Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming 423
An anonymous reader writes "Previous estimates of global ocean warming have been significantly underestimated due to historically sparse temperature data from the Southern Ocean, new research has found. From the article: "Earth's oceans have absorbed more than 90% of the warming caused by greenhouse gases, researchers estimate, with the stored heat showing up as warmer seawater. But a new analysis suggests scientists may have underestimated the size of the heat sink in the upper ocean—which could have implications for researchers trying to understand the pace and scale of past warming."
What happens to that heat? (Score:3)
I wonder what happens to all the heat that's being taken up by the oceans. Is any of it released - and if so, how? Evaporation and heat needed to melt polar ice come to mind as possibilities. Or is it going to stay there, forever warming the oceans, and the oceans increasing in temperature forever.
The next thing is of course the question of how it affects the deeper oceans. Are those layers also warmed up - for example thanks to ocean currents mixing the water of the world's oceans?
Re:What happens to that heat? (Score:5, Informative)
The ice caps which are melting are taking some of the heat. Evaporating water will cool it down too. The currents moving the water to cooler areas will go to warm up the cold areas. That it is called global climate change. Not global weather change the whole system is changing from the imbalance.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder what happens to all the heat that's being taken up by the oceans.
Ah - the only intelligent comment on this issue on /. so far, on this fine morning. This is very likely what climatologists are thinking about too; heat, being energy, doesn't disappear, so it must be somewhere. My guess is that it isn't perhaps so much about where the heat went as it is about by how much the temperature increase has been underestimated - IOW, that the water was somewhat colder before than what we guessed. That is of course one of our problems: when we don't have enough observations, we hav
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Evaporation increases exponentially with temperature, so even with a lot of extra heat going into the oceans, the change in surface temperature will not be that large. Since water vapor is lighter than air, the extra evaporation will also increase air circulation above the sea, cooling it even further.
So, don't expect to notice any difference in tempearture when you go swiming. The only change that you might notice is melting polar caps, and a massive increase in tropical hurricanes.
Re: (Score:2)
With such temperature changes measured in the tenth of degrees, I don't expect to suddenly have a sea warm enough to swim in during winter time :)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ahh yes, we've just established that the oceans have been warmer than we expected. And just around the same time we've had a recent minimum of severe hurricanes. Climate change or not, you cannot predict severe weather patterns. Anti-deniers like to attribute every negative event to climate change and none of the positive events. Maybe a warmer planet will have less severe weather if the air temperature is closer to the water temperature as it is the differential that causes severe weather.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What happens to that heat? (Score:5, Interesting)
And just around the same time we've had a recent minimum of severe hurricanes.
By which you mean that we had no category five hurricane last year? That's just a consequence of the fact that there is less than one per year on average, and the number must be integer. (If you do the count per decade, then 2000-2009 had the highest number (8) of category five hurricanes in recorded history, but this number is still too small to draw any statistically significant conclusions from.)
There is more information in the data on category four hurricanes. I found this table of category 4 hurricane statistics on wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Period Number Number per year
1851–1900 13 0.26
1901–1950 29 0.58
1951–1975 22 0.88
1976–2000 24 0.96
2001–2012 19 1.6
Re: (Score:3)
Interestingly, you randomly choose years to fit your criteria.1851-1900 = 49 years. 1901-1950 = 49 years, 1950-1975 = 25 years, 1976-2000=24 years, 2000-2012 = 12 years ...
See the problem yet? Of course not, the problem doesn't fit the narrative, so we ignore the problem .
Re:What happens to that heat? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually I don't see any problem in the OPs statistics as stated. If you combine the 1951-1975 entries and the 1976-2000 entries you get a 50 year period, just like the two periods before. And its total number of cat 4 hurricanes is 46, well over the totals for the 50 year periods before, which perfectly fits his narrative. It isn't uncommon to reduce the intervals in statistical aggregations when things start changing more rapidly. In this case the OP did it such that we can easily recreate equal sized bins. By the way, those periods he used are 1851 to 1900 = 50 years, 1901 to 1950 = 50 years, 1951 to 1975 = 25 years, 1976 to 2000 = 25 years, not 49, 49, 25, 24 as you stated. The statistics here are pretty simple, not much room to manipulate or complain about them. Looks like a trend to me.
