Global Warming Started 180 Years Ago Near Beginning of Industrial Revolution, Says Study (smh.com.au) 709
New research led by scientists at the Australian National University's Research School of Earth suggests that humans first started to significantly change the climate in the 1830s, near the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The findings have been published in the journal Nature, and "were based on natural records of climate variation in the world's oceans and continents, including those found in corals, ice cores, tree rings and the changing chemistry of stalagmites in caves." Sydney Morning Herald reports: "Nerilie Abram, another of the lead authors and an associate professor at the Australian National University's Research School of Earth Sciences, said greenhouse gas levels rose from about 280 parts per million in the 1830s to about 295 ppm by the end of that century. They now exceed 400 ppm. Understanding how humans were already altering the composition of the atmosphere through the 19th century means the warming is closer to the 1.5 to 2 degrees target agreed at last year's Paris climate summit than most people realize." "It was one of those moments where science really surprised us," says Abram. "But the results were clear. The climate warming we are witnessing today started about 180 years ago."
Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Insightful)
The deniers do not care, they will be dead before the worst hits. As long as they can live high on the hog on their imaginary money until they die, they are happy. There is not one drop of concern for the future of humanity or life on earth in general.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the hell should anyone care about abstract "people"? I'mm not wired that way, we care about those we know, not about anyone I don't know .
I fixed that for you. There ar ea lot of peopel in this world. Some do not care about anyone outside their immediate or extended family - in fact, some have a great fear outside of their "friend zone". Some don't care about anyone at all. And despite your assertions, there are those among us who actually do care about the future and the people in it.
You shouldn't presume to speak for all of humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a strange attitude to have, because it implies that everyone else should be trying to murder them to protect themselves. And in the end, the pollution and climate change will get so bad that it makes their corner of the world uninhabitable or at least extremely uncomfortable anyway, although I suppose they are assuming that is far enough down the line not to be a problem in their lifetimes.
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a strange attitude to have, because it implies that everyone else should be trying to murder them to protect themselves.
Isn't that what we've been doing for most of human history? Family against family, clan against clan, tribe against tribe, village against village and so on for most of human existence?
Most of European history from the Greeks onward can be seen as some kind of action/reaction to this dynamic. Established civilizations expanding their territories for both economic accumulation but also attempting to build buffers against other expanding or migration civilizations that threaten their borders.
Roman history can easily be interpreted as a continuous defensive expansionism designed to check the destabilizing influence of Germanic migrations from the North and Parthians in the East from time of Marius all the way to Marcus Aurelius. Much of European history from the 7th century through the 12th century can be defined as action/reaction to Viking expansion, from then on attempts to fix borders against expanding Mongols and Islamic armies from the conquest of Hungary, the Crusades and through the Siege of Vienna.
You could argue that almost purely economic colonialism on the part of Europeans didn't even really start until the general borders of Europe were largely established and fortified and external threats were minimized in the 17th century and even then such expansion was motivated by political and territorial stalemates of a fairly established European states and borders. The "new worlds" were conquered for their economic value but this can easily be explained as defensive maneuvers to outflank their local European rivals as well.
And the European conflicts from the 100 Years War, 30 Years War, Spanish Armada, the Napoleonic Wars all the way through WW I and II are attempts to establish hegemony and secure borders within Europe itself.
It would seem that the entire course of human history can be interpreted as a series of conflicts designed to secure specific regions against outsiders who threaten territorial independence and economic security.
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that what we've been doing for most of human history? Family against family, clan against clan, tribe against tribe, village against village and so on for most of human existence?
Some time in pre-history human beings realized that it was better to work together than to fight each other. It's proven to be a popular philosophy.
Re: (Score:3)
It would seem that the entire course of human history can be interpreted as a series of conflicts designed to secure specific regions against outsiders who threaten territorial independence and economic security.
Differential analysis:
The wealthiest playing games and using the rest of us as cannon fodder.
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Insightful)
"pollution has gotten lower than it has ever been in my life time"
It hasn't "gotten lower" - laws were passed that FORCED individuals & industry to clean up or not a a horrible mess in the 1st place.
If those laws aren't enforced or if they are repealed as more than a few politicians have been trying to do, you'll be living in your grandparent's mess.
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why people with that attitude (all of them) generally dismiss the idea of murdering everyone immediately. You seem to be confusing self-interested with short-sighted moron. Long term and thought out self interest is still self interest, looking out for others because it benefits you is still self interest, cultivating a group relationship because it is stronger than you by
Re: (Score:3)
I like the grand parent's idea of abstract people isn't anyone I don't happen to know. Its people that I could not go an physically touch today.
I do care about people, I care a lot about them enough not to demand the throw their lives away economically speaking for a the sake of some folks two generations away.
