is that they think if they prove something, then the argument is done, over, everything else follows logically and there can be no question. No, not at all. There are multiple stages to the argument.
The first is the claims of fact: That average surface temperature is increasing and that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing. These are claims of facts about the world, things to be observed or measured. CO2 is pretty easy given the nature of gasses diffusing to uniform, temperature is quite a bit harder. However, it looks pretty solid that yes, temperature has been increasing. So that's step one, verify the facts behind the theory.
The next step is the central theory: That the primary or exclusive cause of the observed warming is the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere due to human emissions. Like all theories, it attempts to explain the connection between facts, how things relate. So that the facts are true does not automatically imply the theory is correct. That is the point of this (and other) studies. See if there are facts that would falsify this theory, or are there other theories that would fit the available facts better. So far, it does not seem so which means that this theory is probably correct.
This is not the end of the argument though. All you've done is shown why something is happening. That doesn't mean anything in and of itself. The next part of the argument is where things get more specious: The claim that this will be a bad thing for humanity as a whole. That's not a scientific theory, that's an over-arching claim, a judgement call. It is based on a number of theories and hypothesis out there. However to be accurate it needs to be backed up by theories with evidence that indicate that things will change in negative ways. Also you have to weigh just how positive and negative all the predicted changes will be. Anyone who pretends something is all positive or all negative is pushing an agenda and/or ignoring reality. Everything has a downside, a cost. The question is how does it weigh overall?
This is a discussion that doesn't seem to happen much. The "It will be a bad thing," seem to be parroted as dogma. You accept or you get shouted down. Any hypothesis that says something bad will happen is accepted as true, any hypothesis that says something good will happen is said to be false. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Then, after you've shown it is a net negative overall, that it is something that would be better if it didn't happen, you get down to the policy of what to do about it. This is not science at all, there is no one right answer. It is a matter of deciding what we wish to do based off of costs, likelihood of success, other downsides and so on. "Just stop burning fossil fuels," isn't the "correct" answer. It is a possible course of action, but not the only one. Geoengineering solutions would be others. Still others would be not to try and change what is happening, but rather to change ourselves and prepare to deal with the changes since though this change may be human caused it is likely at some point another will happen that isn't and thus we may not be able to affect.
So if you are hoping for the magic moment of "All debate ends and everyone agrees with me," well sorry you aren't going to see it. As I alluded to, the big thing at this point would be to show that this change is going to be a net negative for humanity. That's complex, so no surprise it is hard. Even once that is in the bag, the question remains as to what to do. To that there will never be a final "correct" answer, only possibilities that eventually will need to be weighed and chosen from (including the possibility of doing nothing).
Converted skeptic my arse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, Richard Muller is not and never was a skeptic. Way back in 2003 he was saying things like, "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." and even more incredibly, "If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants."(2008).
Thirdly, even William Connolley, the guy banned from editing Wikipedia for 6 months due to his attempts to rubbish skeptics, thinks Muller is a wazzock for making the claims he has [scienceblogs.com]. So, slashdot, the excitement you are experiencing here is really quite misplaced.
wow (Score:5, Informative)
What a misleading summary. What Muller claims to have shown is:
1. Warming is happening; criticisms of statistical methods can either be worked around or are shown to not be valid.
2. Solar activity and/or other proposed non-CO2 warming drivers are not responsible for the observed increase.
3. Atmospheric CO2 is by far the best correlate with global surface temperatures.
However, he then adds, "These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism," and goes on to reject a number of "alarmist" (his word) consequences of warming (more frequent hurricanes, the U.S. drought, polar bears dying, etc.)
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
So it sounds like he's basically replicated the circa-2007 IPCC results and conclusions?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Solar energy is the most significant driver of Earthly temperatures. It is the source of essentially all of the energy that makes Earth's temperature what it is. But it hasn't changed enough to account for all of the temperature changes that have occurred. So changes in solar activity are not the primary driver of current temperature changes.
Bah humbug (Score:5, Funny)
This is all just liberal propaganda paid for by... ...oh wait...
What he did, what he says (Score:3)
It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong.
In other words, he has serious doubts that hurricanes and other disasters will be the result of AGW.
Re:Thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
I was confused. I am prepared to believe the Koch Foundation on this because I think Global Warming exists and we are the primary cause of it. We would be the solution but I don't think we can ever organize ourselves enough to solve the problem - politicians think too shortterm and only want to be reelected. Pushing policies that will be unpopular with their constituents and their supporters (Corporations) will not result in reelection.
