Study: Man-Made Global Warming First Became Evident In the Mid 20th Century 411
TapeCutter writes: In 1958 the US National Academies of Science (NAS) warned the US government that they had detected a robust Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) signal, they have not changed their mind on that claim for 57 years. Like the modern day Al Gore, Frank Capra publicized the possible effects in a popular documentary (video). Today we have news of a study from Melbourne University claiming the effects of AGW first became evident in the mid 20th century. In other words, the NAS could not have picked up the signal much earlier than they actually did. The fact that the last serious scientific objection to AGW (as a theory) was overcome in the mid 20th century by improving spectrometers in heat seeking missile was a remarkable coincidence, NAS took full advantage of that opportunity.
WTF? (Score:2)
...they have not changed their mind...
On top of which, Slashdot automatically added a fucking space before the letter "d" when I tried to put the emphasis (bold and italic) on that letter only. You guys can't even write properly, you can't code properly either (the "options" window has been broken for months now), so stop trying to correct what we write on top of that.
I can't wait to see headlines in major newspapers and websites in a few decades:
"Youtoobz geealty of
Re: (Score:2)
Histrionic hyperbole much?
Re: (Score:2)
The new guy walks in and tells people to meet his standards. Cute. Pick another site. We like our bugs.
Features, man, features. We like our features.
Immediately (Score:2)
The only question remaining is how sensitive your tools are.
We've always be slow... (Score:5, Interesting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands.
Re:We've always be slow... (Score:5, Interesting)
It was not simply washing the hands, but washing the hands with a chlorinated solution. I heard multiple alternative versions over the years - some wanting to use it to state the new theory did not get accepted until the old doctors died out, and so on. Others pointing to the scientific process - which is probably a more correct reason for the delay...: The 1st "theory" was that the chlorinated solution scared the evil spirits so the spirit would not jump from the previous patient to the next.... which was of course rejected flat by the lion share of the established doctors. The theory had to go through a large process to say why washing the hands with a chlorinated solution in a way doctors accepted, and by then some had already completely rejected the source due to the original reference to the supernatural cause...
Re: (Score:2)
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd" (Bertrand Russell)
The real problem for this subject is the way the vast majority of scientists chose to present themselves to society at large. Some of them even believe their own message, though start picking at the seams over dinner and many (often begrudgingly) agree that "yes, it's complicated". The problem is far more evident with the Social "Sciences" but the same issue affects all "Sciences".
Science
Re: (Score:2)
It's also quite possible that you're allowing yourself to be trolled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All of the models are wildly wrong in predicting climate, so the "evidence" is pointing against any of the alarmist models you are peddling being correct.
CO2 has risen substantially in the last decade or two - with very little corresponding warming. There are a lot of theroes and hand-waving why, but in the end the EVIDENCE is that CO2 rising does not lead to temperature rise, despite many previous predictions to the contrary.
oh dear... your denial activism is showing
Here is your fallacy...loaded words which are of course designed to halt discussion. A perfect example of using loaded words is if I hand out a petition to ban water? Not gonna get anywhere,
You, sir, are a hypocrite of the first degree. The comment you are defending is not only insulting, but it is also literally a pack of lies. Everything he claims in it is false. But his loaded words have roped you right in and dragged you right along, because you are so very malleable.
but if I pass out a petition to ban Dihydrogen monoxide I have zero doubt I got get a pile of celebs and SJWs on board to have it banned immediately. Maybe next time if you don't call people names and actually state your positions logically it would be better...
Again, you, sir, are a hypocrite. When you complain about people calling people names and then call people names, you lose all credibility which you had. You didn't actually have any, but now you have even less.
I have noticed
Re:More nope (Score:5, Informative)
All of the models are wildly wrong in predicting climate, so the "evidence" is pointing against any of the alarmist models you are peddling being correct.
Well that there is just flat out a lie.
You can dig out the most recent IPCC report if you like. It contains the predictions from the previous IPCC report and compares them to what actually happened. And what happened is that the actual data lay comfortably within the error bars of the temperatures predicted by the models.