I would instead suggest that they enjoy the gift of life they have received to its fullest. At the same time lets use the economic advantage we learn how the climate system actually works rather con
Re: (Score:3)
Its entirely possible we have already crossed into a run-away condition. If true conservation alone won't save your future generations. We should begin a global scale climate engineer project TODAY! So that its ready in time to be used.
The likliehood that we'll hit a runaway condition is extremely low. CO2 levels have been much higher at times in the past, and we didn't get anywhere near that level of instability.
What will happen is serious instability as the shift in climate changes weather patterns. This will probably have arid regions become rainy, and vice versa. As well, temperate areas may become sub tropical and sub-arctic areas become temperate. All at the same time that oceanic boundaries shift.
Here is a plausible, but not a
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:4, Insightful)
Who? BLM & SJWs exhibit just what you are describing in massive amounts, despite being on the left.
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure it's passe to say that it's both sides, but it is. Consider that the United States no longer has an anti-war party. At the Democratic National Convention, they tried to drown out and laugh off chants of "No more war" from the delegates. I could go on and on about how now neither major party opposes fracking, the liberals are now further right of George W. Bush on Israel, and so much more. Americans as a whole show even less empathy nowadays.
Re: (Score:3)
The Democrats further right on Israel. You're on crack. There was a Jordanian flag on display at the convention and they were burning Israeli flags outside.
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Informative)
but if you asked every parent if they'd want a safer world for their kids and grandkids etc, they would all say "yes"
They'd all say 'yes'. Around 90% of them would actually mean it (you'd have thought that sociopaths would be a lower percentage of the population of parents than the general population, but apparently not). Of those, a very small percentage would honestly be able to say that they also want a safer world for everyone else's children. If your children are going to inherit a survivable part of the world, then why should they care that if a billion or two other people that they've never met will suffer and / or die? Herd mammals did not evolve to have an emotional response to that (and, for the most part, that's a good thing - you couldn't function if you had an empathic response to all of the suffering in a world of over 6 billion people). That's why appeals to emotion in things like this are a waste of time.
Re: (Score:3)
If you take that attitude then eventually you will drive someone to attack you. Starving people in sub-Saharan Africa can't do much, but when better armed populations start to suffer they will decide it is worth the effort to take your land and resources off you.
So really the calculation has to be if you can be reasonably guaranteed of repelling them at minimal risk to yourself. I noticed that this attitude is popular in the US, and that conincidentally the US also spends more on its military than the next
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Interesting)
Around 90% of them would actually mean it (you'd have thought that sociopaths would be a lower percentage of the population of parents than the general population, but apparently not).
Why would you think that? Having children is a sociopathic act when we're overpopulated. At our current level of behavior, Earth is over its carrying capacity. People having children aren't thinking of society, they're thinking of themselves.
Of those, a very small percentage would honestly be able to say that they also want a safer world for everyone else's children. If your children are going to inherit a survivable part of the world, then why should they care that if a billion or two other people that they've never met will suffer and / or die?
That, in turn, is only because they are stupid and ignorant. It should be obvious that we are all living on the same planet.
Herd mammals did not evolve to have an emotional response to that (and, for the most part, that's a good thing - you couldn't function if you had an empathic response to all of the suffering in a world of over 6 billion people). That's why appeals to emotion in things like this are a waste of time.
Herd animals are easy to panic. That's why appeals to emotion work. If you tried them with predators, you'd just get your face bitten off.
Re: (Score:3)
If your children are going to inherit a survivable part of the world, then why should they care that if a billion or two other people that they've never met will suffer and / or die?
Of course now, if a person is incapable of understanding that their own personal children don't just automatically inherit the half acre of livable real estate left if something comes along and kills the rest of humanity.
There are certain things that seem to be hard for some folks to comprehend. But that doesn't mean that those who cannot understand that they might be the losers in a future world should be the ones to hold sway and win the discussion.
Certain matters that affect humanity are not select
Re: (Score:3)
Research yes, trade not so much. Global trade only benefits the absolute most wealthy people and the most populous nations. More wealthy nations actually trickle away their wealth as a result.
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:4, Insightful)
I do. In the US we are actually poorer than in the 50's and 60's. During those times unskilled workers owned cars and homes, products were manufactured out of more expensive but far more durable materials. The only real constant coins in the world are labor and raw materials. While that same worker might have more cans of soda in your fridge those cans are less durable, contain cheaper and fewer raw materials, and represent less labor expended to serve you. You might say, what do I care, I have more beverages! Well, you should care because that worker hasn't gained the value of those raw materials and labor somewhere else. Even within the United States the labor pool has nearly doubled with the addition of women to the workforce but the household hasn't increased the total value of raw resources and labor it controls where it should have doubled. Technology and process would have improved without globalization. For the most part the rest of the world is really riding on the tails of truely revolution technology invented in the US and Western Europe and that technology was developed before globalization.
