26 Common Climate Myths Debunked 998
holy_calamity writes to mention that New Scientist is revealing the truth behind the '26 most common climate myths' used to muddy the waters in this ongoing heated debate. "Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors. Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences."
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody was trying to support a population of six billion settled agriculturalists at the time, though.
Ugh - not again. (Score:5, Insightful)
I seriously would like to put a moratorium on these stories until there are some new and credible theories that come up. Relinking to the same old arguments (both ways) does nothing to advance the discussion, or the knowledge of the topic.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:5, Insightful)
the only constant is change (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:2, Insightful)
I could not disagree more. I am thankful to New Scientist for compiling this handy reference list, because I can pull the debunkings from it out whenever someone says something stupid instead of having to write about it, track down references, etc.
Until the danger is gone, there will still be work to be done.
Education is the first step. Granted, some people paid so little attention in their high school physics class that they are completely unable to have any kind of rational, reasonable discussion on the subject, but my solution is to euthanize them and move on :D
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Is a subset of the whole Earth. Implying that something must be true of the Earth because it is true of Eastern Canada is the fallacy of composition.
Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
It really doesn't take much melting of currently land-bourne ice to cause massive displacement problems for a lot of people. Look at a map of your country. See how many of the major cities are coastal ports.
Were it not for the very expensive Thames Barrier, London would already have ended up like New Orleans at a couple of points. It may well still be over-run this century.
Don't worry what may happen to most of the coastal cities. I'm sure you live well away from the sea. Shame so much trade, and thus the global economy runs through them.
Laugh or cry... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bickering (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the only constant is change (Score:4, Insightful)
It is, as they say, the natural order of things.
I wish there was another point... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear so many times from folks, especially in the media, that the planet is warming because of 'X'. They always want to blame it on one thing. My favorite is that "the Sun is getting hotter! It's not the human race!" Or others love to blame the SUVs or coal fired power plants exclusively.
What I'm getting at is the folks who reduce the argument to one variable, regardless of your point of view on the matter, are muddying matters even more and making is difficult to get folks on board to solve the problem. So by saying, "the Sun is getting hotter." tha just gives people the rational to throw their hands up and say "There's nothing I can do.
My wife had a great answer to a neighbor who believes that global warming is myth. She said to him, "By taking the steps to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming, we will be cleaning up the air. And I don't know about you, but I like clean air."
Here in Metro Atlanta, most of the Summer is "Smog Alert Day" and it's miserable. Everybody, pro or con, wants clean air - even the global warming naysayers.
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:4, Insightful)
ALL data on climate change is anecdotal. There is only one earth! There is no sample set to compare to. The causal inseparability of the weather across the earth prevents you from testing lots of cases except over very long periods of time, which hasn't happened since forming the latest consensus model.
Yes, that sucks. No, please don't mod me down for pointing this out.
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a term for that: "talking points".
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:2, Insightful)
2. The polar bear thing... read the article.
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, in the context of slashdot, I haven't seen a new argument in about a year, with the lone exception being perhaps the impact of interstellar radiation on cloud formation. It seems the people left arguing against Global Climate Change simply refuse to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong. The old saw about leading a horse to water comes to mind.
Then again, I guess I could also just ignore the articles.
WTF? (Score:1, Insightful)
To "debunk" a myth, one takes a superstitious opinion and replaces it with provable fact. When I clicked under "warmging might be great" link or whatever, this is what I got:
Now I'm obviously a moron for questioning such great scientists as the ones that put together this report, so I'll play AC. My question is where is the fact in the above paragraph? IPCC says liklihood of 1 degree rise in next century. We have some circumstantial measurements about what a 3-degree change _might_ do, but can scientists really predict this much catastrophe THIS FAR OUT IN THE FUTURE?
I call bullshit. To address my call, please provide a demonstration that your theory can provide measurable, repeatable results. Make a prediction for 20 years from now. If you get it right, by golly, you have what is called in this neck of the woods science. If you start waving your hands around and claiming doom is nigh and we don't have time for such silliness, then I call double-bullshit. Matter of fact, looks like triple-dog-bullshit to be exact.
What a bunch of crap... (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
"Indeed they did. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future..."
"This scenario was seen as plausible by many other scientists"
"However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run. In his review of a 1977 book "
Ok... so remind me how this is a "myth" again? Scientists did predict global cooling in the early seventies, and the idea caught on. The fact that someone disagreed near the end of the seventies doesn't eliminate the fact that they did believe it would happen in the early seventies.
most scientists in 2037 agree old model sucked (Score:5, Insightful)
I read articles every week about major new terms being proposed or incorporated into these models, I hold about as much faith in these models as chess computers from 1980 that regard castling through check as a legal move. Three decades later, the progress with chess programs is a wonder to behold. Our present climate models are perhaps good enough to suggest strong grounds for concern, but looking back 30 years from now, they'll seem like toys.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry if it sounds like bickering to you. You are most welcome to not listen if you don't like it (and to not read Slashdot stories on topics you are now bored by), but if you want science to continue progressing then accept that the scientific community will be in a constant state of debate. That's a good thing, by the way.