Since you're such a "skeptic", I assume you've actually looked at the IPCC report in order to read it rationally and with a clear head, so I don't need to point you to the specific graph.
So, carry on, I'd love to see you twist and turn in the face of indisputable evidence.
Re:More nope (Score:5, Informative)
CO2 has risen substantially in the last decade or two - with very little corresponding warming. ... so you are simply: wrong.
Last year was the hottest in recorded history
Also keep in mind: when you open the valve of your heating, it takes a few minutes until the radiator is hot, and it takes hours until your room is significantly warmer.
The same happens with CO2. The CO2 we produce today will show up on thermometers all over the world in a few years, not tomorrow.
the EVIDENCE is that CO2 rising does not lead to temperature rise, despite many previous predictions to the contrary.
There is no evidence like that. As a stone can not raise to earth orbit, but is firmly grasped by gravity, CO2 leads to increased temperatures. There is no doubt about that. No idea why you repeatedly write nonsense like this, are you payed by some american oil/denier lobby?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand science. Scientific predictions can be wrong. Over time, the mass of accumulation of experimentation, facts, and results produces the body of knowledge of science. If there's a problem with our understanding of gravity, the Theory of Gravity is not thrown out the window; it is updated. After hundreds of years of studying gravity, with a massive amount of data points, experiments, etc., it's just not going to be wrong on most points - and even if it is, it doesn't make any of science's p
Nobody mentioned it to me. (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that the last serious scientific objection to AGW (as a theory) was overcome in the mid 20th century by improving spectrometers in heat seeking missile was a remarkable coincidence, NAS took full advantage of that opportunity.
Nobody mentioned it to me.
And I was working from the mid '60s through the early '70s in the "Infrared and Optics" lab that did the guidance systems for the BOMARK and Sidewinder, processed multispectral (including several infrared bands) aircraft and spacecraft data (from the ERTS - later renamed LandSat - and Skylab scanners), and much of the industrial-scale processing as well as the development of the equipment. The missile stuff was classified and before I joined, but the multispectral stuff was not, and was contemporary (as was the synthetic aperture radar in the other lab I worked for at the start of that period).
I did some of the software that processed that data, some of the running of the mainframes in question, maintained and augmented its OS and libraries on one of them, and, though a lowly undergrad techie at the time, talked with the researchers a lot. Some of them loved to tell me what they were up to and bounce ideas off me for my comments and opinions on them.
So I find it strange that, if they (or anybody in their field) had found a "strong" or "definitive" signal for AGW, using equipment derived from their work, they wouldn't, at least, have been talking about it a bunch, including with me, while celebrating and/or trying to get another grant out of it (and seeing if I could come up with a way to process the data to detect or falsify the signal).
As I recall, the dominant paradigm at the time was that the interglacial was ending and we were about to crash into the next ice age (or the next piece of the current one). But while that was discussed on campus it wasn't mentioned at this remote-sensing lab, either.
Re:Nobody mentioned it to me. (Score:5, Informative)
What they discovered in the 1950's was that they couldn't use heat sensors for the missiles that were sensitive in the IR bands that CO2 absorbed. I don't imagine the missiles you worked on used IR sensors in those bands either.
Of course Arrhenius stated that Earth's temperature was proportional to CO2 levels in the atmosphere in 1896 but scientists didn't really start understanding what that meant until the mid to late 1950's. Gilbert Plass published several papers on the effects of CO2 in the 50's. From there it started building. In 1966 (I think) a presentation on the potential of CO2 to cause warming was made to Lyndon Johnson who mentioned it in an address to Congress. By the 1970's global warming from increasing CO2 was the dominant paradigm.
Re: (Score:2)
What they discovered in the 1950's was that they couldn't use heat sensors for the missiles that were sensitive in the IR bands that CO2 absorbed. I don't imagine the missiles you worked on used IR sensors in those bands either.
Oh. THAT's what they're on about? Yeah, we knew about that. Also several bands absorbed by water, bands in the UV where oxygen is dissociated (some of it reforming as ozone), photochemical smog, and a host of other stuff.