People have been duped, they are buying cheap disposable, breakable goods, with planned obsolescence to distract them from how little value they have by showing them the quantity of "stuff" they have. An inexpensive safety razor carries most of it's cost in its raw materials (therefore will not drop in value), can be used for less than $2/yr in consumables, provides fewer cuts/razor burn and provides a closer shave vs disposables. It only takes 2-3 shaves to get used to one. Even a fairly inexpensive one is of such high quality they can passed down generations. Disposables cost hundreds a year, they are so cheap that new ones pass the holes used to save plastic off as stylizing, fake innovations are created to make old models obsolete and custom interfaces for replacement blades are used so they can phase out old blades and force people to buy new bases before even that cheap crap has a chance to break.
Mowers, gas and electric mowers don't do the job any faster than push mowers, again there isn't much material of value in them. Your fancy electric mower will break in 2yrs and doesn't do a better or faster job than an old push mower that will last forever with occasional need for oil and blade sharpening. Modernized these would be carbon fiber, use dry lubricant, possibly have rigid blades that don't need sharpened with a few flexible joints to allow for deflecting on hard objects, they would be so much lighter they'd need a strategic weight which would double as a flywheel to store mechanical energy.
Who is going to make and sell them? Nobody. It isn't worthwhile for the rich to invest in goods that are worth something and last forever unless the price is just as high as it would be for those cheap throw away goods. And if they did that people would realize they can't actually afford the modern day equivalent to grandpas old push mower.
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:4, Interesting)
In the US we are actually poorer than in the 50's and 60's.
If that were true, why aren't more people going back and living like they were in the 50's and 60's. Yesterday I was home shopping and looked at a house built in the late 40's and greatly expanded in the 50's and thought to myself, wow, people really lived like this. I wonder how many people alive today would accept such primitive conditions?.
This was a nice house for the period, but is the kind that I see on real estates all the time that end up abandoned. I've looked at literally hundreds of these properties that are decaying or will decay because of neglect and nobody wants them. They're not expensive to buy and are easily less expensive than apartments. People could be saving so much money and building wealth at the same time,.
Re: (Score:3)
Technology solves everything. Teach your children to think outside the box- and not only will they build a safer world for their kids and grandkids, they'll also make a ton of money off of fearful people in full panic trying to survive.
Myself, I'm thinking that if we start to see sea rise in feet rather than inches, it's time to invest in houseboats.
Re: (Score:3)
What would you say if the amish, in their low energy, self sustaining lifestyles said fuck future generations, we don't want to change our lifestyle?
Weeellll, side note:
I live around Amish. They have issues with inbreeding, and many of them are assimilating to modern life. In 1849, there wasn't much difference between the Amish and everyone else. By mid 20th century, they were quaint. Now they are looking silly, what with odd rules like you can't have electricity in the house, but you can have a generator that compresses air in a huge tank that you bring the air into the building in order to run air tools, or you can use a powered machine in the field
Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:3)
1) No evidence that global warming or other climate change is big enough compared to other problems like overpopulation, poverty, habitat and arable land destruction, etc. There is a remarkable lack of evidence to support the claims of harm.
And there is a remarkable lack of evidence that you understand the issue of anthropogenic global warming well enough to make a qualified judgment about it.
Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:4)
So this round of global warming may have started in the 1830 but it is damning - in my eyes anyway - to say that it is the result of the industrial revolution.
Re: (Score:3)
So the basic math of the proposition doesn't bother you any? You just take it on faith that the English could manage to start destroying the entire planet all on their own as soon as they started building factories?
Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:4, Insightful)
Show of hands: Who here is surprised by this? Now who here is grateful for this?
Re: (Score:2)
"there is no untainted evicence whatsoever that the planet is warming"
Yes, and no true Scotsman puts sugar in his oatmeal.
Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Informative)
Some basics for you:
1) humans do better in warmer climates
Apparently, they don't. Global population density is highest between the 30th and 50th latitude. If you get into warmer climates, population density shrinks.
2) crops grow better
Most food crops are harvested between 30th and 50th latitude too. Around the 23th latitude (both north and south) you have either large deserts, where nothing grows, or you have the rain forests, which don't have any meaningful soils to put food crops on.
3) a warmer earth has more farmable pand
No, it hasn't. Most farmable land today (90%) lies at less than 100 ft above sea level. If sea levels rise, a large portion of it will be subdued. Yes, Siberia might lose its permafrost. But most of Siberia is either montainous (the whole east of Siberia), or it is far away from any oceans and thus doesn't get much rain. In fact, a Siberia without permafrost will probably turn into a steppe fast (the southern part of Siberia is a steppe already), and finally into a desert, similar to Australia. Thus, no additional farmable land in Siberia.