And if you're waiting for "irrefutable proof" and "cure-all solutions" on *any* topic (much less climatology) then you may as well just give up on scientific inquiry entirely. There is no such thing as irrefutable proof, and no such thing as a cure-all solution without drawbacks.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't aggree with Gore's "case closed" statment. I think human activity has an effect on the climate, anybody who thinks we have no effect is either ignorant or a fool. However, I don't know that we are the determining factor. We simply don't have enough information yet. There is a LOUD chorus of individuals who claim to be sure, and they drown our the scientists that say we need more study.
I am WAY more worried about more serious pollutants. We are pumping materials many times more toxic than CO2 into the air and water. I think we will face problems like rising cancer rates, mutations and sterility that will effect us decades before this minor (yes, minor) climate change.
But I also hate the frakking heat.
Re:Arg!!! Stop lying to the sheep! (Score:3, Insightful)
You at least bothered to make some citations, but the citations you made are irrelevant...Drudge talking about the weather? Jim Inhofe's blog? That bastard is so conservative he doesn't believe in fire, and he sure as hell doesn't know the first thing about science.
Now take the article that is the point of this thread...It's on New Scientist, which is at least scientific in nature (unlike either of your examples), and each point is made with citations to sites that also deal in science, some of which are quite reputable.
Given those arguments, who would you believe if you didn't have an obvious bias?
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that, and ignore the summary that cites, "this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere"
That absolute tone - stating that there is no other contributing factor, and that only humans have anything to do with climate change - not only flies in the face of countless other observations (and just plain common sense), but it's the sort of smug, one-dimensional, fear-mongering assertion that tends to bring out the opposing talking points you're so annoyed by. If you don't like simplistic counter-fire, why aren't you combatting the real provocation for them, which is unadulterated crap like that gross and misleading simplification? Not long ago we were in an ice age. Things have changes a lot since then. Man did not do it. Man's activity could well be an important contributor to the nature of, or impact of ages old cycles and other influences. But "it's man, and that's that" is a deliberate bit of trolling and the foundation for political power grabbing.
Not even close to a scientific consensus (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of it like snopes. "They predicted global cooling" if by "they" you mean a handful of scientists, and by "predicted" you mean in an unspecified future. Usually, the people posting this want you to infer that "they" refers to a scientific consensus, and "predicted" means "soon". Yes, certain magazines totally got this wrong. So, in the sense that the poster usual means when they say "They predicted global cooling", it is not true.
Did you read past the first sentence?
Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers (Score:3, Insightful)
Which it is ? How can anybody know what to believe in the face of such huge inconsistencies ?
did you even read it? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/n
Their best estimate is that there will be 10-20 inches less rainfall in some of the poorest areas of the world, not to mention most of europe. What exactly do you think less rainfall is going to do? People are going to starve. Maybe that's not a concern for you when you can drive down the street to the McDonalds and get a big mac, but for people who live by subsistance farming its really bad news. The whole "won't affect me" attitude is a lot of the problem. Crank up the A/C and keep watching Fox news.
And by the way, the "more arable land" would be in areas that aren't currently farmed, so we'd be chopping down even more trees and compounding the problem by wrecking even more carbon sinks.
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:4, Insightful)
A theory which in fact they provide a debunking for.
This is why people just want to drop a simplistic explanation on the deniers of global warming, because they are so willing to ignore simple principles of climate science, such as the concept that the results of your actions might not be seen immediately.
I don't know why you find it so hard to believe, except that you're clinging to your interpretation. Global CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been, as far as we can tell. We put out more CO2 than volcanoes do on average and we do it without releasing non-black particulates to mitigate the effects.
But actually, if you just start reading through those articles, every point you have raised has been well-explained there. The only problem with their publishing this information is that it just won't do any good if you can't convince people to read it.
This is pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait...sorry. That would be productive and require more brainpower than the "yes it is! no it isn't!" shouting match.
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
New scientist publishes an article "debunking" global warming scepticism in which they say it's a "myth" that polar bear numbers are not declining. They claim polar bear numbers really are declining.
A sceptic points to another article about reliable research that found polar bear numbers are rising in at least one specific (and very large) area.
True believer claims "we can't know for certain either way", it's still possible numbers are declining in other areas.
What a convincing argument - if that's really the best you can do give up now. Remember the old burden of proof (hint: it's why we don't believe in unicorns).