The atmosphere is nearly opaque, with a scattering of transp
Re: (Score:2)
That's still true isn't it? But water increases the earth surface temperature with about 30 degrees C and the first decent one dimensional model (Manabe) gave an additional 2 degrees when CO2 is doubled. That means we have a significant impact. One can argue that the modern climate models do
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You recall one single "clickbait" style cover of TIME magazine designed to stir people up and start an argument. They justified it with something about "both sides of the story", where apparently on some issues nutcases get equal time to the rest of humanity.
Go "science"! (Score:2)
Silly old science requires new predictions, which is why we had to invent "science", where a "prediction" about the past becomes new evidence.
In case you don't get the subtlety, team circlejerk just added a new technique. Old members of the team have been busy editing the "raw" temperature data to make the past cooler and the present warmer. New members of the team are now saying that the trends in this fictional data (which was only recently concocted) could not have been seen until recently.
Ta da! "Sci
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change goes on (Score:2)
Explanation needed, not for AGW... (Score:3)
Re:Explanation needed, not for AGW... (Score:4, Insightful)
Follow the money.
Re: there is no (Score:3, Insightful)
While saying there is no agw is presumptuous you make a very good point.
One of THE key tests of a scientific theorem is that it can predict.. And yet these 'state of the art' models have so far had a dismal record of prediction.
And yet their 'findings' are treated as science.
Global climate change is obvious, inevitable, and continuous as it always has been of course. There is no static climate.
However AGW is a very different proposition.. And there is a wide continuum of possibilities within in from minor s
Re: (Score:2)
One of THE key tests of a scientific theorem is that it can predict.. And yet these 'state of the art' models have so far had a dismal record of prediction. And yet their 'findings' are treated as science.
If you believe that, then it might make you feel good to know that this study was based entirely on computer climate models.
Re: there is no (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how the AGW stories always bring the lunatics typing from their mom's basements out of the woodwork.
You know nothing about science. Really, nothing.
> One of THE key tests of a scientific theorem is that it can predict
What is a 'scientific theorem'? Oh maybe you mean a scientific theory? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] And yet these 'state of the art' models have so far had a dismal record of prediction.
Wrong. The reputable models from the 80's and 90's (those that had a good level of peer-review and were based on sound assumptions) quite accurately predicted our current warming rate. The reason you don't know this is because you probably derive most of your 'information' from sources that actually don't deal in science.
> The obvious ones of course being nuclear power in its more modern versions
I knew you'd segue into nuclear power at the end, and you didn't disappoint! Somehow anti-AGW lunacy seems to be highly correlated with nuclear lunacy.
Nuclear energy is not going to solve our problems. It is obscenely expensive - far more expensive than wind or solar. This is true both for construction costs, maintenance costs, total lifetime costs, and also costs per final delivered kWh. Nuclear is only feasible for a very specific set of scenarios - scenarios where you have a large population or industry center located in an area that is poor in renewable energy sources. And even then, only as an augmentative power source to renewable energy, not as a sole source of power.
Nuclear is also non-renewable and reprocessing (to make it renewable) adds even more expense to the point that it could never hope to be commercially competitive. You guys believe in the free market right? That the market always knows best? Well the market decided on nuclear, and it decided that nuclear sucks. It also decided that nuclear reprocessing sucks even harder.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean like the IPCC? Perhaps you could explain why the objective, full-coverage satellite data shows no warming for nearly 20 years while the CO2 level has continued to rise exponentially. This suggests that the CO2 sensitivity used by the alarmists in their failed predictions is way too high, at the least. Also, the issue is not "AGW"; it's Catastrophic AGW caused
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Really? It doesn't seem to be the case, at least according to this source : http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ [nasa.gov]. Are you saying NASA is part of a conspiracy?
Re: there is no (Score:5, Insightful)
For chrissake, step out of the basement and READ. I beg you. I deplore of you. Every single point you're making has been debunked to death for years. There is no such thing as 'global warming hiatus'. Only bad data, measurement inaccuracies over the oceans, and a regional pause in warming over North America and Europe, which has been more than compensated for by an incredible degree of warming at the poles. http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc... [bbc.com]
> Every time someone takes a step, they cause a small earthquake. Does that mean they should sit very still and starve to death? Similarly, if a small amount of AGW isn't seriously dangerous, does that mean we should kill hundreds of millions of people through energy poverty to fail to solve something that really isn't that much of a problem?
