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."
Myth: Flamewars don't contribute to global warming (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Myth: Flamewars don't contribute to global warm (Score:5, Funny)
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: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.
Re: (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 Clim
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (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.
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.
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.
Re:Ugh - not again. (Score:5, Funny)
-Peter
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.
the only constant is change (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the only constant is change (Score:4, Insightful)
It is, as they say, the natural order of things.
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: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.
I see a strong bias here (Score:4, Interesting)
Slashdot editors please give both sides a fair chance here; this isn't science vs. religion; it's [supposedly] science vs. science and people should be promoting that.
Yeah, present both sides! (Score:5, Funny)
Then we can decide for ourselves whether there's any link between smoking and cancer.
wikipedia is the same (Score:4, Interesting)
Example, the section about glaciers retreating has its own page, go make one showing all the growing glaciers and watch it vanish. I seriously do not believe them anymore when the say pages don't vanish. Its even more fun when your id goes missing too.
There is no place for intelligent discussion on global warming anymore. Too many of the people running sites have already decided and its evident in the stories that get posted and the comments that get nuked, stripped, or otherwise put into oblivion.
any scientist who supports something other than man made global warming gets labeled as an industry lackey whereas the obvious government we need continued funding lackeys get respect second to God.
The only science I trust now is that dealing with space. Too much of science about earth and mans effect is polluted by political ideaology.
Welcome the warmth (Score:4, Funny)
Here's the list w/o links (Score:5, Informative)
Laugh or cry... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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:I wish there was another point... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a side note... CO2 isn't dirty, and is typically named public enemy #1 of "greenhouse gases". If all our cars and combustion based power planets burned friendly carbs at 100% efficiency they'd still spit out lots of H2O and CO2. We'd have no smog, you'd breathe freely even on hot days, and the world would still get warmer (or at least the majority of scientist would predict it).
I'm not trying to agitate, just hear this "CO2 is pollution" argument too often. But whatever shuts your neighbor up... :)
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers (Score:4, Informative)
There is no inconsistency there, at most it was bad phrasing. What article to meant was that "Of all the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by humans, the great majority was put there by the developed world, with the US alone responsible for an estimated quarter of emissions since 1750." I admit that it was very badly stated, but anyone with the slightest reading comprehension would understand that they were talking about portions of human emissions. Especially when combined with the second half of the sentence which discussed the United States' percent of emissions.
If you have actual evidence, please bring it up. I will promise (to try) to not nit pick at typos or badly phrased sentences.
The rest of the story (Score:3, Informative)
How can I debunk your debunking, when you can't even be bothered to read the article?
Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers (Score:4, Informative)
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.
A non-pointless method or What Can I Do? (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. In fact, if you read the article, you would have noticed a few that specifically are What Can I Do issues.
Let's br
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.
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.
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:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody was trying to support a population of six billion settled agriculturalists at the time, though.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason Greenland was named Greenland (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The reason Greenland was named Greenland (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FUD (Score:4, Funny)
The fact that you fall so easily for Viking marketing is quite telling to your position of global warming: Thre's one of you born every minute.
Re:FUD (Score:4, Funny)
In fact, I'm considering starting a class action suit against those who are descended from the Vikings for false advertising. Who's with me?
Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:5, Funny)
Re:FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, notice that it's not, say, a high temperature or high CO2 levels that are bad. It's the *rapid change* that is bad, and as far as rate of change, this current one is only really bested by asteroid/comet impacts and supervolcanism. A disturbing example of this is the "Great Dying" (the Permian-Triassic event), largely brought about by Earth's largest known volcanic event (the eruption of the "Siberian Traps"), which doubled Earth's CO2 levels, created acid rain, and all sorts of other effects that mimic Man's impact on the modern world (the other major theory also involves global warming, but from methane unleashed by the traps instead of CO2; either way, the warming aspect is generally uncontested, as the evidence is so strong). Over a million or so years (most concentrated in a few hundred thousand), the vast majority of multicellular life died as ecosystems were thrown out of balance, and hundreds of millions of years of evolution were undone. For a while after this eruption, the dominant species on the planet were fungi -- decomposers. Slowly eating all of the dead.
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.
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.
#16 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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
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)?
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: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: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: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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
You want to hear from scientists? Perhaps you should go read what these scientists have to say [senate.gov] (The scientist's comments are a little way down the page.)