Really this is almost as bad as comet? (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem I have with many of these theories is that they attempt to extrapolate to situations that we experience everyday, which is a major mistake. Here is my reason why the dinosaurs died. The reason why the dinosaurs died is because the aliens that kept feeding them left the planet. Don't believe me, right? But am I wrong? You ask where is the proof that there were aliens?
Proof is interesting because until recently we thought Columbus was the first European to reach North America, now we know it was the Vikings, and if you read Farley Mowat he even says it was earlier and not the vikings. There is even a theory that the first Europeans came to North American during the Ice Age and they think this due to the genetic imprints of the Native North Americans.
My point is that we don't even know the exact truth 5000 years ago. History has this odd behavior to become lost and found again. Constructive mostly unbiased history started about 40 years ago. Everything before that was selective information. And now you are telling me, something that happened 65 million years ago is similar to today? Yeah right, maybe it did, maybe it didn't and unless you can say "I was there" everything any scientist says is a formal form of handwaving.
Welcome New Overlords! (Score:5, Insightful)
I enjoy my re-education and only wish to serve the greater good of mankind, as defined by those who know more than I do.
I reject calls for understanding that science is about observation, theory, and reproducible results. Instead, I whole-heartedly accept that science is about consensus, caring for others, and saving the planet. As a computer expert, I give up my knowledge that computer models are almost pointless when dealing with ten-thousand variable systems and accept that scientists know what is important and what is not.I reject my selfish way of wanting to keep my rich lifestle. I understand that sacrifices must be made, mostly by me, in order for the poor to survive. I gladly give up my wealth to those central managers who will take my resources and apply them where they make the most scientific sense.
Gosh. I feel so much better! This was a lot more fun than surrendering to the last overlords. Now that I've joined, do I get a brown uniform and a cool set of black leather boots? Is there a cool hand salute or anything?
Apologies if I appear cynical in any fashion. I am sure some more re-education will fix me right up. We unwashed masses are in constant need of education.
A waste of time, really (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that "global warming skepticism" already has developed into a fully-fledged pseudoscience, in the same league as creationism, astrology, homeopathy, crystal healing, etc., etc., etc.
The core characteristic of a pseudoscience is that is carefully constructed to weave its way around the facts, and that is highly adaptable: Like a nasty disease, it will rapidly develop resistance to any argument used against it. Also, it is inherently unfalsifiable, because a pseudoscience is not a theory that can be used to generate predictions that can be tested (as a science should be), but a collection of objections and statements of ignorance that does not make predictions. Science predicts. Pseudoscience only objects.
It is important to understand that distinction. If a scientific theory predicts, say, a temperature of 23C, and the measurement is 12+/-3C, then that theory cannot be correct -- it has been falsified, as Karl Popper argued. But if a pseudoscience claims that something cannot be right because the temperature is 23C, and you react by showing data showing that it actually is 12+/-3C, then that fails to destroy the pseudoscience, because that was just one of the potentially infinite number of objections that constitute the body of the pseudoscience. You can, therefore, spent an infinite amount of time carrying on counter-arguments.
So although I applaud New Scientist for making the effort, sadly, it is a complete illusion that this will convince anyone. You cannot convince people who have already made up their mind to ignore factual arguments, by using factual arguments. As tempting as it can be to enter such a debate, I have to warn that almost every possible way to spend your time and energy is more rewarding and more fun. Most science students make that error sooner or later. Most will learn that it is just a pointless waste of time. Much better to work on the real scientific case, and ignore the loonies.
My excuses for the 0.001% of climate change skeptics who are actually using a scientifically valid argumentation. I regret that they are getting the dog's fleas by involuntary association, but they still have their colleagues to find intelligent conversation and solace, even if they may not agree.
And at the end of the day, it probably won't matter that much. I am confident that the majority of people is sane, and that democratic government will (slowly but with some inevitability) result in an acceptable policy. There may be some hold-outs, but in those cases there is always Sarkozy's suggestion of taxing the exports of countries that don't address global warming.
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but you are unlikely to get a "new and credible" theory, since the only 3 possibilities are that man-made CO2 increases global temperature, decreases global temperature, or has no effect on global temperature. All three have already been posited, and only the increasing temperature theory has a substantial amount of evidence to support it. Your comment is proof that we need to continue to talk about it.
I am scared of global warming fanatics (Score:2, Insightful)
However, global warming fanatics scare the hell out of me.
There is no CONCLUSIVE evidence for either side. However, if I have to choose between siding with scientists from MIT or Oxford - or "scientists" that got project grants or paid jobs because they mentioned "Global Warming" in their project name - guess what I'll choose... This whole silly thing reminds me of Y2K panic.
Go get laid.
Computer Models (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of trading in the financial markets is already carried out by computers. Many base their decisions on fairly simple algorithms designed to exploit tiny profit margins, but others rely on more sophisticated long-term models.