Actually climate change is a very serious problem and by far the cheapest way of dealing with it is to deal with it right now. It is projected - based on optimistic predictions! - that the economic damage caused by climate change would dwarf the expense of dealing with it. And if you do it in a smart way, it doesn't even need to be that expensive to deal with. Solar and wind are already pretty cheap and could create lots of jobs. The price of oil is going to continue to rise; the sooner we reduce our oil consumption the less we have to pay in the long run. Any way you look at it, it's beneficial economically and environmentally to deal with climate change as soon as possible. Except, of course, if you're a coal magnate, which anti-agw people either are or are useful idiots for. Sorry to say this but it's true.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
by far the cheapest way of dealing with it is to deal with it right now.
That's the thing though - it is being dealt with right now. Even if someone believes that mankind has had no significant influence on the climate in this really obviously warming interglacial period (many people are posting from locations that were buried under deep ice a few tens of thousands of years ago), most would agree that the move to renewables and cleaner emissions being mandated by a lot of governments is a good thing.
Where the major disagreement seems to arise is in how quickly we need to complet
Re: there is no (Score:2)
I'm not worried about the earth which will carry on happily without us. I'm worried about the future of the human race. A minor change to the climate as you put it could have a devastating impact on our civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to see climate change that would have a devastating impact on our civilisation, look no further than the Dryas events which took place not only relatively recently but entirely without any influence from humanity. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports... [www.ipcc.ch]
Re: there is no (Score:2)
Which has nothing to do with my point. We can't control natural climate change but this isn't natural.
Re: (Score:2)
Where "natural" means "temperatures increased by 7C or more in a few decades ... Broad regions of the Earth experienced almost synchronous changes over periods of 0 to 30 years (Severinghaus et al., 1998), and changes were very abrupt in at least some regions (Bard et al., 1987), e.g. requiring as little as 10 years off Venezuela" we're in pretty good shape here.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we will eventually have to learn to live without fossil fuels. The question is whether we do it willingly and peacefully or whether it is forced upon us through violence and political upheaval. At this rate, I don't see anything suggesting that we're really seriously taking the steps needed to get off of fossil fuels before it gets ugly. We will likely go through a disruptive and negative adjusting phase.
Re: there is no (Score:5, Insightful)
At this rate, I don't see anything suggesting that we're really seriously taking the steps needed to get off of fossil fuels before it gets ugly.
Maybe you should try researching [europa.eu] what's going on [wikipedia.org] before posting then [cleantechnica.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Well yes, some of the saner parts of the world have set moderately acceptable renewable energy targets. But the big picture is that we're still doing very little. The biggest polluters have not done anything meaningful. China seems to be gradually coming around to the importance of climate change, but all too slowly, I fear. And about the US, well, it still remains firmly entrenched in its own alternate reality.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as 'global warming hiatus'. Only bad data, measurement inaccuracies over the oceans, and a regional pause in warming over North America and Europe, which has been more than compensated for by an incredible degree of warming at the poles, and lots and lots of misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies shouted by agents provacateurs* encouraged by the fossil fuels multinationals in an effort to derail rational discussion of the subject.
TFTFY.
*I'm looking at you, "scientists have voted" and "the Republicans hate us" trolls.
Re: there is no (Score:5, Informative)
Re: there is no (Score:4, Funny)
rather than feasible, cheap plans like geo-engineering.
I don't know what's happening. My models don't quite predict what's going on. I thought it had something to do with some gas but I'm not sure. None the less I know how to fix it.
What could possibly go wrong.
Re: there is no (Score:2)
Perhaps you could explain why the objective, full-coverage satellite data shows no warming for nearly 20 years while the CO2 level has continued to rise exponentially.
Why do you still think there's been no warming? Are you still looking only at surface temperatures? Have you not seen the accelerating rates of rising ocean heat content, ice loss, and sea levels? Surface temperatures will climb faster when we move into an El Nino phase, if that's what you're looking for.