I think that people who believe the Koch Brothers on anything are being suckered - i.e. they are "Koch Suckers" :)
Re:The Koch Foundation (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK The Koch Foundation isn't the same as the Koch Brothers (the folks who donate to conservative political candidates.)
There are two Koch foundations, one founded by each of the infamous Koch Brothers. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this Koch foundation was the same one that provides funding for Nova (or did at one time).
I'm a little curious as to why, in a list of 5 organizations that funded this study, the headline and OP singled out Koch. Hoping for additional impact that wouldn't be achieved by just saying "Climate Change Skeptic Changes Mind"?
Re:The Koch Foundation (Score:5, Informative)
Because the Koch brothers have been the hugest anti-global-warming proponents since day one, as so much of their money comes from businesses that pollute heavily.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, if you are actually on the beach, as it were, and can't simply retreat up the shoreline, the
Re:Those of us who live along coastal cities... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, we COULD just abandon our idiotic de facto ban on nuclear research and build LFTRs everywhere, both halting the growth of CO2 emissions (among other more potent greenhouse gases) and making energy cheaper for everyone, improving everyone's standard of living.
Everyone is fucked. (Score:4, Insightful)
Global warming will also destroy crop yields - just look at the corn yield THIS YEAR.
which will affect beef production/
Global Warming will also affect fisheries. Between GW and over fishing around the World, we're going to see some real devastation there - and fisheries around the World are already in trouble. That's why you keep seeing new and different species of fish behind the counter - the other ones have been almost wiped out. (Farmed fish is an environmental and nutritional joke. But that's for another time.)
See, that's the thing that annoys me. Just about all of the "debate" in the popular media about global warming is about "lifestyle", taxes, nationalism, ... everything but food supply except when it comes to ethanol. (The corn lobby needs to be destroyed. Farm subsidies mostly enrich Cargil, Monsano, Tyson, and other huge corporate food processors. It lowers input their costs.)
So, while the general public is being distracted my non-issues about GW like losing control of our government to the UN, higher taxes and other non-sense, the folks who are profiting dearly from our current policies are getting away scott free.
And the above is just ONE facet of the true forces behind the issue.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. The motives of big business are ridiculously transparent, and skeptics are nothing more than paid shills, yet another form of astroturfing. Businesses cut corners all the time to increase profits, and whether it's spilling oil in the ocean, or CO2 in the atmosphere, or crashing the economy, they couldn't give a shit less about the safety and well-being of the rest of us. They just don't want anyone forcing them to clean up their mess as it would eat into their massive record breaking profits. T
Re:Everyone is fucked. (Score:5, Insightful)
At the end of the day, the Universe doesn`t give one single fuck about shills, Al Gore, pseudo-skeptics or any of this nonsense. If it`s happening (and the vast majority of researchers in fields related to climate says it is), then what precisely does your post mean.
This whole notion that it's sane to pose the question of AGW in terms of political affiliation or idea is beyond me. It fundamentally isn't a political question, so treating it like a political question is absolute moronic. Yes, there is a political dimension, but defining your position on it based on your political ideology is as inane and mad an activity as I can imagine.
The Universe does not give one tiny fuck about politics. Lightning will not bend towards or against you because your a Libertarian or a Conservative or a Liberal or whatever. The petty ideological beliefs of humans aren't even specks of dust on a neutron star.
drought cycle does not disprove climate models (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. We've been telling that to New Orleans for over 150 years and see how well they listened.
Re:Those of us who live along coastal cities... (Score:5, Insightful)
After the storm of 1900, the entire Island of Galveston was raised by 10 or 20 feet. If they could do it back then with limited technology and resources while dealing with thousands of dead bodies and 50 ft tall piles of debris, I think we can deal with a centimeter per decade rise.
The economic focus of southeast Texas also left Galveston for Houston, never to return.
Galveston had been Texas' primary seaport. Now it's little more than a cute tourist trap. (Which still needs to be totally evacuated every few years.)
The economic costs to Galveston for being too close to sea level have been utterly devastating to that city.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that. One thing, though -- some massive melting we are seeing goes WAY beyond typical cycles and goes into melting ice formed long before the first animals walked the earth.
I don't care about the cause. I care more about the solution. We're looking at a global extinction event and I'd like man to be able to survive it.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that the earths spin is not centred on the magnetic poles. Our biggest heat source (the sun) is most effective above equatorial regions. These are defined by the earths rotation which has not moved that much in the entirety of human existence.