Re:What happens to that heat? (Score:4, Interesting)
I did not chose the years. This was a quick copy-paste from Wikipedia. I suppose they picked the intervals so that the number of observations in each bin would be about 20, which implies a standard deviation uncertainty of about 4.5 hurricanes in each interval.
But since you didn't like that table, here's one just for you:
1851–1900 13 0.26
1901–1950 29 0.58
1951–2000 46 0.92
(Each of the above intervals is 50 years, not 49. I haven't found any statistics on the correlation between being a climate change skeptic and being unable to do simple math, but I'm sure it would be interesting.)
Now, if you really wanted to raise a valid objection, you would point out that weather satellites did not exist until the 1960:s, and that the number of severe hurricanes might have been underestimated prior to that.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no. You completely misstated it.
The scientific viewpoint is that "No single weather event can be definitively tied to climate change", because the causal link has not yet been made definitively. But at the same time, weather events are happening more often. The phrase is "“statistically speaking, we’re seeing more extreme weather events, getting even more extreme over time”. And weather "seasons" are changing in duration; some starting earlier and lasting longer, others starting l
Re: (Score:2)
...slate.com/blogs...
That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
essentially we're tlaking about playing the game of "what if?".
as in, "what if X was different? would Y have still have happened?", and that's a difficult link to make.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
" and a massive increase in tropical hurricanes."
They have been saying this for YEARS now, and there hasn't been a major hurricane in how many years?
It is predictions and statements like this that have people like me scratching our heads. None of the predictions of doom have happened. Polar Bears are not drowning either. When people are caught lying, repeatedly, people stop believing them. This is what happens when people stop reading fairy tales and start creating them using "Science" as a backdrop.
Re:What happens to that heat? (Score:5, Funny)
Also, these so-called "scientists" claim that there will be "winter" a few months from now, but the weather today is actually warmer than it was yesterday, so I'm scratching my head...
Re: (Score:3)
New research suggests that the upper layer of the ocean has warmed more than had been thought previously while the deeper ocean has cooled rather than warmed in recent years.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10... [judithcurry.com]
90% ? (Score:3, Informative)
So given that conventional atmosphere models have ignored this to date, if the oceans are storing 90% of the excess heat, why aren't the conventional models showing temperature rises 10 times as great as what is observed, say 5-10 deg C?
Either the summary or the article are slack in the extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
Because oceans have ALWAYS been storing excess heat.
This finding impacts the ocean's heat storage behaviour throughout it's entire existance, not just since humanity.
It's the interpretation of the summary and article that is slack in extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"152% too low"? (Score:2)
I still don't understand if this discovery is a good or a bad thing ... but can someone please explain to me how you can estimate that a value is more than 100% "too low"?
I would assume that you would measure heat absorbtion in BTU or Watts, or something that can't go negative (ie, not in degrees Farenheight, which is a temperature, not a measure of stored heat)
Re: (Score:2)
but can someone please explain to me how you can estimate that a value is more than 100% "too low"?
48-150% too low means you have to multiply the old answer by between 1.48 and 2.50 in order to get the correct answer.
IOW you have to increase the old answer by 48% to 150%. Or, colloquially, the old answer was too small. By 48% to 150%.
Re: (Score:2)
Therma
"May have"... "suggests".. (Score:2)
This is very confusing. Did they find evidence that this is happening? Or did they find something that "MIGHT" "SUGGEST" that something has happened?
Because if the former... great. I love it when science figures something out.
If not... then while that is still good that they're looking into these things... it does literally nothing for the public debate about AGW. A "might" "suggest" gets us no where until that is refined into something more definite.
Re: (Score:3)
Turns out "may have"... and "suggests" turns out to be "is not" ... "there"...
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/n... [nasa.gov]
JPL just compared deep ocean temps with what they were in 2005 and found there is no warming. So the deep oceans are not warming.
This means the "missing heat" issue remains a problem for the people working on these climate models. And this "may have" ... "suggests" that maybe the reason the heat is missing is because there isn't actually any warming. Think I'm wrong? Where it is the heat?
Re:please no (Score:5, Insightful)
> nonono, the science is settled.