And why do you bring up the straw man of "energy poverty"? We don't have to slash our energy usage (though efficiencies of course help), we just have to produce it without burning carbon fuels. There's many
Re: (Score:2)
Surface temperatures will climb faster when we move into an El Nino phase, if that's what you're looking for.
And you don't have to look very far; it's happening right now: Current El Niño climate event 'among the strongest' [bbc.com].
Re: there is no (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you could explain why the objective, full-coverage satellite data shows no warming for nearly 20 years while the CO2 level has continued to rise exponentially.
Why do you think there's been no warming? Are you still looking only at surface temperatures? Have you not seen the accelerating rates of rising ocean heat content, ice loss, and sea levels? Surface temperatures will climb faster when we move into an El Nino phase, if that's what you're looking for.
And why do you bring up the straw man of "energy poverty"? We don't have to slash our energy usage (though efficiencies of course help), we just have to produce it without burning carbon fuels. There's many ways
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you could explain why the objective, full-coverage satellite data shows no warming for nearly 20 years while the CO2 level has continued to rise exponentially. ... good luck, idiot.
That is wrong, an actually a lie. No one can be so disinformed or dumb to "believe" that the planet did not heat up considerably the last 20 years.
Never heard about such satellite images either.
Please provide a link
Re: there is no (Score:2)
Perhaps you could explain why the objective, full-coverage satellite data shows no warming for nearly 20 years while the CO2 level has continued to rise exponentially.
Why do you think there's been no warming? Are you still looking only at surface temperatures? Have you not seen the accelerating rates of rising ocean heat content, ice loss, and sea levels? Surface temperatures will climb faster when we move into an El Nino phase, if that's what you're looking for.
And why do you bring up the straw man of "energy poverty" (among many others)? We don't have to slash our energy usage (though efficiencies of course help), we just have to produce it without burning so much carb
Re: (Score:2)
Point me to a single reputable source that predicted that 'snow would be a distant memory'. Blog posts do not count as reputable sources.
You're making up facts to suit your narrative. What I'm not sure about is: why? I mean, you people have already convinced the world to not take action on climate change, and you've convinced most people that the science behind AGW is not settled, which is not true. You've already achieved your goals; what more do you want from us?
Re: (Score:3)
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". [independent.co.uk]
Ask, and ye shall receive.
AGW models are fail (Score:2, Informative)
graph [yimg.com]
This graph shows all the predicted models versus observations. If you look you will see not a SINGLE model is even close. Beck_Nerd tells you they have been quite accurate, he hopes you believe him and don't look for yourself. The actual reality is they are 100% wrong, every single time.
Its so completely true and unarguable, yet they can't seem to show it with facts. Funny how that is and how many times they have "manipulated data" to match their conclusions instead of modifying their theories to m
XSS attack? (Score:2)
NoScript says there is a potential XSS attack there. That's really unusual. Usually all it does it block JS, so I'm not dropping anything to look at that. I don't think yimg is sketchy; but maybe they need to fix their shit, or maybe *you* are trying to pull something. I don't have this problem with any other major image hosting site. Your URL looks weird, with some junk and another URL in it. Figuring those thigns out is not my specific area of expertise, so I don't care to analyze it any further.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I just did a Google image search of IPCC vs observed. You can find tons of examples and articles about it. I didn't want to link to an article because as soon as you do here suddenly the "You linked to a site I don't like and can't be trusted." even if the graph in the article is completely accurate.
Goolgle search [google.com] for that other guy with made up JS issues.
See, they are so bad they have to try and scare you into not even looking at a link to an image they don't want to be seen. Inconvenient truth indeed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A link to a graph without a reference as to where the graph came from? That proves a lot!