4) less enerygy, not more is required to live in warmer climates
Because of 1), much more energy will be spend on air conditioning, while many buildings in today's colder climates don't need much heating even during winter season, because they are built as low energy houses, where just the short sun period during the day is sufficient to heat the house enough for the inhabitants.
Global warming is a *good* thing.
We are perfectly adapted to today's warming levels. Global warming above today's levels is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Focussing on a single argument, even if I could argue on others:
2) crops grow better
Most food crops are harvested between 30th and 50th latitude too. Around the 23th latitude (both north and south) you have either large deserts, where nothing grows, or you have the rain forests, which don't have any meaningful soils to put food crops on.
Pretty much naive picture here. First of all, this should be weighted by the amount of land available for the considered latitudes. Second, desertification has many causes which are not related to the temperature itself. For exemple, the Himalayas prevent clouds from the Indian Ocean to reach Tibet on the other side creating large dry areas and deserts. To summarize, your arguments aren't any better than the points you are trying to defeat.
Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Interesting)
The dry air in 20 km height cools and sinks down north and south of the equator, causing a girdle of high air pressure north and south of the equator. But because the air is now dry, having lost most of its water vapor above the equator, it heats much faster when it sinks down. Thus, air coming up from the ground due to being heated during the day, stops somewhere inbetween, because warmer air sinks down, and the convection stops where both meet. As the air is not cool enough for clouds to form, there is no rain where both streams meet. This effect is called an temperature inversion, because the normal layering of the atmosphere with air getting cooler if you get higher is inverted.
Luckily, the zenith of the sun wanders along the year between both the northern and the southern Tropic, thus at least once a year, those regions get heavy rains. They thus have two seaons: the dry season and the wet seasons. Regions closer to the equator sometimes have two wet seasons. The wet season gets shorter and less intense if you get closer to the Tropics. Outside the Tropics, there is no wet season, thus you have desertification along both Tropics.
Before you call me naive, please get at least some basic meteorologic knowledge!
Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:5, Interesting)
Heating a house for a day can easily consume less energy than cooling it for a week.
I think you might have swapped "day" and "week" there...
But yes, insulation is near free compared to cooling.
What should be obvious to anyone is that you can only "produce cold" by producing even more heat in a different part of the system.
But then again, I talked to someone who kept her fridge door open during the heat wave, thinking it would help cool the house. And I know several people who will run a ceiling fan when there's no one in the room, thinking it will keep it cooler.
I blame Reagan for ruining our educational system so kids don't learn to think anymore. More kids now may know the laws of thermodynamics, but fewer are able to apply it to anything.
Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score:4, Insightful)
People being in a room makes no difference on whether or not the ceiling fan is actually making the room cooler. People not being in a room will of course make it cooler just due to the heat waste we produce as people.
You're an excellent example of what I talk about.
The primary reason why we use ceiling fans is because air movement across skin helps increase evaporation which has a cooling effect on the person, not on the room. The room gets slightly warmer as a result, but the inhabitants feel cooler.
Running a ceiling fan when there are no people in a room has no cooling effect - at most, it distributes the air so the overall temperature becomes more uniform and slightly higher.
If leaving a ceiling fan on didn't make it cooler, we wouldn't use them when we were in the room, let alone when we weren't.
It does not make the room cooler. And most people are smart enough to not leave them on when there are no people to cool.
The amount of heat waste produced by the fan is also more then offset by the effects of the fan.
Poppycock, balderdash and codswallop. A closed room is an isolated system. The fan motor will produce heat. That makes the sum of heat (entropy) go up.
If you could cool down a room with an internal fan, you would have an invention that reduces entropy in an isolated system. This is impossible - the second law of thermodynamics applies.
Re: (Score:3)
Because heat pumps are just as expensive a way to heat as a way to cool, they are used only in places where the annual number of heating days is small compared to the number of cooling days.
Stop it with the SJW crap!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
This is not Reddit, FFS!
How about an article on the dozens of predictions made by climate scientists that never ended up happening? The ones like " No more snow by 2012" etc?
Why always toe the line?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not Reddit, FFS!
How about an article on the dozens of predictions made by climate scientists that never ended up happening? The ones like " No more snow by 2012" etc?
Why always toe the line?
Yeah! Why isn't there an article blaming scientists for all the bizarre predictions you imagined them making?
The anti-science sure is odd. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I don't know why Slashdot attracts these anti-science nutters that cannot understand the data has been totally blown on the whole global warming scam. Yes some warming is occurring, but not enough to matter in any way worth even getting excited about - at least that's what the hard facts and careful research tell us. Heck it's probably not even enough to counteract the next global cooling phase which is close at hand even in human turns, then will be the time to panic...