Major financial institutions are investing huge amounts in automated trading systems, the proportion of trading carried out by computers is growing rapidly and some individuals have made a fortune from them. The smart money is being bet on computer models.
There's a huge distinction between using software to handle stock trades and using software to model the stock market. The author blurs this distinction.
A very large hedge fund tried modeling the market in the 90's. Hired a bunch of analysts and some Nobel prize winning economists to create the models. Bottom line - the fund went belly up. Almost took the rest of the market with it. (See Cramer's "Confessions of A Street Addict" for details. Note: it was not Cramer's fund). The stock market is too large, complex, and chaotic a system to accurately forecast.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you think that human activity is a determining factor in the atmospheric CO2 levels?
Who are the scientists that say we need more study before taking action? How many of them are not getting paid by fossil fuel industries (e.g. coal, oil, and natural gas) or fossil fuel consuming industries (e.g. automobiles, electric power)?
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:2, Insightful)
(dons flame-proof suit and covers up)
Re:Don't believe the hysteria (Score:4, Insightful)
The professional community had been worrying about and working on fixes for Y2K for more than a decade prior. It was only as the deadline approached that the general public got a hold of the issue. Of course the companies that had procrastinated until the last minute were forced to pay outrageous sums of money to get their systems fixed - the engineering adage of "Fast, Good, Cheap - pick any two" was in full force and "fast" was a requirement.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:2, Insightful)
And the REASON you can't get people to read it is that it tends to be introduced with summary notions that imply: "The weather would be perfectly stable, and very pleasant, and nothing would ever, ever change, and there would be unicorns bringing us nice books to read under the light of their sweet, sweet rainbows if it weren't for Americans and their cars, which also happen to be painted ugly colors." Climate has been, and always will be all over the place, in terms of trends and even huge ugly swings. We certainly are contributing some to the current state of affairs. If we were all living in loin cloths in villages of a hundred people, though, the climate would still be very different today that it was 25,000 years ago. And 100,000 years ago. The Sahara used to be bigger, and hotter than it is now... perhaps because there was a lull in paleolithic SUV driving or something, who knows.
You can't "debunk" the ice age. Well, I mean, you CAN... but then you might as well attribute all of our delusions about glacially relocated megatons of rocks and top soil in the US midwest to... what? The Electric Universe and lightning bolts from Mars? Aliens competing in giant Curling matches? Yeesh.
Re:Don't believe the hysteria (Score:1, Insightful)
Totally lame article (Score:1, Insightful)
Another one claiming to debunk that we predicted global cooling in the 1970s doesn't actually debunk it at all. In fact, it admits that many scientific papers indeed predicted it. Then it goes on to explain why they were wrong. How does that debunk it? If anything, it bolsters the argument ("If they were wrong then..."). The best part is the way it ends, by claiming THIS time they're right because TODAY's scientists say different. Why are they different from the scientists of the 1970s?
Look, whenever there's a claim of a consensus in science, run for the hills, because that is never true in science. There are plenty of top scientists who don't believe in the current Hysteria-O'-The-Year that's driving the current news cycle for ratings. When in doubt, follow the money, because there is money to be made in ineffective carbon credits, dangerous mercury light bulbs, and higher taxes. The current hysteria will be mocked in the same way "new Ice Age" fears of the 1970s are now mocked.
In 15 years, absolutely nothing will have happened, and we will be completely fine, and the media (which is a business) will have its journalists (employees) reporting on whatever news cycle is driving revenues that year. In 2007, global warming is driving revenues. When it stops driving revenues, it will disappear from the front pages.
Re:It seems you got your facts mixed up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me see if I can say it another way.
If I said, "Those anti-smoking Nazis think smoking kills you. But what about George Burns -- he smoked all the time, and lived to be 100."
you would wisely reply, "That's just anecdotal. If you look at the set of all people who smoked as often as he did, you see, on average, very low life expectancies."
Now, look at climate change. The GGGP said (adding comic flair) "[Those GW nuts think the planet's getting warmer. But look at Canada -- it's just the opposite.]" [1]
you can't say, "That's just anecdotal. If you look at the set of ALL industrialized terran planets in which greedy capitalists mercilessly dump CO2 into the atmosphere, they're hot as hell.[2]"
[1] Yes, I'm simplifying. Global climate change is what they really complain about, which could include a colder Canada. But as long as the earth's weather is tightly coupled and there exist possible situations that could contradict such predictions, the same principle applies.
[2] I mean hell in the secular sense.
Re:FUD (Score:1, Insightful)
Now let us apply this to your last statement: How many of them are not getting paid by fossil fuel industries
fossil fuel consuming industries... are every industry because every industry uses power!