For anyone who's observing this fine exchange, take note: When someone doesn't reveal his sources, it's usually because they don't want you to know the sources, because the sources are either bogus or tell a different story. Which is the case here. Turns out, this graph was part of a larger study that actually confirmed the predictions of climate change models, once inadequacies in the experimental data were taken into
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear energy is not going to solve our problems. It is obscenely expensive - far more expensive than wind or solar. This is true both for construction costs, maintenance costs, total lifetime costs, and also costs per final delivered kWh. Nuclear is only feasible for a very specific set of scenarios - scenarios where you have a large population or industry center located in an area that is poor in renewable energy sources. And even then, only as an augmentative power source to renewable energy, not as a sole source of power.
It is worth noting that the various regulations and "oh my god the nuclear" fears, along with the "oh my god someone might reprocess into plutonium or nuclear weapons so we ban half of it", has caused the above...
It now take more than twice as long to build a new nuclear reactor as it did to invent the things in the first place, when we didn't know how to make them work. That is absurd, imagine if cars took a month to build, you'd be saying that they didn't make any sense either...
The current market condit
Re: there is no (Score:5, Informative)
> It is worth noting that the various regulations and "oh my god the nuclear" fears, along with the "oh my god someone might reprocess into plutonium or nuclear weapons so we ban half of it", has caused the above...
Not really. Nuclear was already expensive in the 50's and 60's, way before these things were a huge issue. In fact most of the time the people insisting on safety were the nuclear scientists themselves, not the 'eco warrior bogeyman' you've constructed in your mind. The reason was because the scientists were responsible and acknowledged the actual real threats posed by radioactive contamination and the relative ease by which unprotected nuclear reactors could leach radioactive material into the environment.
Is there a lot of unwarranted, irrational fear about nuclear power? Sure. I'm with you 100% on that. But that doesn't mean that nuclear reactors shouldn't be made safe! It's not just accidents either. What if someone crashes a jet into a power plant with the goal of making a large area radioactive and uninhabitable? US regulations require containment buildings to be resistant to bombs and plane impacts, for good reason.
Now as to what makes nuclear power expensive. There are three major issues. One is that the economics of nuclear power favors large, multi-gigawatt, one-off designs that have huge up-front costs that simple can't be made smaller by mass production methods (attempts at small modular reactors have failed and will always fail as the economics of those are even worse). Another issue is decommissioning. Nuclear decommissioning costs are MASSIVE, because you have to extremely carefully take the reactor apart over a period of years. The third major issue is the advanced level of technology required. Custom materials, custom manufacturing processes, labor-intensive fuel preparation, reactor maintenance, and inspection costs.
> It now take more than twice as long to build a new nuclear reactor as it did to invent the things in the first place, when we didn't know how to make them work. That is absurd, imagine if cars took a month to build, you'd be saying that they didn't make any sense either...
It actually makes perfect sense once you realize that the first generation of nuclear power plants were built recklessly and with insane design decisions that made them extremely unsafe and vulnerable to both accidents and terrorist attacks. Over time, we've realized the steps that need to be taken to build safe and secure nuclear sites and these add expense and time.
And as for proliferation fears, well you can blame that on the right wing politicians who insist on backwards arms control methods like total nuclear abstinence instead of rational procedures like international inspections regimes.
Re: (Score:2)
>What if someone crashes a jet into a power plant with the goal of making a large area radioactive and uninhabitable? US regulations require containment buildings to be resistant to bombs and plane impacts, for good reason.
The World Trade Center buildings were built to withstand an airplane crash as well. Only the crash they were counting on was from an aircraft with the fuel capacity of a 707. The 757s that crashed carried far more fuel, which burned longer, weakening the structure to the point of collapse. Likewise the seawall at Fukushima was six feet too short, because its engineered height was based on historical data. tl;dr You only engineer for the current threat, not the future threat.
Re: (Score:2)
The age old conflict of those with money and no clue versus those with a clue. Barbarian overlords who think every plot of land is like any other versus farmers who know the difference between arable land and swamp.
Eventually the rulers have to listen to the experts or risk a fuckup bad enough to endanger their rule.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
At this point, it is not a theorem. It is a fact since the scientists have voted. It is a law.
It's also a law that Rush Limbaugh fans must be easy to spot even when they post anonymously.
Re: (Score:3)
I love how he used the word 'theorem' incorrectly, and you repeat his incorrect use without batting an eye! I'm really enjoying this thread from people who have absolutely no idea what science is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...but explanations are based on accepted consensus of experts. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.. etc.