If some places have got hotter and others cooler because of climate change, that is in keeping with what has been expected. I just don't recall being told which areas will get hotter and which cooler - except by Hollywood...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not entirely. (Score:5, Informative)
Our increase of CO2 is still far below any volcano ...
Not surprised you cower behind anonymity when spouting utterly wrong claptrap like that. Hint: try actually finding things out before demonstrating your ignorance in public.
According to the USGS [usgs.gov], man-made CO2 emissions are 35 billion tons per year, total volcanic output (from land and under the seas) ranges from 0.13 to 0.44 billion tons per year. Even in a year of abnormally great volcanic activity, volcanic output is tiny in comparison to that of human activity. There are only a few Mount St. Helens scale eruptions per year, but it would take 3500 of them every year to equal current man-made CO2 emissions.
From the same USGS page, in 1900, the annual anthropogenic CO2 output was about 18 times that of volcanism. In 2010 it had increased to about 135 times the annual volcanic output. These ratios are based on the maximum estimate of volcanic CO2 output. So the increase in annual anthropogenic CO2 output dwarfs the annual volcanic CO2 output.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Skeptic? (Score:5, Informative)
"nobody seems to be able to find anything he's ever said that put him in the "skeptic" camp..."
Especially if they don't have 5 seconds with which to perform a google search.
Here's the latest. Scientific American has now published an interview with Richard Muller, in which Muller repeats the most popular climate denial talking points related to Mike Mann's famous and endlessly replicated hockey stick temperature graph, and throws in unsupportable slurs against Al Gore, the IPCC, and climate science in general. The magazine's editors did not see fit to fact check any of the statements.
Source [climatecrocks.com]
Re:Skeptic? (Score:5, Informative)
He himself uses that term, in the quote that's right here in the Slashdot summary! It's not some kind of external appellation. He says:
The 3-years-ago part I believe is referring to "Climategate" [wikipedia.org], which Muller was very critical of. In addition, he's criticized the methodology of studies over the years, which has caused him to be viewed as something of a skeptic. In 2004, he wrote a now-famous editorial [technologyreview.com] attacking the "hockey stick graph" for being "poor mathematics".
Re:Skeptic? (Score:5, Informative)
nobody seems to be able to find anything he's ever said that put him in the "skeptic" camp...
And yet the people who are pro-AGW have heard of him, and have felt the need to create a rebuttal page [skepticalscience.com] listing what he has said and where he went wrong. Here is an article written by Muller about the hockey stick graph [technologyreview.com].
The problem is that he is not an extremist, and when he finds evidence that does support the climate change then he accepts it. However, he does have problems with some of the claims from the scientific community and he calls them out on it. He is a true skeptic, unlike the people who keep insisting that they are called skeptics who turn nasty on anyone who actually has their mind changed by scientific data. Those so-called skeptics are really just deniers.
Re:nothing to be excited about ... (Score:5, Informative)
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.
Re: (Score:3)
They did exactly that.
It's not posted yet, but last week I attended a lecture at the Aspen Center for Physics about this very subject:
http://www.aspenphys.org/50th/events/july25.html [aspenphys.org]
It will be available sometime soon here:
http://vod.grassrootstv.org/cablecast/public/Search.aspx?ChannelID=1&SimpleSearch=physics [grassrootstv.org]
Re:nothing to be excited about ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard to believe there are still people stupid enough to spout these two talking points, a good decade or more after they've been debunked, soundly and repeatedly.
Clearly there are though, and they're proud of their extreme ignorance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the parent hasn't seen it either? Maybe you should post a link rather than being an abusive twat.
Re:nothing to be excited about ... (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point, you might as well be abusive. Moon vs Earth temperatures is a good an example as any he could give. The difference between the two? Greenhouse effect. More Greenhouse leads to yet higher average temperatures.
The whole debate is not about who is right and who is wrong. It is about people fighting for their right to deny reality in exchange for clinging to their religious beliefs or a fat pay-cheque. There is no merit in that. No moral principle. The debate consists entirely on one side bringing up irrelevant and minor points and demanding that they be refuted in detail. This gives them time to come up with the next batch of irrelevant details
In some sense, the fact that this study was conducted was a huge gimmick: the outcome was obvious, and any scientist (yes even a physicist) who thinks he'll get better results than the guys from a field he's not from has a clearly overinflated ego.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but there are "sides". Specifically, they are "truth" and "belief". You are harbouring the misconception that belief is altered by argument. It isn't. Real, deeply held beliefs are who you are, and they exist mostly as markers of the place you hold in society. I find it wonderful that you believe that you can convince people to stop being who they are in favour of reason.