Now the soft facts and panick
Re:The anti-science sure is odd. (Score:5, Interesting)
"The authors of the paper note it’s particularly interesting that global warming keeps winning the bet despite ocean cycles, solar activity, and human aerosol pollution all acting in the cooling direction over the past 15 years. Human-caused global warming has become so strong that it’s consistently overcoming these natural short-term cooling factors... In other words, betting against global warming is an almost sure way to lose money at this point."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/betting-against-gw-sure-way-to-lose-money.html [skepticalscience.com]
Re: The anti-science sure is odd. (Score:2, Troll)
Ah yes those pesky scientists and their vast left wing conspiracy. Thankfully we have a random slash dot person to expose those cunning monger era of facts.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think will drive global cooling?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We're overdue an ice age and we're heading towards a solar minimum [wikipedia.org]. Again.
Re: The anti-science sure is odd. (Score:3, Informative)
We're not really overdue for the next ice age, just headed that way based on Milankovitch cycles. But we've pumped enough excess greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere lately to overcome that and any solar minimum that may occur. There will be no prolonged cooling period in your lifetime.
Re: (Score:3)
Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh it's much, much worse than that. If you assume arguendo that any of the catastrophic AGW and more than half of the non-catastrophic AGW models are even remotely correct then it's far too late for any of the carbon controls to do jack fucking shit. Which means 4 options are on the table.
1. Kill off 80%+ of the human race if you want to keep the current 1st world standard of living.
2. Kill off 50%+ of the human race and reduce 95% of the remainder to subsistence living.
3. Large scale chemical atmospheric e
Re:The anti-science sure is odd. (Score:5, Insightful)
anti-science nutters that cannot understand
My irony meter just exploded.
Yes some warming is occurring, but not enough to matter in any way worth even getting excited about - at least that's what the hard facts and careful research tell us.
Funny how the anti-science nutters are always so highly selective about their "hard facts and careful research", hand-waving away all the rest of the data that doesn't fit their own narrative as "manipulated". Let me guess, the whole of the IPCC Working Group II's collected data is all compromised and ignorable, every bit; none of those described impacts could possibly happen, amirite?
Heck it's probably
Ah, another hard fact, with more careful research behind it?
not even enough to counteract the next global cooling phase which is close at hand
It started 8000 years ago, temperatures have been dropping since then - up until we changed everything.
Now the soft facts and panicked revelations made by so called "scientists" who are backed by governments trying to bilk the people into more central control
Now the baseless allegations of conspiracy and paranoia, with the inevitable government agenda behind it. Did you notice all the Australian climate scientists recently protesting [theconversation.com] their government's agenda?
But of course I forgot, they just want to keep their jobs, and they have to keep manipulating their data and falsifying their results even when their government clearly doesn't want to hear it - low-paying research on global warming is all they can do, because the fossil fuel industry certainly doesn't [drexel.edu] have any money for them [wikipedia.org].
isn't it astounding that after literally decades of being utterly wrong about long term climate forecasts, people still listen to them?
Dammit, my brand new irony meter just exploded as well.
Re:The anti-science sure is odd. (Score:4, Informative)
http://green-agenda.com/ [green-agenda.com]
Re:The anti-science sure is odd. (Score:4, Funny)
Our betters also try to tell me that the northern hemisphere has over twice as much land area as the southern hemisphere, but my gut tells me that's a government conspiracy and that land and weather are equally distributed around the globe. Our betters also try to suggest that they've found evidence for warming in North America and the US during the medieval warm period, but the reason I know they're full of shit is because we didn't have satellites then, and even if we did they would have just fudged the data anyway. I don't trust thermometers anyway, I go outside today and it feels cooler than yesterday, so I know that today is colder than average. That's how facts work.
I also saw this climate map once, they were trying to show how things are warmer on average. But, check this out - one little part of the map was actually colder than average. That's how I know that they make everything up, because I understand that the entire planet always warms and cools at the same rate, and that local variation doesn't exist. That's how they try to convince you to send them all of your oil money, but the guy they hired to photoshop that map fucked up and left part of it cold and completely blew their cover.
And remember a couple decades ago when you couldn't even turn on the TV without seeing Sally Struthers whining about some starving African kid? You want to know why you don't see those any more? Because there aren't any starving people in the world anymore. I know this is a fact because I can drive down the street and there's a grocery store. That's how facts work.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy. Real Scientists follow the Scientific Method. They are empiricists who look at ALL the data, and if the data doesn't match their hypothesis they adapt their hypothesis.
