Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated By Half 534
Layzej writes "A new paper shows that global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is that the weather station network covers only about 85% of the planet. Satellite data shows that the parts of the Earth that are not covered by the surface station network, especially the Arctic, have warmed exceptionally fast over the last 15 years. Most temperature reconstructions simply omit any region not covered. A temperature reconstruction developed by NASA somewhat addresses the gaps by filling in missing data using temperatures from the nearest available observations. Now Kevin Cowtan (University of York) and Robert Way (University of Ottawa) have developed a new method to fill the data gaps using satellite data. The researchers describe their methods and findings in this YouTube video. 'The most important part of our work was testing the skill of each of these approaches in reconstructing unobserved temperatures. To do this we took the observed data and further reduced the coverage by setting aside some of the observations. We then reconstructed the global temperatures using each method in turn. Finally, we compared the reconstructed temperatures to the observed temperatures where they are available... While infilling works well over the oceans, the hybrid model works particularly well at restoring temperatures in the vicinity of the unobserved regions.' The authors note that 'While short term trends are generally treated with a suitable level of caution by specialists in the field, they feature significantly in the public discourse on climate change.'"
So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Japan is rejecting its existing CO2 commitments, Australia is rejecting existing and new CO2 laws, and we're seeing rejections of carbon trading systems in Europe.
So what is the point?
The only reason we have such intense political conflict over the issue is that it is used to justify taxes, restrictions, and various other regulations.
Well... Those aren't going to be happening any time soon indifferent to the science.
The economy is terrible.
People already feel over taxed.
Any further taxes, restrictions, or regulations along these lines won't be accepted.
So why are you guys still trying so hard? For now at least... its over. Its done.
AGW may be the doom of humanity and we might all be living under water while Kevin Costner drinks his own pee while shooting "smokers" in their mad max oil tanker.... But that won't change the fact that people will vote these regulations down.
So... if you're interested in doing anything besides spinning your wheels uselessly... figure out another way to contribute to a solution besides unpopular heavy handed government restrictions.
I say that with the full knowledge that about a dozen people are about to tell me that that is the only thing that will work. Well, no it won't because it won't be accepted and therefore won't work. So if that is all we've got then there is no solution. If people won't accept it... then it won't work. Unless you want to try an Eco-dictatorship where you just shoot people that disagree. Have fun with that.
Orders of magnitude errors dont inspire confidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:youtube? (Score:2, Insightful)
Since most of the deniers seem to get their arguments from quality sites like youtube they probably thought it was a good place to post a video with some real research.
The mistake they make is thinking the deniers are interested in science at all....
Models all the way down (Score:4, Insightful)
One model predicts global warming. A second model guesses at the surface temperature in places where there are no thermometers and finds warming. The second model confirms the first.
And this is science.
Re:Double down (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, it's the classic scientific method: Form a hypothesis, observe the evidence and/or conduct experiments then collect data, and if said data/evidence doesn't match your hypothesis then alter the experiment or means of observing until it does. Now THAT'S empiricism!!
We are looking very fucked recently (Score:4, Insightful)
Between the jellyfish blooms and this...things are looking much worse all the sudden. I'm not even getting into the various "superstorms" yet.
A risky idea that might get us out of this is to dump lots of money into a "manhattan project" for fusion power and photovoltaics. Advances in those fields could solve global warming quite easily.
And it was marked -1 for other reasons. (Score:0, Insightful)
But I suppose that when every jackass's opinion carries equal weight to actual verifieable independently corroborated facts, you prefer to see it as merely opinion being disagreed with, rather than your trolling anti-science being pointed out.
Same goes for Doctors. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:youtube? (Score:1, Insightful)
wait a minute....for the past few years we've been hearing that all the 'missing' heat was being transferred into the deep oceans, and we've been assured that this is correct. Now we find out that the extra heat has been hiding in the arctic? Really? I'm starting to question whether these "scientists" have any clue at all about what's really going on. Considering the massive amounts of funding they're getting in the form of government grants, maybe it's time we cut the funding completely and put that money into a more worthwhile effort, such as desalinization plants for the greening of the Sahara.