And do you know what else is a wild claim... humans are causing global warming. So far I have seen conclusive evidence that A: The earth is warming. B: CO2/Greenhouse gas levels are rising. C: In the past, global warming and CO2/Greenhouse gas levels rose at the same time. Sadly, Correlation does not equal Causation. In addition, global warming has been happening for hundreds of year... It has been a few hundred years since the last spurt of global warming. Of course, in 1400 there wasn't any industry.
If someone could CONCLUSIVLY prove that humans are the sole cause of global warming, and that global warming is not natural, and that it is bad, I would listen. Unfortunately they have yet to do so.
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:4, Insightful)
Only to idiots.
Show me a scientific paper like:
---
Doofus, Martin. "Analysis of the Winter of 2005-2006 in Lansing, Michigan Proves Global Warming". Journal of Taxpayer-Fleecing Research, Mar 2006.
---
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I don't know that we are the determining factor. We simply don't have enough information yet. There is a LOUD chorus of individuals who claim to be sure, and they drown our the scientists that say we need more study.
I agree completely; however I don't think that means it's ok to not do anything. There is a lot of evidence that we are an important factor. It's not obviously a closed case, and it does need more study, but we also need to avoid the trap of "paralysis through analysis." We can commission study after study and await results until it is either too late or the costs of fixing it have gone up. At this point, the evidence is strong enough that it should be clear we are better off starting to solve the problem *now*, while continuing to study it, than we are postponing a solution while the problem gets harder to solve in hopes that we've been wrong.
Put another way, "needs more study" vs "fix the problem" is a false dichotomy -- there is nothing to say we can't start solving the problem now, while it's still tractable, while *also* continuing to study it to make sure both that we're solving the problem in the best manner and that it actually exists / is solvable.
Re:Laugh or cry... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's sad to read the short posts on Slashdot that glibly assert that anthropogenic climate change is untrue and/or a conspiracy.
The wikipedia article (and the IPPC reports http://www.ipcc.ch/ [www.ipcc.ch] ) are good places to start to find out about the complex nature of this issue, and to see that there is a global scientific consensus (all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries agree) that there is a serious problem.
Re:Bickering (Score:3, Insightful)
Then perhaps you can tell me the figure, in W/m**2/ppm, that CO2 directly contributes to climate forcing.
If we had this figure it would be relatively easy to beat the deniers over the head with it, but I don't seem to be able to find a reliable source for it anywhere.
Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter (Score:3, Insightful)
This should probably be Myth #0.
Thermal noise is the symptom of molecular movement being a chaotic system. That hasn't stopped people from developing statistical mechanics and thermodynamics which, ask any mechanical engineer, are still highly deterministic and useful with sufficiently large sample sets. While weather is a chaotic system, and localized climate is relatively unpredictable, the average behaviour of the Earth's system as a whole is much more predictable.
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:3, Insightful)
How, exactly, is an article that goes into the science behind a given issue over the course of several pages a "talking point"?
More accurately, it is a "reference" that sums up the current state of peer-reviewed literature.
Yes, temperatures have changed and will change (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is, that climate change is happening at a much faster rate than it has in the past. You're right, it will get warmer or cooler - eventually. The point that you're missing is that it actually matters how quickly that happens. If it happens slowly enough, people and animals can adapt.
One piece of evidence you're missing (Score:5, Insightful)
That moves you from merely correlation to causation. It's nice to see the goal posts moved yet again. Do they actually have to prove they are the sole cause, or can they demonstrate with 90-99% certainty that we are the primary cause?
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, it's just not enough. Furthermore, you're suggesting that a reduction of less than 1% of CO2 emissions will cool the planet? Ugh. Hey, you do know that the Earth is physically too far from Sol to maintain it's temperature without an atmosphere? It'd be really easy for us all to freeze to death. In fact, IIRC one of the worst ice ages actually got so cold at the poles that the researchers who discovered it feared that the temperature could actually drop low enough to allow CO2 to precipitate out of the air. At which point, the planet would probably freeze solid, at least at the surface, irreversibly.
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:5, Insightful)
A skeptic is able to be convinced by sufficient evidence. The "global warming isn't happening and even if it is humans have nothing to do with it, nyaah nyaah nyaah I can't hear you" crowd clearly isn't. So some other word than "skeptic" is needed.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes, temperatures have changed and will change (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember: climate change has always happened, but "Global Warming" is just hysteria. Give it twenty years and we'll be laughing at our fears just like we laugh at "Global Cooling" now.
Re:Troubling lack of snow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the only constant is change (Score:3, Insightful)
For the past couple of years I've heard arguements against "green" technology ranging from economic to drop in quality of life to "god told us we can do as we see fit". But I haven't heard a consequence that is more dire than what we are on the verge of going through. So seriously, how can something like switching to hybrid or electric cars using electricity drawn by windfarm or solar screw things up any worse?