The pseudo-scientists are also easy to spot. They talk about "consensus" (which is not part of the Scientific Method) because they don't want to talk about the satellite observations. They talk about computer models, but refuse to discuss why the computer models don't match observed reality. They discard any and all observations th
Re: The anti-science sure is odd. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's why we had a change in language from global warming to climate change
We had the change from global warming to climate change because idiots kept ignoring the 'global' part and saying things like 'this summer is rubbish, so much for global warming!'. The weather is a complex chaotic system. Global warming means that the total amount of energy in this system is increasing. This is very simple to understand - more energy is arriving from the Sun than is being radiated into space, by quite a large amount. This is trivially measurable by pointing an infrared camera at the nig
Re: (Score:2)
Paraphrasing: Why do so many people in a science / engineering / IT tech focused community question / challenge / reject something I personally ernestly believe in?
Why indeed?
Re: Stop it with the SJW crap!!! (Score:5, Informative)
My belief is that there's an overwhelming consensus amongst scientists who are experts in this field that man-made climate change is real and worth taking action to mitigate.
Re: Stop it with the SJW crap!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe in data. If I still gave a fuck (which I don't because, well, I can't do jack shit about it anyway, it's like worrying about crashing with a plane when you're just a passenger, why bother investing energy into something you cannot influence?), I'd ask both sides to present their data, then draw my conclusions.
Re: (Score:3)
And a lot of people did a hell of a lot of work in a hurry. Y2K bugs were found *everywhere*. A heroic effort went into fixing them before Y2K rolled over. I'm not sure what your point is.
Re: (Score:3)
Paraphrasing further, why do such people as totally unqualified in the field as Slashdotters make up such dumb conspiracy theories so they can ignore the actual experts, in favour of a bunch of thoroughly debunked propaganda spread by denialist oil industry shills?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stop it with the SJW crap!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Because it's easier on their mind.
Let's be honest here, if we wanted to do something about global warming, we'd have to change our way of life. And we'd have to change it big time. We (Europe and the US) use up more resources than the rest of the globe combined. Yes, including China. But they're trying to catch up. Should they ever reach us, it's game over anyway. That this isn't even sustainable in terms of resource usage, not to mention waste production, is, at least to me, obvious. If you disagree, do so, I don't give a shit.
So if you admit that global warming is a reality, you can do two things: Either feel guilty about continued overusing resources or reduce your consumption. Either is not really something people want to do. The first makes you feel bad (and we all know how troublesome this is to the fragile souls of our millennials) and the latter inconveniences you.
So it's easier to just wish it away and say it ain't happening.
Personally, I found a third way. I simply don't give a shit about it anymore. Yes, I'm convinced that global warming is real, the data I have available points to yes. But so be it. I won't live another 50 years, so I don't give a fuck.
If you want to save your planet, go ahead. Hell, I'll even move along. But don't expect me to waste any more of what's left of my time on trying to convince people that they have a duty to their kids. If you don't give a shit about your kids, how could you expect me to?
Surprising --Not! (Score:2)
Human beings like burning things.
97% agree that scare tactics work! (Score:4, Informative)
Tim Flannery keeps being quoted by the ABC and Fairfax as a global warming guru. So it’s important that we keep confronting the Climate Council head with his spectacularly dud predictions.
In 2005:
I’m afraid that the science around climate change is firming up fairly quickly . . . we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment—if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since 98 the water has been in virtual freefall, and they’ve got about two years of supply left . . .
Maxine McKew: But. . . we won’t see a return to more normal patterns?
Flannery: . . . they do seem to be of a permanent nature. I don’t think it’s just a cycle. I’d love to be wrong, but I think the science is pointing in the other direction.
McKew: So does that mean, really, we’re faced with—if that’s right—back-to-back droughts and continuing thirsty cities?
Flannery: That’s right.
(UPDATE: HELP WANTED! THE VIDEO OF THE ABOVE INTERVIEW McKEW DID WITH FLANNERY NO LONGER APPEARS ON THE ABC SITE. DOES ANYONE HAVE A COPY OF IT FOR ME TO SHOW ON TV?)
In 2005:
Perth is facing the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the city’s water supply I’m personally more worried about Sydney than Perth. Where does Sydney go for more water? At least Perth has a buffer of underground water sources. Sydney doesn’t have any backup. And while Perth is forging ahead with a desalination plant, Sydney doesn’t have any major scheme in place to bolster water. It also has nowhere to put the vast infrastructure of a desalination plant.,,
There’s only two years’ water supply in Warragamba Dam If the computer models are right then drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia.
In 2007:
So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems...
Since then, of course, there have been repeated floods with dams in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra filled to overspilling.
UPDATE
Melbourne ABC presenter Jon Faine, a fervent warmist, has advertised he will later today discuss what the NSW rain says about changes to our climate. It is yet to be seen if he links global warming to this rain, but Melbourne readers might wish to ensure any scaremongering is challenged (1300 222 774). Here are some facts and admissions worth noting from the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Some key passages:
On thunderstorms:
In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.