Re:Orders of magnitude errors dont inspire confide (Score:5, Insightful)
Science really isn't about confidence. It's about evidence. If holding the line, even when you know you're wrong, is what makes people feel confident, it's no wonder they turn to religion. But I'm personally thankful that at least one discipline isn't afraid to publish results that contradict earlier findings, if that's where the evidence leads.
As someone who understands this process, findings like this lend tremendous credibility to the scientific community, and yes, boost my confidence in the work they're doing and the integrity of the published results. It's what makes science the best method we know of for understanding reality.
Re:Twice as much to deny! (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, for looking at the global warming/changing hysteria, their hockey stick chart looks surprisingly similar to the population chart covering the same years. Somehow they believe that an increase in a trace gas is leading to a mass extinction, while it is tracking with the opposite.
Obviously the increased population of one species means that there couldn't possibly be large scale extinction of other species (which is what "mass extinction" means). Similarly, the increased population of jellyfish must mean the oceans are in fine shape.
Global Warming vs. Terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
I admit, it's a bit off topic, but it is something that has bugged me for ages and I still didn't find an answer, so please, maybe someone can shed some light on it:
Why is there a "controversy" about Global Warming, and why is there none about "Terrorism"?
Global Warming may or may not happen. Ok. I don't want to discuss what kind of "proof" one side or the other may have, let's just say it may or may not happen. Likewise, terrorism. There may or may not be terrorist attacks on some parts of "our" (with varying definitions of "our") soil. Again, I don't want to discuss whether or not they would happen.
The point now is: We try to do anything in our power to prevent terrorist attacks, while at the same time we argue whether or not we should do anything to prevent Global Warming. My question is: From a risk management point of view, shouldn't it be the other way 'round?
Both are classic examples of Risk Management problems. Risk and cost to mitigate vs. reward/damage contained. It's the usual 2x2 matrix. On X, we have "do nothing" and "do something", on Y we have "nothing happens" and "something happens" (ok, very simplified, but you get the idea). So, in case of terrorism, that would net us:
We don't do anything and nothing happens: Pre-9/11 situation, no cost, perfect situation
We do prepare and nothing happens: Possibly the current situation, high cost and no damage
We prepare and an attack happens: Also the possibly current situation, high cost but with good damage control, leading to no/little damage
We don't prepare and an attack happens: Worst case scenario, no cost to prepare but high damages, possibly costing thousands of lives.
When you do the same matrix for Global Warming, it looks quite similar, though with a teeny-tiny little twist at the end:
We don't do anything and nothing happens: Current situation and best case future scenario
We do prepare and nothing happens: High cost, potential change in our lifestyle for no gain.
We prepare and an attack happens: Also high cost, but climate changes can be mitigated to the point where only little/no damage has to be suffered.
We don't prepare and an attack happens: Worst case scenario, with millions on coastlines being dead or homeless, with out of control storms and the weather from hell.
The thing I have problems with now is: The former can, worst case, cost a few thousand lives with maybe a building or two gone. The latter can literally cost millions of lives with coastal areas becoming uninhabitable for decades, if not forever, with storms causing damages in the billions and unforeseeable effects to agriculture and nature (and of course tourism, but I guess that's the least of our concerns then). And we're not talking about some brown bodies being killed, that could well be millions of AMERICANS dead, so the usual "Anyone outside the US doesn't count as human to the US" won't apply.
Yet we pump billions into the defense against terrorism, but we keep bickering on whether or not Global Warming may or may not happen. Anyone able to explain the sense in that?
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Name one important transition throughout history that occurred smoothly. Hell, ending prohibition on alchohol took some work and that was something everyone should be able to agree to. Look at pot legalization or gay marriage today. It should be clear at this point that the biggest problems with either is that some people will pitch a fit against them. Yet it's taking a long time.
What choice do we have? This isn't a "Will it happen or not" type thing, where it's already done and we may as well keep on going. It can and will get worse. We are going to have to transition away from carbon emissions no matter how much people don't like it.