Science, by definition, is never settled. What's far more difficult is to bring a scientific attitude to the table if there is a political dog (or two) in the fight.
Re:please no (Score:4, Informative)
Re:please no (Score:4, Interesting)
So it wasnt going into the oceans before and all of a sudden started going into the oceans all at once? Thus creating a "pause"? Why wasnt the heat going into the oceans before the "pause"?
You know, if people who arent climate scientists are not qualified to question the science, then people who arent climate scientists are also not qualified to defend the science.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, if people who arent climate scientists are not qualified to question the science, then people who arent climate scientists are also not qualified to defend the science.
Then why are you asking questions on /.?
I don't think the people here at /. are doing such a bad job explaining climate science, but you can always ask your money back and go find answers from real climate scientists.
Re:please no (Score:5, Insightful)
So it wasnt going into the oceans before and all of a sudden started going into the oceans all at once? Thus creating a "pause"? Why wasnt the heat going into the oceans before the "pause"?
There are some really simple explanations for this: one, the ocean currents changed (due to changes in the atmospheric climate) forcing more of the warmer water deeper into the ocean than before, two, no one said it was an "all-at-once" thing, and even if they did their perspective on "all-at-once" may be decades where you may be thinking more immediately, three, no one said that the rise in air temperatures WASN'T heating the oceans all along. As a matter of fact the continuing rise in ocean temperature has always been a priority concern to climatologists because of the impact on the entire food chain.
Re: (Score:3)
So it wasnt going into the oceans before and all of a sudden started going into the oceans all at once? Thus creating a "pause"? Why wasnt the heat going into the oceans before the "pause"?
You know, if people who arent climate scientists are not qualified to question the science, then people who arent climate scientists are also not qualified to defend the science.
You know, if you could engage your brain for 5 seconds instead of going to your default ideology routine, you may be able to figure this one out for yourself. The oceans are not static objects. Ocean currents can and do have periods that can span a couple decades. These currents can bring warmer or cooler waters to the surface.
Form there, it's basic physics. If the air is warmer than the water, the water heats up. If the air is colder than the water, the air heats up. If the net energy balance of the system
Re: (Score:3)
Keep your snark.
If you're going to oppose overwhelming scientific consensus for political reasons, snark is a very important weapon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:please no (Score:5, Funny)
Models will NEVER be accurate enough for any real predictions, causes or illustrations.
I heard that modern weather models have accuracy above 80%.
Good enough, IMO.
Re: please no (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because your model predicted the outcome of something does not mean your model is accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever wondered what for the first super-computers were used?
Weather models.
Who are one of the longest-term buyers of the supercomputers?
National weather agencies.
Weather predictions are important (if not crucial) part of the modern agriculture. Without the modern agriculture, the large cities and metropolis wouldn't be able to exist.
The accuracy of the weather models is judged not simply over days or weeks. They are run continuously over years if not decades. Their accuracy is judged over very ver
Re: (Score:3)
Just because your model predicted the outcome of something does not mean your model is accurate.
Correct, but if the model predicts the outcome more than half the time, or up to ninety percent of the time, then it's pretty accurate. It may not be precise, but it is accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:please no (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? The same models that predict that result in the weather man telling you its going to be a beautiful sunny day while it pours down rain?
Weather models are an absolute joke.
What?
Your weather forecasts are wrong every day? And in every conceivable way (Temperature, Cloud cover, Humidity, Rainfall, Windspeed, etc.)?
Honestly, that would be an achievement in itself!
Or, maybe, they get it right most of the time, but it's only the times they're wrong that stand out?
However, while I'm sure that both 'sides' in this debate are equally guilty of seeing what they want to see, that which confirms their observer bias, I'm not sure that ridiculing weather forecasts is a valid argument against the accuracy and predictive power (or lack thereof) of climate models.
Re: (Score:2)
No one claimed they are wrong every day, just that they aren't nearly 80% as the grandparent claimed. They seem to be wrong about 50% of the time (at least) here in Minnesota too. We are talking major, predicted sunny skies and got one of the worst storms of the summer with four inches of rain kind of wrong. And when I say wrong 50% of the time, I'm talking about ma
Re: (Score:3)
Cognitive filter. Example: you.