In reality, there is no one who in good faith believes that they know better than the absurdly overwhelming majority of scientists
Re:nothing to be excited about ... (Score:4, Interesting)
The Martian atmosphere is thin compared to Earth's but it's 95% CO2 vs only 1/2 a percent here on Terra. So there's significant heat-trapping potential complicated by the significant amount of dust in the Martian sky.
Comparing Mars, Earth and the Moon is problematic as only 1 has extensive and deep oceans, which store a huge amount of heat.
Mars also get cold enough that as much as a quarter of it's CO2 freezes out of the air at the poles during the winter.
I hear a lot of talk about warming in the solar system, mostly from denialist sycophants enamored of that bug-eyed Englishman. But they also claim that we've been in a solar lull for several years and this is one of the weakest cycles in a long while.
So what's warming the solar system?
Mars and climate science "skepticism" (Score:3)
One of the distinguishing features of self-styled "skeptics" of climate science is that their skepticism is amazingly one sided; they seem to become utterly credulous regarding any argument, no matter how blatantly lame, that seems to cast doubt on the reality of global warming. The "It's warming on Mars!" claim (accepted by many "skeptics" as unquestioned truth) is an excellent example. Of course, a genuine skeptic would immediately think, "Wait a minute. There can't be a lot of thermometers on Mars, and t
Re:Fracking best hope for reducing CO2 output (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"I USED TO BE PAID TO PRODUCE RESULTS..." (Score:5, Informative)
No, the Kochs are the same billionaires. They must have either figured out a way to monetize global warming, perhaps through an environment-monitoring division, or figured out that most people would rather have oil than a stable atmosphere.
Or maybe their foundation accidentally backed the wrong science. Even billionaires can hire people who make mistakes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Muller's claim that he's a "recently converted skeptic", which is a flat-out lie as he has always been a warmist.
Prove it please. This article from 2004: Global Warming Bombshell [lbl.gov] shows his earlier skeptic bonifides. True, even in this article he is concerned that global warming may be real, but he is skeptical of the research and was repeatedly so (see Quotes by Richard Muller [skepticalscience.com]. Remember that he did get support from the Koch Brothers who are not ones who would knowingly fund a "warmist". The main dif
Re:"I USED TO BE PAID TO PRODUCE RESULTS..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Gates, Koch, Getty and Bowes. That's a pretty diverse group. Either you don't trust anyone or that's about as close as you are going to get to a fair determination.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm responding to a claim that the funders would create bias in the researchers but pointing out the funders are diverse. If you don't believe funders have an influence on the results of research your issue is with the GP.
Re:"I USED TO BE PAID TO PRODUCE RESULTS..." (Score:5, Informative)
The earth has been known as roughly spherical - since 1500-1200 BC or thereabouts.
Ptolomaic astronomy, from the 2nd century AD, while geocentric, assumed a spherical earth, at the center of concentric heavenly spheres. Each of these had there own spherical planets embedded in their arc.
It is true that there were doctrines espoused by the Byzantine Church, which promoted a "Christian Cartography" that used Biblical references to mandate a flat-earth. These were always widely contested with the complete awareness of Ptolomaic models - solely on the basis of "Pagan" versus "Christian". These views were held by a minority of relatively unimportant European barbarians.
Using the idea that a "flat earth" was a commonly held belief in the middle ages does not illustrate the folly of an opposing argument. Rather, it demonstrates how fully history and "common knowledge" are propagandized folly.
Re:Green Protectionism (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is telling you to go back to a hut in the middle of a forest. You're making it up. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions means producing energy using solar, wind, and nuclear sources, and improving energy efficiency. It will mean higher tech than we have now, not lower tech.
But in any case, we can simply tax goods from countries with higher carbon dioxide emissions. That will give them economic incentive to lower their emissions.
Re: (Score:3)
If it takes such a long time, then the study's find that CO2 and temperature rise correlates doesn't prove much, as there should be a delay between the two. Also, industrialism is not a new thing, and has in fact been there for more than a century. But if we assume that it does take multiple centuries for the greenhouse effect to reach full potential, then another slow effect comes into play, namely absorption of CO2 in the oceans. The Earth's oceans can hold much more CO2 than the atmosphere, which means t
Re: (Score:3)
Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate,
He's right, Mann's hockey stick graph is merely corroborating evidence for global warming, not the primary evidence which is found mostly in physics.