As for how people "feel" about taxes, so what? I'm not happy with sales taxes of 8 cents. That doesn't mean it's too high. People can grow a fucking brain if they think that paying higher prices at the pump or on their electricity bill is worse than climate change. The economy is arguably terrible at the moment I suppose, but that's because we gave control of the economy to wall street. Separate conversation. The economy will recover if we regulate wall street, and it won't if we don't, completely independent of carbon taxes.
Re:Climate Scientist != Statistician (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate Scientists are not Statisticians
But petroleum engineers are?
Re:So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure. Try to fly to the moon by flapping your arms... then call anyone that says that's impossible stupid.
Keep up the good work.
Re:We are looking very fucked recently (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Orders of magnitude errors dont inspire confide (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point it's going to be obvious to even US Republican Senators that climate change is going to economically effect their tiny little world and they might try to do something about it.
It's already obvious to the Pentagon, but everybody knows that place is full of pinko, tree-hugging, industry hating, enviro-whackos.
Re:Look deep instead of shallow (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't matter what the australian government is doing. That is one data point in a cloud of data points.
If I showed you ONE weather station that had consistent cooling over the last 100 years would that convince you that global warming wasn't happening?
No.
So... why are you ignoring the fact that this legislation is unpopular throughout the world and not being accepted.
Again. The chinese and indians have said they won't even consider it.
The middle east won't accept it.
Russia won't accept it.
Japan is rejecting it.
Australia IS REJECTING IT.
And most of the laws pushing this sort of thing in the EU have either been bypassed, loopholed, and/or are deeply unpopular.
So... the pattern... do you see it? Good. That's my point.
Now that you see the pattern... you must acknowledge that you should try something else. Or you want to keep spinning your wheels and see where that gets you.
You should know better (Score:4, Insightful)
Advocates? You mean there was more than one of them?
This revisionist bullshit to fool the kiddies is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. Apart from one published paper global cooling was a "world of tomorrow!" newspaper fluff thing and there was less of it in the newspapers than bigfoot sightings.
Re:Global Warming vs. Terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a couple of reasons:
1. Intrusiveness. The War on Terrorism hardly affects most people in their day-to-day lives - they have to take off their shoes at airports, nameless bureaucracies have computers read thru their humdrum emails and it was a very defined subset of Americans who were shipped off to war. The War on Carbon potentially affects everything because it makes day to day life so much more expensive and restricts normal consumer choice (you want a filament lightbulb? Too bad - buy a CFL! Don't like them for some reason? Buy an LED for 10x as much! Oh, and did we tell you that your yearly trip to Grandma in Arizona is killing the planet? Stop doing that!).
2. The sheer cost. Most mitigation schemes for global warming are in the ludicrous number range - trillions of dollars a year for 100 or more years. On top of that drag, most are designed to destroy economic growth (you almost have to in order to ratchet down energy use fast enough). This isn't a boo-hoo First World Problem - it's mostly a tragic Third World Problem. Germany gives up a few percentages of economic growth for 50 years - that's a hit (and the government would fall). Ethiopia gives up economic growth for 50 years and you're consigning millions to abject poverty and breeds radicalism.
3. The perception gap. The War on Terror seems to affect the rich and powerful in the same ways it affects the poor and the hoi-polloi - maybe a little less (they're rich!) but it seems somewhat similar. Even Mitt Romney has to take his shoes off at the airport. AGW mitigation, however, seems to be a problem that only the poor and middle class need to sacrifice for - Al Gore has numerous mansions, jets all over the world, uses more energy in a day than most families do in a week. AGW "solutions" seem to nicely dovetail with the natural desires of the elite - less upward mobility, pricier and/or more organic food, paternalism toward their lessers.
The optics on AGW are terrible - which is one reason there's such resistance. Killing bad guys, however expensive and destructive that may be, appeals to a lot of folks. If there were better optics - and a range of policy choices that didn't seem to favor the technocratic elite - you might not have such hostility.
Re:Double down (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh, +4 Insightful.