You do know that your local man on Tv usually isnt an actual meteorologist? And what's on the teleprompter may or may not have been based on NOAA's official forecast. Weather modeling and forecasts are very good, boasting >95% accuracy over the first 3-4 days, with accuracy decreasing the further ahead you go.
"This claim is based more on an appeal to emotion than fact. The inference is that climate predictions, decades into the future, cannot be possibly right when the weat
Re: (Score:2)
Not a chance. Bring some data before I will believe that accuracy rate. I don't even believe 95% is accurate for forecasting on the day of, let alone 3-4 days out, since our forecasts here in Minnesota have predicted sunny skies in the morning when I go to work, and we later get storms that drop four inches of rain. And I'm not using the "main on TV", but forecas
Re: (Score:2)
Re:please no (Score:4, Informative)
I go hiking a lot. I check the weather forecast. it's usually right. I wouldn't trust it 10 days out, except as a vague guidline, but I'd trust it three days out. I do, regularly. I live in Oregon. It's important to have your raincoat here....
So no, weather models are NOT a joke. They're incredibly accurate for just about every use case I've ever used them for. The absolute joke must be you...
Re:please no (Score:5, Informative)
Myth: The models arent accurate
Fact: The models are accurate.
"Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean."
"While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations."
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You may be correct but your source reference is terrible.
The website you offer has few reference to papers.
The author does not seem to have any real academic background one Graham Wayne.
CV:"My name is Graham Wayne. I live in Devon, England and I spend as much of my time as I can writing, principally about the science and sociology of climate change. To make ends meet, I repair computers and teach people how to get the best out of them.
My background is a blend of work in the arts, engineering (audio, IT) and
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure what you mean by few references...All these were on that page.
http://www.grida.no/publicatio... [grida.no]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncli... [doi.org]
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/... [weatherzone.com.au]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs... [nasa.gov]
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/... [sciencemag.org]
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis... [copenhagendiagnosis.com]
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/... [iac.ethz.ch]
http://www.aip.org/history/cli... [aip.org]
http://www.aip.org/history/cli... [aip.org]
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... [nasa.gov]
http://www.realclimate.org/ind... [realclimate.org]
http://www.realclimate.org/ind... [realclimate.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/201... [archive.org]
As for Dyson
Re: (Score:2)
There are NO American Tanks in Baghdad! [carbonbrief.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fact: The models are accurate.
I think what annoys me the most about climate alarmism is the false certainty such as conflating opinion with fact. The second most annoying thing is the lack of scientific grounds for the arguments made.
For example, the above two links in the parent post show considerable divergence between the models and reality (sea level and polar ice extent while substantially and suspiciously downplaying the temperature difference between model and reality). The "myth" is confirmed but the writer portrays it as aff
Right... (Score:4, Insightful)
and there is no conclusive proof that cigarette smoking causes lung disease. No, really, there has never been an observation of a cell mutating after exposure to a puff of smoke. The evidence is only statistical. And yet... reasonable people can accept that the odds are that smoking is unhealthy, in spite of the lack of "hard" scientific proof. Proof of the kind that Climate Change Deniers seem to be demanding. Arctic ice that is 60% thinner than it was when our first nuclear sub crossed under it in the 60s, Old photos of curling (that obscure shuffle board type sport) on fjords that haven't frozen over in decades, the no longer needed fleet of ice breakers on our Great Lakes, fauna found further and further north every year, tree rings, ice cores, historical records...all prove...nothing...but still, reasonable people can conclude that there is a link between our draining of the carbon sinks, and greenhouse warming. It's really not a stretch is it?
Re:Right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile the assertion that models fit past events is near irrelevant since that is data which is already known and it is expected that the models would have been adjusted in the first place to fit that data). For example, I can construct an interpolation of any temperature (or other numerical) data to perfect precision using an even degree polynomial of sufficiently high degree, yet it'll be completely irrelevant once I attempt any sort of extrapolation into the future (odds are good, about 50% I'd say, that it'll predict temperatures far below absolute zero by 2100).
Shockingly, scientists are aware of that issue, and have developed methods to test models against existing data. They do that by training on one chunk of the available data, and testing against another.
You're making two more mistakes in your analysis.