That's a really lousy example to choose [slashdot.org].
Re: there is no (Score:2, Informative)
Scientists never predicted the Earth is flat. Anyone with a decent knowledge of geometry can show the Earth is round. Erastothenes calculated the diameter of the Earth 2300 years ago. Pythagorus is generally bel,ieved to be the first Greek to state the Earth is round. That was well before anything we recognize as science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pick another topic then, Crime, Disease.
We know a lot about both topic, we can definitely say both exist, and I am sure you have been the victim of one or both.
Now like temperature, we can't predict who will be the next victim.
And neither can we with any certainty predict their future patterns, will crime increase/decrease, how much by, will this be by state/country/globally.Flu season, they estimate possibly which strains may be prevalent next flu season and make vaccines, and yet they get that wrong a lot
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly 20 years with no statistical warming despite CO2 sky rocketing.
Hasn't the ocean temperature been rising this entire time?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How did they measure that?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is how to end all arguments. It does not matter the details. Pollution sucks. That is it.
That's a stupid argument. In the wrong situation, water is pollution. Too much oxygen is bad for you.
The fundamental discussion about AGW is how much CO2 is too much. We certainly don't want to get rid of it all, for many reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
"Pollution sucks. [...] Someone who argues for it is arguing that pollution is OK. It is not."
I wish things were so simple.
Yes: pollution sucks. But shutting down my AC in the middle of summer or my heater in the middle of winter also sucks and both my AC and my heating pollute. So the point is how much it sucks one versus the other. And, of course, there probably won't be an easy agreement about the sweet spot. Moreso, the sweetspot probably will change as costs prices and technologies change.
So, sorry
Re: (Score:2)
No one has asked you to do that. If you were smart you would do the responsible thing and add solar panels to your roof to reduce your carbon footprint, but we both know you're not smart..
For $35,000? What planet do you live on?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like plants did ok during the height of the last ice age when CO2 levels were 180 ppm and the certainly did ok with a level of 208 ppm. I doubt CO2 is nearly as much a constraint on plant growth globally as water and soil are.
Re: (Score:3)
It always depends on how you compare. "All other things remaining equal" is one of the ways one can compare. It's valid but one has to be careful about conclusions because the other things are not remaining equal.
CO2 has a large impact on plants in arid regions because plants have to sacrifice a lot of water in order to get the CO2, and when there's more CO2 in the air the plants lose much less water. See for instance here [sciencedaily.com]
When water is not scarce most plants benefit from the extra CO2 but there are plants w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Historical temperature swings similarly show no correlation to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
This isn't correct. We know of some historical temperature swings which don't have higher levels of CO2 but we also have some that do. The majority of climate scientists explain that a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere cause a greenhouse effect which will raise the average temperature by a mere few degrees over hundreds of years. That sounds like nothing to us but means a lot for the overall ecosystem of Ear
Re:That may or may not be true... (Score:5, Insightful)
People like you are why the world is doomed.
Re: (Score:3)
People like you are why the world is doomed.
He represents the social norm. It's not people like him. It's People Period. The number of people who would give up the things they take for granted in life in the name of some scientists saying it'll get 1degC hotter (and not understanding what that actually means) is an even smaller proportion than the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Re:That may or may not be true... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the "externalized costs" were incorporated into the prices you use to make your decisions, then you would decide more wisely.
The cost of a pack of cigarettes isn't just the cost to grow, process and deliver the tobacco to you, it is also the cost of treating lung cancer - not to mention the social cost of pissing off everyone who doesn't want to die prematurely.
The cost of continuing to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere isn't just the cost of extracting the fossil fuels and using them, it's the cost of relocating our cities to higher ground, and other very expensive consequences. We may pass this cost off to future generations and get away (dead) without paying for it, but it is a price that will be paid.
Re: (Score:2)
If the "externalized costs" were incorporated into the prices you use to make your decisions, then you would decide more wisely.
You might be right... but the chances of that happening any time soon are slim...