Are you a climatologist? Your keep making these accusations without any references, citations... What exactly makes you so sure the experts are wrong?
On the one hand we have these publically funded (and therefore to some extent accountable) scientists saying that, yes, there is very likely an enormous problem. On the other hand we have privately funded "thinktanks" like Heartland and some flaky websites saying, variously (and sometimes simultaneously)
-- AGW is not happening.
-- AGW may be happening but there's nothing we can do about it.
-- AGW is happening but we should not try to do anything about it because the suggested courses of action are just Marxist plots to sap and impurify our precious bodily bodily fluids.
In other news ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The authors note that 'While short term trends are generally treated with a suitable level of caution by specialists in the field, they feature significantly in the public discourse on climate change.'
Which is a nice way of saying that the results of this data is to be taken with a grain of salt. But they acknowledge that the general public will probably grab them and run of in some direction or other, screaming nonsense.
Re:Global Warming vs. Terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Double down (Score:5, Insightful)
If the warming projections increase, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
If the warming projections do not change, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
That's how it works for you Jane Q, whether you admit it or not. The fundamental principle is that AGW is wrong, you are right, and your mind finds the "logic" to fit.
There are people who think the earth is less than 10000 years old. I work with one of them. He has an explanation for everything, but he doesn't understand what he's talking about. Who am I to point out the finer details of radiometric dating, when he will not listen, because if he's not right about the young earth thing, then his web of belief [lenin.ru] will fall to bits.
My question to you is this: are you capable of learning something about climate science?
Its always so much worse than it was last week (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it that EVERY SINGLE WEEK there is some new story about how AGW is WAY worse than we thought.
You want to know why no one gives a shit about AGW? This is why? You can only tell me my life is over tomorrow for so many days before I realize you're talking out your ass ... even if I'm a stupid moron.
EVERY FUCKING THING THAT HAPPENS IS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING ...
And no one gives a shit because common sense tells us that we should be dead by now ... well, 20 or 30 years ago, according to these guys and their 'OMG WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT'.
Re: youtube? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Double down (Score:5, Insightful)
In most cases I would agree. The problem here is that, if the vast majority of climatologists are even remotely on the right track, we do not have the luxury of "sitting back" until things settle down.
I guess for me it boils down to this: if there is a nonzero probability X that future generations will suffer devastating consequences of our pollution, we should do everything we can to mitigate that. This is true even for small X because the scale of consequences are potentially very large.
But more to the point, even though you are right that this science is new, I put more value on the statements of experts in the field, rather than some random person on the Interwebs who, for all I know, just refuses to take it seriously because the implications might inconvenience her slightly.
The energy captured in coal, gas and oil is the result of many millions of years of sunshine. I just can't reasonably expect there to be no significant effects to our releasing that in a matter of a few decades.
Re:Double down (Score:2, Insightful)
It's bad enough to try to back up one's position with Wikipedia references, but at least that's something. But a YouTube video? Really? C'mon.
Learn to accept that intelligent people can disagree with your deeply-held beliefs.
And, really, it's right to be quite skeptical of any scientist who argues that "my theory wasn't wrong, 15 years of data was all wrong". That's an extraordinary claim.
Re:Double down (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful, some might accuse you of crisis mongering.
Yes, and others stand accused of crisis whitewashing. What is your point?
Vague declarations of doom are not a rational basis on which to surrender all of one's economic freedom and much of one's standard of living.
I wouldn't call the IPCC reports "vague declarations of doom". They are quite concrete declarations of doom. There is a bit of a spectrum of options between fingers-in-ears and surrendering all economic freedom (whatever that means) and standard of living -- unless perhaps you're Koch, BP, and so on.
Some people just can't stop looking for a Messiah, a Prophet to simultaneously fill them with fear and then promise to deliver them from that fear.
You invoke an image of some sectarian cult. This is not an accurate description of the position of a large majority of climate scientists. Sure, it is a relatively young field. But that's still better, warts and all, than no science. Not to mention the anti-science punted by vested interests.
Re:Install more weather stations (Score:2, Insightful)