One, you complain that models that fit old data perfectly are wrong because all they do is fit data. Then you complain that the models don't fit the data perfectly - precisely because they don't just fit data. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Two, you t
Re: (Score:3)
I think what annoys me the most about climate alarmism is the false certainty such as conflating opinion with fact. The second most annoying thing is the lack of scientific grounds for the arguments made.
"Alarmism" as you call it, is social. I've yet to read any scientific papers claiming we're all going to die.
As for your "lack of scientific grounds", that's just bullshit. The basic chemistry and thermodynamics were worked out well over a century ago. The first prediction of AGW was made by Arrhenius in 1899 (he also created the first climate model and is considered the father of modern chemistry). If you want to go further back you could talk a look at the preliminary work on greenhouse gas theory from Fo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A paper published today in Nature Climate Change finds climate models have greatly exaggerated global warming over the past 20 years, noting the observed warming is "less than half" of the modeled warming.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.... [blogspot.ca]
A new paper by prominent German climatologists Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. Eduardo Zorita, et al, finds "that the continued [global] warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level
http:// [blogspot.ca]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ah yes.
"The Little Ice Age" myth.
Here you go, since you dont seen to know what youre talking about:
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: please no (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:please no (Score:5, Interesting)
The "models aren't 100% accurate therefore we shouldn't trust them until they are" argument is essentially the same as the ones the anti-vaxxers use: Vaccines aren't 100% safe and therefore we shouldn't use them until they are 100% safe.
The fact is that the groups plan on never trusting climate models or vaccines because they realize that neither will never reach 100%. Even if we were able to improve climate models by leaps and bounds above the current ones (which themselves are pretty accurate), there would still be *some* uncertainty. We might get it to 99.999%, but there would still be that 0.001% that deniers would point to. Same with the anti-vax groups. If one person gets sick due to a vaccine (e.g compromised immune system & shouldn't have gotten the vaccine or allergy that wasn't known at the time) then this will be proof that vaccines aren't 100% safe and therefore shouldn't be used. Never mind that a 99% safe vaccine is orders of magnitude more preferable than any of the vaccine preventable diseases.
Both arguments use the Perfect Solution Fallacy [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
No, 99% safe vaccine is not ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better that disease. It is not even better than disease itself. Will you get yourself vaccinated against AIDS if it has 1% of chance giving you AIDS in first place?
Vaccines are safe to 99.9999% or more. And you always have to put it into context. If Ebola will spread to billions, 99% safe vaccine might be acceptable. If AIDS is perfectly preventable in normal case, even 1:million safety might be not enough. But please be careful with 99% and 'orders of magnitu
Re:please no (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure it was you that diverged from reality... The earth is getting warmer dude... The data is easy to see. It's really easy to see. You can look up satellite pics of ice coverage. A simple Wolfram Alpha search will tell you global mean temperatures, and show you the data sources so you can investigate them better.
How do you people keep insisting nothing is going on? The excuses keep changing. "It's not warming. Ok, it is, but it's solar! Ok, it's not solar, but it's not man made.... It's natural cycles! Ok, it's it's moving too fast for natural cycles, but it paused for the last few years! It's warmer, but it stopped, so it's not warming! Ok, so yeah, Arctic sea ice is dwindling, but antarctic is growing! Ok, sure, arctic is sea ice and antarctic is land ice, but.... It's scientists, just making a grab for lucrative grab for government money! Ok, so that money is shit and it's pretty obvious all the real money is in private industry, but..."
On and on you people go, changing your story. Diverging from reality, if you will.....
furthermore, it's quite obvious that several industries just don't want a drop in profits that would come with regulation. It's quite obvious they've spent a TON of money to muddy the conversation. My question is, in 30 years when we can look back on this, will you !@#$holes fess up that you were wrong the whole time? Will you admit that you all were duped and spent decades ignoring your betters? Will you finally shut up?
Don't worry, I know the answer....
Re:please no (Score:4, Insightful)
argh.... Just... what do you think HAPPENS when you release a few million years of stored up carbon in a measly few hundred years as CO2. Just... think about it. It's not that hard... Fossil fuels are quite literally millions of years of stored CO2 from dead plants.... And you release it in this HUGE surge in just 200 years... We KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know it prevents us from radiating heat back out into space. This is not disputed..