The chances of it happening to the majority of the world any time soon are as close to it doesn't matter... zero...
The cost of continuing to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere isn't just the cost of extracting the fossil fuels and using them, it's the cost of relocating our cities to higher ground, and other very expensive consequences. We may pass this cost off to future generations and get away (dead) without paying for it, but it is a price that will be paid.
That may all be true, but there is a difference between understanding a problem and having any way to do anything about it.
This is where this all falls apart, because while this might be priority one to you or to some people, it is priority number 47 to the average person.
Is it important? Sure... So is saving t
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Unfortunately people won't change until the Greenland ice caps melt and Florida ceases to exist. This won't happen in our lifetime (I think).
Re: (Score:3)
isn't just the cost of extracting the fossil fuels and using them, it's the cost of relocating our cities to higher ground, and other very expensive consequences. We may pass this cost off to future generations and get away (dead) without paying for it, but it is a price that will be paid.
Well stated, but I would add that one more cost may very well be a large shift of global power. As new weather patterns emerge, some of the folks who are global powers might end up having large parts of their land turn into a desert. Africa was teh cradle of civilization. The Sahara was once upon a time, rather green. Now? not so much. Things change, the the mighty can topple. The irony might be that they topple themselves sooner than natural processes do.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying you will feed you ego prior to ensuring your own existence, the ability to express that self serving selfish ego. There is an illusion going on here and it is one created by the manipulations of modern marketing. Have a problem with something deal with it and don't pretend you are dealing with it by wishing for other people to create a solution that very well might occur far too late or never.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your contribution might be almost unrecordable on a chart but it will contribute.
That is a perfectly example of an academic argument that doesn't hold up when applied to real life.
My contribution doesn't move the needle by enough to make a difference in the outcome, but it DOES make a difference to my pocketbook. I'm harming myself while not helping everyone else by enough for it to count for anything.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you solve the situation? It sounds like any problem that takes a lot of people could never be solved, by your reasoning. It sounds like... wait for it... you require a government to step in.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm all for clean power, to a point..."
If you are "all for clean power" except if it's more expensive, you are not for clean power, at all.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't true at all, nor is it a reasonable or fair thing to say...
All you're doing is shutting down any meaningful communication...
Example... I recently spent over $400 buying LED bulbs for my house... My existing bulbs "worked just fine", so why do it? Because I'll make back the cost of those bulbs in what I consider to be a reasonable time frame, while lowering my carbon footprint.
That is a win, win. There is no reason that most bulbs shouldn't be replaced with LED, even those that work fine today
Re:That may or may not be true... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The human capacity for self-delusion never fails to amaze....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same sort of argument we saw recently when discussing broadband coverage where someone claimed to be comparing the US and Europe, but then pointed to a map that actually compared the US with the western third of Europe.
(Still waiting for that poster to respond after having been called out on it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The danger of excessive CO2 is not offset by plants. Yes, CO2 is used by plants, but having extreme amounts of it in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. The effect that climate scientists are worried about is actually relatively minor by astronomical scales - a few degrees Celsius in hundreds of years - but will have devastating effects on the comfort, economy, and livability of humans in many areas of the earth.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what it means to have "detected the AGW signal." Was there a repeated electromagnetic pulse in some high frequency band that, properly decoded, represented pi to ten thousand decimal places? Was it engraved on two tablets taken down from the mountain? Or sung by a chorus of angels floating on cumulus clouds? Remember, this was pre Al Gore, so it couldn't have come from the Oracle himself.
Come on, really. Provide some detail and make this credible. It's offhand stuff like this--- "the science is set
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is will our modern complex civilization collapse to the point where a well furnished wallet doesn't do you any good?
Re: (Score:2)
* Nevertheless, according to model evidence, both hot and cold extremes have already emerged across many areas.
* Hegerl et al (2004) found a detectable wettening signal in modelled heavy precipitation events at Northern high latitudes associated with anthropogenic influences on the climate.
* However, in North Asia (figure 2(c)), the TAE values are more similar across the temperature and precipi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Models are not evidence. Measurements are evidence, models are an attempt to draw conclusions from evidence.
Well said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)