On heavy rain events:
In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.
On cyclones and storms:
Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific Several studies suggest an increase in intensity, but data sampling issues hamper these assessments Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia land-falling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century although including 2010/2011 season data this trend becomes non-significant ...
On extreme weather events:
For instance, evidence is most compelling for increases in heavy precipitation in North
So global warming started... (Score:5, Insightful)
...even before humans had any significant CO2 output.
Good to know. I'm sure someone out there will find some magical particle humans were emitting in the 1800s at a certain level that didn't scale with the massive growth in population of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
It is because we burned all that that we sit here with 2016 technology not dying of different diseases and injuries and infections and feeding many multiples of people per acre than they did.
I have no desire to slow this progress. We would literally, and I mean literally, be better off in the year 2100 or 2300 with risen seas and 2100 or 2300 tech than lower seas and 2050 or 2200 tech.
People in the mid 1800s slamming on the brakes, leaving us with year 1890 or 1930 tech would be no friend to humanity.
And n
Re:So global warming started... (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely that's a stawman argument.
"Reducing use of fossil fuels" != "halting all progress"
You use the phrase "slow this progress" but the remainder of your comment implies almost halting progress.
Limiting use of fossil fuels has (relatively short in terms of human history) economic consequences which will be overcome. If we drastically reduced the use of fossil fuels today I doubt it will take hundreds of years to find a working cleaner alternative, especially when there is economic motive.
Re: (Score:3)
It is because we burned all that that we sit here with 2016 technology not dying of different diseases and injuries and infections and feeding many multiples of people per acre than they did.
and once the temps get too high, it gets difficult to grow things, check out the sahara and other deserts
I have no desire to slow this progress. We would literally, and I mean literally, be better off in the year 2100 or 2300 with risen seas and 2100 or 2300 tech than lower seas and 2050 or 2200 tech.
Ask those who live in countries where the temp is over 50%c if its better
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
do you not know history? coal, wood livestock. many of the same things that contribute to global warming today, existed back then, too. the steam engine, for example, PREDATES the 'industrial revolution' by over a century... it was a catalyst for the rapid advances during that period, but it was invented in 1606 for fucks sake. open a history book, huh?
and as far as the so called report goes... geographically isolated australia might have been a little slow back then, the 'industrial revolution' started in
The industrial revolution did not cause it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...even before humans had any significant CO2 output.
And that is why "We are only talking about a small effect during the 19th century because the increases in greenhouse gases were small compared to the very rapid changes that we see today," RTFA
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times!
That was 200 million years ago, even the days were 23 hours long and the years more than 20 days longer [washingtonpost.com].
There's a reason scientists publish papers in peer reviewed journals, not every decision is as simple as jumping on the first convenient looking factoid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The *planet* is clearly fine with high levels of CO2. The biosphere is fine with it too - given enough time to evolve and respond.
But we humans won't enjoy our cities getting flooded and our crops drying out (adapting will be very expensive). And a lot of the biosphere isn't being given time to respond either, since the temperature rise is happening so quickly. Those coral reefs can't just pick up and walk to a cooler area.
Re: (Score:2)
Only time will tell (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Only time will tell (Score:5, Interesting)
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Great Filter.
Should have said (Score:3, Funny)
Shows cumulative as well. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So many like to point to industrial revolution for causing this.
That's because humans now emit more CO2 than volcanism.
Yet, what this study is really saying is that for centuries, if not millenniums, man had been overwhelming nature and slowly breaking down its ability to absorb the co2.
Yes, that is also true. We were deforesting the planet in pursuit of war. Most of the really heavy deforestation came when the big countries went naval warfare. We were cutting them down, making them into boats, then putting them out into the ocean and sinking them and losing that wood forever.
Of course, today we're still doing the equivalent; just try getting a permit to cut down a tree in Japan and use it for something, but they are buying California'
Little Ice Age (Score:4, Insightful)
As always, TFA fails to look at the broader context. 200 years ago was the Little Ice Age" [jennifermarohasy.com], i.e., an unusually cold period in history. Much of the warming of the past 200 years is simply due to coming out of this cold period. Exactly how much, is difficult to say.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Fun Fact: Solar and Wind cheaper than Fossil Fuel (Score:3, Informative)
Without the 90 percent massive subsidies that fossil fuels get, in depreciation, cheap federal and state lands (mining regs), escaping penalties for pollution by bankruptcy, and literal cash infusions for fossil fuel industries, they would be bankrupt today.
Let's help them along and get rid of all fossil fuel vehicle and business tax exemptions, tax deductions, regulatory escapes, and all the other things that subsidize these inefficient fossil fuel dinosaurs.
Literally.