I need to stop arguing about this. I know the people that argue against global warming are morons or have an agenda... Why do I do this to myself?
Re: (Score:3)
One knows this because one studies nonlinear chaotic systems (in systems with far simpler coupled DEs), learns about things like the Kolmogorov scale, turbulence, Lyupanov exponents, one monkeys about with solving nonlinear coupled ODEs with both adequate and inadequate integration stepsize. From this one learns that the climate models are arguably some 30 orders of magnitude shy of a spatiotemporal step that one might reasonably expect to be able to integrate over some significant time to get an actual so
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and other words will be ass-raped by political lobbyists as well.
Doesn't change the effect it has on the climate.
Re: (Score:2)
The sky is falling! The atmosphere is collapsing! Hop the next vehicle to the Mars!
Yours,
Isa Laura
But the temperature on Mars is rising too! We are sooooooooooooooo screwed!
Re:The Sky Is Falling (Score:5, Funny)
But the temperature on Mars is rising too! We are sooooooooooooooo screwed!
Relax. Temperature may be rising but sea levels are remarkably stable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It must be. That nice poltician in Kentucky said so. He said:
As you [Energy & Environment Cabinet official] sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won’t get into the debate about climate change but I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.
And of course it's a total concidence that he happens to own a company called Mohawk Energy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And, Allison Grimes is "Pro Coal" ... at least for now, and for long enough to win an election. Stop pretending that only one side lies.
http://freebeacon.com/politics... [freebeacon.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system-intermediate.htm
Re: (Score:2)
The internet doesn't exists.
Throughout Earth's history, electrons have always been moving about.
Just because they're moving about in man-made metal bits now, doesn't mean anything changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, something has changed, same as with the climate. Some parts of the climate is man-made too nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
Next up: Breaking news; AC Fails to RTFA
Re:Models are right, measurements are wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
You outed yourself with your last sentence. The only place global cooling was discussed was in the media, not in the scientific literature. It also wasn't the 1980s or 1990s, but the 1970s, which also means you either have a terrible memory, or are regurgitating something you heard someone else say. So, to sum up, you just demonstrated that you:
1. Get your scientific information from the mass media
2. Have a terrible memory of this topic, or simply regurgitate what others say without checking.
Just one of those is enough to make people not listen to you, but you got both. Brilliant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing you said is true.
Probably why you posted as AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent down. Seriously? Who modded this shit up.
Science is and always has been "news for nerds". Slash dot has never ever been solely a tech blog. It was always "things that Rob Malda found interesting", including tech, science, politics (mostly US since he is American) and a few other bits and bobs.
So can people please stop harking back to a history of slashdot that never existed? It's getting really tedious.
Oh and if you modded it up merely because it called global warming "FUD", kindly fuck off becau
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
im so sick of the lying. both poles have jncreased 40% or more accordibg to daily mail
You win todays internet prize for most ironic forum post.
start using your brain people.
If you used your brain rather than blathering mindlessly about popular media reporting of a science topic, you wouldn't have made this post.
Re:both poles are at record level high... (Score:5, Informative)
im so sick of the lying
So why are you doing it? We just covered how wrong you are. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
My more humane side hopes you are being sarcastic.
My cynic side suspects you aren't, and isn't disappointed.
Re: (Score:3)
im so sick of the lying. both poles have jncreased 40% or more accordibg to daily mail
Clearly it's absolutely true because you read it in the Daily Mail [youtube.com].
Re:Say "No more!" to Climate Posts (Score:5, Insightful)
Enough already. The Earth is warmer, probably. We don't know for how much longer. We don't know how much warmer. We don't know how it's happening, mostly. We don't know why it's happening.
That's climate in a nutshell. Do you want a _government_ ringing in new policies based on that? A government can't even get well understood problems under control ... like say, traffic, or urban development. And if you dare say, "Hey, traffic is hard to model!", well guess what, climate is harder.
We know car accidents happen, probably.
We don't know when you will be in one
We don't know what type of accident you will be in.
We don't know the severity of the accident you will be in.
This is car travel in a nutshell. Aren't you glad that the government mandates safety belts, airbags and car seats for children?
Just because something is not 100% does not mean we should not protect against it. I feel like using some ad hominem against you but I will refrain today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is car travel in a nutshell. Aren't you glad that the government mandates safety belts, airbags and car seats for children?