As for whether there needs to be more debate that's up to people to decide, if the majority feels the need to change then we change.
Re:A waste of time, really (Score:2, Insightful)
What's funny is your post and slanting. (Score:4, Insightful)
Point: Your numbers are wrong.
Point: Your characterizations are wrong.
Not every scientist who says "no" to human-driven change is employed by the oil industry.
Not every scientist who believes climate change is occuring, believes it is man-driven.
Take a look a look at this list [senate.gov] of significant scientists that are now abandoning the "man-driven" idea. Some even say they felt pressured to lend their voice to the "man-driven" cause because that was the side their bread was buttered on.
The fact is, this argument has now become a religious argument and the science is actually second, or even third to the argument and agendas.
Do try to step back and become a dispassionate.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard it said that changing the climate is like steering an aircraft carrier, only a whole lot slower. The main thing I would have people consider is that panicking about the state of the atmosphere is counterproductive, and that's the biggest thing I'd complain about as a "climate myth". We are not working against some sort of impending carbon countdown doomsday clock to doom and oblivion. We're just making the climate slowly, but measurably and somewhat predictably, worse, over the coming decades.
Certainly we want to do something about this. But what we don't need are radical, crazy things to change the course of things: it's disruptive, and won't work. We need strong measures, but they need to be flexible, and they need to give people time to adapt. Real change takes time - much longer than anyone with a political stick to shake can hope for to boost their career. You probably can't change your driving habits overnight. You probably can't go out and buy a new super-fuel-efficient Prius at the drop of a hat. (If you can, you have too much money.) Industry needs time too. I have an acquaintance who is a power plant engineer. The new plant coming online in several years' time is basically some sort of gypsum factory, or something like that (probably not actually gypsum, but I've forgotten what it was) that also happens to produce electricity. It puts out very little carbon into the atmosphere. But a power plant takes a long time to build - decades.
Of course, I think many people, and many good environmentalists, realize this. But the current state of affairs isn't a state of Good Environmentalism. It's a state of Moral Panic, of pseudoenvironmentalists chanting the "Bush-Republicans-and-Industry-are-Evil" mantra, and politicians giving handouts instead of promoting real change (*cough cough* I'm looking at you, Ethanol - and also some of the stupider handouts to industry for E85 engines that never actually see a drop of the corn squeezings). What we need isn't, as Tony Blair put it, "radical international measures" because you can't possibly hope to cut global emissions in half overnight, short of global thermonuclear war. What we need a good dose of Truth, and not just what Al Gore thinks of it. We need reasonable measures. I'm sick of the hackneyed, black-and-white, us-versus-them approach to The Environment we have today. The world needs real solutions, not career-boosting buzzwords and political propaganda.
Re:did you even read it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then if it ever comes to that, they can move to an industrialized country (like mine), get a non-subsistence-farming job, and live a lot better. (For my part, I'd love an infrastructure that would support denser living.) The higher future yields due to better technology will make up for tiny food loss.
Wait
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Isolated the individual myths debunks could or not be strong enough... but combined is another matter. I.e. in the one that explains why CO2 is one of the most important greenhouses gases. Some of the other "global forcings" come and go, like with i.e. water vapour, but the CO2 takes time to be reabsorbed. The problem is maybe not just now, but what will happen if we keep going in the same way. Reading all as a whole could help.
You know, no single water drop can be made responsible for the flood, i agree that maybe CO2 alone, or even the one produced by humans alone couldnt make a big disaster, but in a somewhat self-balanced system if you keep pushing in the wrong direction things like points of no return [realclimate.org] happens, and worst case scenarios are always ugly.
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying that less than a 1% increase in production of CO2 is enough to change the climate this much?
Here are some made up numbers to illustrate the point:
Every year, natural sources put 200 units of CO2 into the atmosphere, and natural sinks pull 200 units out of the atmosphere. The net change in atmospheric CO2 concentration is zero. (In reality, it's not zero, but it's a small and random fluctuation compared to the actual upward trend of ~35% since pre-industrial times.)
Along come humans, who put 2 units of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Natural sinks pull 1 units out of the air, leaving 1 to accumulate in the air and raise total CO2 concentrations. After a number of years, those units accumulate to something large.
What is important is not the change in production, but the change in amount left in the air. The change in CO2 concentration is, as I said, about 35%, not 1%.
Even with the fact that tropospheric water vapor has an order of magnitude greater effect on thermal regulation?
Again, this is the wrong number. Water vapor and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by ~30 degrees C, explaining why the Earth is not a frozen iceball (as you yourself note). The increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times has added an extra ~0.5-1 degree of warming to that baseline. That warming is small compared to the 30 degrees provided naturally by other greenhouse gases, but it is responsible for most of the actual observed warming (about 1 degree) which has taken place.