Adapt, adapt, adapt (Score:3)
Humans adapt. Throughout history, there have been periods that have been frigid and periods that have been hot. People were able to adjust lifestyles and the human race went on.
However, equally true is the common narrative throughout history that nature will soon cause our end. There is just a subset of the population that will always fear what they do not understand. Not that fear is all bad, but some become obsessed with their fears to the point that they cannot see the tools they have at their disposal to adapt to the circumstances.
When the world went through the little ice age, lasting approximately 550 years (1300-1850), the world did not come to an end. Neither did it come to an end in the warm period preceding the little ice age.
The world is bigger than the time period that you have been a part of. The climate (and probably most things on earth) tends to work within the confines of a bell curve. Adjusting variables can have some effect. The further from the center you go, the harder it is to have an effect. As we move from the center, we run into bigger issues of which we have no control (i.e. planetary location, solar cycles, etc). The world has been through all sorts of climate patterns and temperature ranges in which adaptations were needed. The point is that Earth, and the species that exist on the planet, are well suited for such variances.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Can you handle the truth? I didn't think so. (Score:5, Informative)
It's true that really - it doesn't matter. On a geologic timescale, everything we do is happening quickly.
Regardless of how many electric vehicles we put on the road, or how much fuel efficiency we push, every, single, last, drop of gasoline on this planet will be burned in the next ~1000 years. On a geologic timescale whether we burn it all in 50 years or in 1000 it really isn't going to matter.
So basically, we just cross our fingers and hope that by the time we dump all the available CO2 into the atomosphere that's it's not borked to the point that the planet won't recover.
Truly - the only solution we're going to have to global warming is to hope that eventually we just run out of fossil fuels and clean energy is all that's left.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll wager there's still way more fossil fuel to be found than we've found already.
Re: (Score:2)
Truly - the only solution we're going to have to global warming is to hope that eventually we just run out of fossil fuels and clean energy is all that's left.
This is absolute rubbish! We have the technology to replace every polluting engine on the planet. All we need now is to finally advance nuclear technology to make LFTRs a reality. With a near limitless supply of clean power, we can create and power the machinery that will restore our atmosphere to it's former glory.
Re: (Score:3)
"I know liberals would be happy killing off all the conservatives."
Don't think that. There's been a lot of demonization of liberals in US conservative media, but it's all bullshit. Liberals for the most part are the same as most conservatives. They love their family, their country, humanity. The want America to be good and great. They may disagree with you on the best way to go about it.
Part of a successful democracy is the concession that no single individual is wisest in all things, that no single ou
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ahh, science (Score:5, Funny)
Except here they have it ass backwards with cause and effect, and need to read "The Critique of Pure Reason" from Immanuel Kant.
The industrial revolution was caused by the start of global warming. Before that, humans were huddling under blankets, complaining about how cold it was. When temperatures rose, the folks said, "Hey, it's warm outside, let's go out and build a factory or something!"
Re: (Score:2)
Making the data fit the narrative since 1970.
Sneaky buggers.
As if all the math and calculations wasn't bad enough.
Now they've got the damn atmosphere in on the scam!
Re: (Score:3)
Let's be realistic, there's lot of places especially here in Canada where there are no more weather monitoring stations. Then there are also lots of weather stations in bad places, seen plenty of those out in Alberta and in Ontario. My personal favorites? The one that was placed next to the 401(one of the busiest highway systems in the world), nothing like a pile of vehicle exhaust and hot asphalt to give accurate temperatures. The other, was out in Alberta which was in a valley, next to a river fed from
Re:Ahh, science (Score:4, Insightful)
Did they place it next to the 401, or did they place the 401 next to the weather station?
There are a few weather stations in my home country (and during my studies I had to deal with them a lot), some of them having been in place for centuries, and many of them in rather unfortunate positions, mostly because when they were established it was a necessity to put them close to where people lived (so you could get there on foot), without considerations for projects that were decades or centuries in the future.
Moving those weather stations isn't a good idea either, though, because by taking readings where they are, you get a very good instrument for examining change over time. Moving the weather station would destroy that ability.
Of course such changes in the environment have to be taken into account. If you had a weather station in the middle of a sunny, grassy hill and a huge skyscraper is built in front of it so it's now permanently in the shadow of said building, it doesn't mean that the average temperature dropped by 5 or even 10 degrees Celsius.
Environmental impact on the weather stations have to be taken into account!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The 'skeptics' point to the observed reality and show that the dire predictions made in the past don't come close to observed behavior,
The problem with this idea is that they're cherry-picking predictions. There are dire predictions which do come close to observed behavior, and these are the ones we've been using most often. The way in which they don't match observed behavior is that observed behavior is actually worse. For example, polar ice is melting substantially faster than predicted by any credible model. If you don't think this change in albedo is going to have additional effects, you're not thinking.