Just because something is not 100% does not mean we should not protect against it. I feel like using some ad hominem against you but I will refrain today.
Except people are not advocating putting seatbelts. They are advocating:
- switching to bikes
- breeding more horses for the carriages
- avoid investment and research into trains, because there used to be train accident once as well
- in meantime, reducing car traffic as much as possible by adding huge car and fuel tax, profits from which will be used for plugging in random budget holes and possibly putting marble floor in House of Traffic Victims Association
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is the bureaucratic cost, in inspections, tests, etc.
I would argue that there has been a significant cost in pursuing vehicle safety in this country. There is a reason Indian and Chinese cars are not sold here (yet).
Re: (Score:2)
Vehicle safety is a great analogy. The Global Warming activists want us to go from 1950's cars (1954 Bel Air) with no safety features to modern Safety and efficient (Tesla) overnight. they don't realize the progression from 1950s cars "beautiful stylish", to modern "they all look the same" cars over night.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have to choose between more heat and an ice age, and while you might think a warmer climate might be nice in your particular area, there is literally a world of negative side effects that would come with it which you would likely find to be the less desirable option. There's nothing nice about global warming. Crop yields down, nasty weather up...lots of info is available if you wish to seek it out (protip: avoid the conspiracy blog echo chamber).
Re: (Score:2)
Crop yields down? Seriously.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
This search returns pages of charts shooing increased crop yields (for states, the whole US, other countries) over time. In fact the big worry in farming in the US this year is the price of corn dropping precipitously because of a bumper crop.
Re: (Score:3)
Crop yields down. Yes, seriously.
All you've shown is that we're growing more corn - which should be no surprise to anyone given how it's used in all our first-world processed junk food, and now we're even using it to fuel our cars. And the US has been subsidizing the hell out of it. [wikipedia.org]
Suggesting that global warming could be a net positive for global crop yields flies in the face of all research to date:
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan... [epa.gov]
http://www.theguardian.com/env... [theguardian.com]
This is on
Re:Oh god, here we go again. (Score:5, Informative)
And here goes the lying liar linking to another lying liar, again.
The only reason they're inexplicable, is because he's not a scientist.
The blog post refers only to land based sensors in the US, and the difference it causes is less than 0.02%, and it onyl affects a single data set for the US.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G... [rationalwiki.org]
"Denialists jumped on the bandwagon in regards to this shift making many grandiose claims that it invalidates all of the data that proves this has been the hottest decade in recorded history. This is not the case; it only makes a tiny difference that does not change the decade averages or the global averages."
So.. once again: nothing you have stated is valid.
Re:More stupidity on Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
Uh...no. You do know that's not how it works right?
Apparently not, or you wouldnt have said somehting so stupid.
So let me educate you: THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.
What, you think scientists are out of work and have to go learn a new trade if they can't find anything to research, so they make stuff up?
JFC...how dumb are you?
http://arstechnica.com/science... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Good article, all climate denialists should read this.
Re: (Score:2)
As if we already know everything there is to know about the oceans, and he would be out of work if he didnt just make something up....
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that! Oh, btw:
Re: (Score:2)
Soon even the US will have to accept that this is really happening. Simply saying "God bless us" won't help us - only changing our way of living will.
Your statement is a funny example of how people completely misunderstand the hardcore religious conservative. They are fatalist. They think their lives and the fate of humanity is ALREADY doomed. Global warming, even if it is true, is irrelevant. They will die, and the earth will be struck asunder by evil. Some of us will get saved and go to heaven precisely because "God blessed us" while the rest of us will rot. From their point of view, you're trying to keep a train on the tracks that they know for a fact
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you'll send them to re-education camps. If not that, work camps where the Work will set the free.
I hear North Korea has that down to a science now.
Sins of the Father? (Score:2)
I hope that we come up with a list of deniers so that future generations can blame the grandkids for the crimes of their families. It is only right that if their grandparents polluted more to get ahead or stopped progress on switching to clean technology/recycling/efficient transportation, that their descendants should be the first ones to face the costs associated with the problems that will be caused and the lack of resources caused by climate problems.
Are you paying for the wrongs of your ancestors on the whim of others?