(Also, CO2-induced warming creates more water vapor which itself amplifies the warming trend in a positive feedback.)
If a 100% decrease in CO2 concentration is enough to permanently freeze solid the entire planet, is it that hard to imagine that a 35% increase in CO2 (from 280 to 380 ppm) can cause a single degree of global warming?
Based on what?? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Embrace global warming... (Score:3, Insightful)
- There could be change in habitable area, resulting in necessary population displacement and probably a lot of dead.
- There could be change in local climate resulting in variation of vegetation and animal meaning there will be famine. That means there will also be migration of diseases and parasites. For example, tropical diseases in the UK.
- Last time there was such a big warming there was also a massive extinction of animal(see TFA): the time evolution does its job and repopulate earth. Unfortunately human being will have to live in the meanwhile. ( For example in Europe, a lot of plant relies on the frost to clear the parasites. Without frost, that means the ecosystem will change a lot )
That enough to say that in case of real climate change humanity will enter a chaotic period with a lot of death and misery. Even the US and Europe will be impacted since they rely a lot on the poorest nations - and chaos is not good for business anyway.
That said, sure maybe a better humanity will emerge but I would rather live in the current one without a SUV.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, only that last clause needs to be proven. By your reasoning, an asteroid hitting the earth is nothing to be worried about because humans wouldn't be the cause and it is a natural process. If global warming is bad, then we should work to reverse it regardless of its cause. Some proposed solutions assume that CO2 increases are the cause and work to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but other solutions involve reducing the about of solar radiation absorbed by the earth (via microsats or changes to planetary albedo).
Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that hard to comprehend the article if you're not slanted to begin with.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
The real debate should be, "ok, what can we do about it?" And, remember, one of the options should be "nothing."
Once that's been discussed, we need to move on to, "ok, what do we do about it?" And, again, remember that "nothing" is an option.
All I know is that a lot of the energy saving tips the media frequently puts out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6636521.stm [bbc.co.uk] are idiotic. Partly because many of them are unworkable (how much power does turning off your broadband connection really save? Seriously? I could run my home router for a year on the power my water heater uses in half an hour.) But mostly because they don't know how generating capacity works... we need enough generators online for peak load, regardless of whether your broadband router is turned off or not. As long as all those generators are running to meet peak load, you're burning the exact same amount of fuel and releasing the exact same amount of carbon.
Figure out how to ACTUALLY slow down the release of carbon (hint: nuclear power does it) and I'll be happy to follow your stupid tips. But as long as you're asking me to unplug my router which won't make a whit of difference except to annoy me, then it's just not going to happen.
(Oh, also, stop being pissy to people who already do more than most to reduce pollution. Every morning I ride a train to work; you tell some people this and they say "wow, those diesel locomotives put out a lot of pollution." Oh yeah, sorry, me and the other 400 people who ride it should all drive our cars instead, thank you Mr. Genius Environmentalist.)
Re:What a bunch of crap... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not that it was never widely believed, it was that it was never a scientific consensus the way global warming is, and thus is not a parallel.
Saying we shouldn't pay attention to the broad scientific consensus on global warming because of a popular media craze in the 1970s around a prediction made by a handful of scientists which many others found merely plausible is, well, rather spurious.
So, yes, "they predicted global cooling, but now they predict is global warming" is a myth. More precisely, it is equivocation. The "they" that predicted global cooling aren't the same "they" that predicts global warming.
Re:did you even read it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously, I am no expert. But I am extremely skeptical of these "experts". I can see how they can trend global climate change...but rainfall predictions in certain areas? Give me a break, we can predict that two weeks out with very much accuracy.
Quite frankly, the climate is always changing regardless of what we do. Should we try to do less to pollute...absolutely. Is global warming a huge deal. Not as much as people are trying to make it out. We have less effect than people want to believe. In fact, a few decades ago scientists were predicting global cooling. And if the climate was always stable...explain the ice age.
People like you make me sick. If you are so worried about people dieing than give up your house, your car, your friends, your spouse, and move to those countries with the extremely poor and work to help them. Just because you right some self-righteous post on Slashdot doesn't mean you are any better than the people who like cool A/C and watch Fox News. What the heck does that mean anyways? Does CNN give off less greenhouse emissions.
This has nothing to do with politics for me. I can't stand the current administration and am a registered Democrat. I think Fox News is so horribly skewed to the right that it can only be viewed for entertainment purposes. My objection to the global warming hype is that it just doesn't make sense. They are only presenting one side of the picture and they are doing in a way that is wrong. Just like Bush uses the fear of terroists to win votes, it seems like these people are now trying to use the fear of global climate change to push their agenda. I suggest you try actually reading the counter-opinions instead of just reading the stuff that says the same thing. There are intelligent people who are unbiased that think this is overblown. At one time most scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth. Scientists are not always right...no many how big a herd of them there are.
Re:A waste of time, really (Score:3, Insightful)
And just for fun, try looking at this from the other side. Look at the enviromentalists as the ones presenting the pseudoscience. After all, they are biased as well. When the global temperature next year actually is a little cooler...will you be so ready to throw out the belief that we are headed for disaster (and that we are solely responsible for it)?
Gotta Love Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Where a bunch of people who have only a vauge idea of what it even means to qualify as "science" or "proven" argue with research done by experts in the field because a letter to the editor they skimmed in Readers Digest while waiting for the Dentist said "Global warming is a bunch of hipe".
Any dissenters please prepend your objection with:
Of course, this is where you say "well who the fuck are YOU?". Well, I'm just a lowly computer engineer who tends to side with the experts in the field and the volumunous amount of research indicating we are experiencing abnormal temperature increases caused by man and primarily his entry into the industrial age.
Thing is, if you disagree with the experts but you a) are not an expert and b) do not have the proven skills to comprehend the experts, then c) you don't think you believe gobal warming isn't happening. Yes, I just called you ignorant if you don't meet the above qualifications. I can do that. I'm on slashdot.
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, that's right they changed because the science changed. They changed because the temperatures stopped falling. In the 1970's the recorded temperatures had been falling since the end of WWII. In the late 70's or early 80's that stopped and temperatures started to rise. Did this lead the alarmists who had been yelling that Man was bringing on a new Ice Age to re-evaluate their assumptions? No, they just changed from predicting an Ice Age to predicting disastrous increases in temperature and that as a result we needed the government to take over everything. The same prescription to solve a different problem.
When I see that Al Gore (the prophet of Global Warming) using more electricity in a month in one of his multiple houses than the average American uses in a year, I become somewhat skeptical about whether he really believes what he is preaching. In addition, many of the other proponents of Global Warming exhibit similar inconsistency. if the spokespeople for Global Warming aren't concerned enough about it to sacrifice why should I be?
Slashdot blows (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Troubling lack of snow (Score:1, Insightful)
You're way off base. (Score:3, Insightful)
Knowing how to top increasing levels is very different from actually being able to do it. The long term solution is conceptually easy but practically difficult. All we have to do is stop dumping greenhouse gases into out atmosphere. Easy right? All you would have to do is to convince the entire world to stop driving cars, flying planes, heating there houses will fossil fuels and generating electricity in ways the generate greenhouse gases.
We currently DO NOT have the technology to continue to use fossil fuels without poisoning out planet. Even electric cars require a source of power to recharge them. It is questionable if you gain anything by not burning gas but rather charging your car via a coal burning plant.
Then there is the added difficulty of corporate greed. There is perhaps 100 trillion dollars worth of oil remaining on our planet. Do you believe that Exxon is going to go along with losing its market?? Hell no! They want to sell every drop of oil and transition us into a new source of power that will be as lucrative as possible for them. In short if we leave our future energy needs to the corporations that are raping us today, they'll position themselves to continue to bleed us tomorrow.
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:3, Insightful)
Who has proposed that? Specifically, I mean, not just "the environmentalists."
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
So if Iceland's average temperature became the same as Kansas, they would still not be able to grow as much food per acre.
massive amounts of data != FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
And besides, the whole 'it's okay cause we'll grow on greenland' crap is so myopic it's sick. Billions of people live near the equator, and they need the be able to grow food too. How many refugee mouths will the vast bounties of greenland feed exactly?
Or is it like New Orleans all over again? Fuck them for living in the wrong place, or what?
Preaching to the Choir? (Score:1, Insightful)
Their itemized list of so-called-myths range from arrogant to downright insulting.
arrogant:
* It's all a conspiracy
* Many leading scientists question climate change
insulting:
* It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
* Polar bear numbers are increasing
Re:There are skeptics (Score:3, Insightful)
(1)...tells me that I should believe something because other people believe it
(2)...isn't capable of discussing alternate theories
(3)...is intolerant of other theories
(4)...insults me for not accepting their theory
Basically, the more it looks like a religious issue, the more likely I am to be
skeptical of it.
I do believe it's important to reduce our emissions and our consumption of "dirty" energy,
and so one the one hand, I'm sympathetic to global warming since it would encourage people
and governments to do things that I think they should be doing anyways. On the other hand,
however, most proponents of the human-caused-global-warming theory fail at least 3 of the
4 criterion above.
If you want to convince me of something, the first thing that you need to do is demonstrate
that you're capable of thinking critically about it. Only then can we actually discuss the
issue.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
WHY DO ALL PEOPLE HAVE ONE TO FIVE MEMES THAT THE MEDIA THROWS AT THEM THAT THEY LATCH ONTO AS IMPORTANT? The groupthink in the world is at just an absurd level.