Suffice it to say that the scientific community is not unanimous on the issue of anthropocentric warming.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:5, Informative)
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:5, Funny)
1. It sounds good to us.
2. It makes some point that needs to be made.
Both Science and Nature have only ONE prong: repeatability. So citations from the Journal of Anecdotal Evidence are twice as sciency.
Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:4, Funny)
(Yes, it did take me a while to realise that Ibid. wasn't just some incredibly popular journal along the lines of Nature or Science...)
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.
It seems you got your facts mixed up. (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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: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.
---
Troubling lack of snow (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like NS neglected to debunk the biggest myth of them all, namely that global warming means a uniform increase in temperature everywhere on the planet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hammers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw a hot deal on the Bay-B Shred-O-Matic the other day...
Re:Vote with your money (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Vote with your money (Score:5, Interesting)
What I really wanted to point out, though, was that "organic" products are actually a major problem to the "let's emit less CO2 and remove more" strategy. "Organic" crops take up more that twice as much land area per unit output, which has led to huge sections of rainforest cleared out to allow for more land-hungry organic food production. Organic food was never meant to be a pro-environmental movement. When the labeling was first conceived, the idea was to imply that the food was healthier because it contained bugs instead of poisons. The idea that pesticides would then be less prevalent in water supplies became tied to it, with good reason. But then from that pro-environmental argument, people got the idea that organic food must be good for the environment in every way. It's certainly not. Organic food is an important cause of deforestation in Central America, both directly (organic food grown there) and indirectly (increased organic production in the United States means lower overall agricultural output, which then increases the demand for agriculture in Central America). Organic food in some cases may be better for your health. In some ways, it's better for the environment. However, it's a big problem for the environment in other ways, so you'll have to make an educated choice.
Okay, one more thing. "Does 1 person make a real difference? Hell no" is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen posted on
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh c'mon ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can't you tell that TFA was written by someone with "good intentions" on the "correct side of the issue" and thus musn't be looked at critically, instead accepted as the true gospel without any thought?
In all seriousness, the article itself reminds me of the phrase "damning with faint praise". I mean, this is what the fearmongers come up with as their best counter arguments?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, at least with regard to the polar bear populations, TFA states:
So, the article is clearly stating that right now, we can't know for certain either way. So the point is that they are saying that "Polar Bear popula
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).
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
I'm unsurprised that anti-climate-change folks can find a few PhDs who will agree with them. There are a lot of scientists out there, after all. But unless Morano's "more to come" has another 10,990 scientists on it, his "converts" are still nothing compared to the number of scientists who DO buy the global warming argument.
Some facts remain difficult to dispute. (Score:4, Informative)
I have learned that past sky-high CO2 concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals [harvard.edu]. If we have hit peak oil, I doubt we will ever be able to reach these levels.
This data is available from a variety of sources, with interesting commentary:
RES: Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota [ucl.ac.uk]JC: Dr Joe Cain, interviewer
There is a great rejection [canada.com] of the global warming panic in the scientific community (it is unlikely that "big oil" funds have "bribed" so many faculty members of such prestigious universities, despite a smear [news.com.au] campaign). Because of the tremendous expense [nypost.com] of implementing Kyoto, should we pause in global warming remediation efforts that may border on the alarmist? It is not in any way difficult to find distinguished [msn.com] scientists who reject all calls for panic.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WTF (Score:4, Interesting)
Whether or not it is a myth, it is extremely curious. The first "myth" is that "human CO2 emissions are too small to matter", and the text goes on to talk about the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere, not its effect on the heat budget of the Earth. This is odd, because the effect on the heat budget of the Earth (independent of any feedbacks) must be well-known, and that is the only figure that is relevant.
It is always bad engineering and bad policy-making practice to drive action based on INPUTs rather than OUTPUTs. The idiots ultimately responsible for Three Mile Island were the engineers who decided that the current running to a valve actuator could be used to measure the state of the actuator, forgetting that sometimes valves jam and so the inputs have nothing to do with the outputs.
In the present case, I don't care how many tonnes of CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere, and neither does anyone else. I care how many W/m**2 they are adding to the Earth's energy budget. Until we start discussing that figure, we are not talking about climate change at all.
Part of the problem with this issue is that neither side is very honest. Climate change deniers start by denying the brutally obvious fact that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically in the past century. This is an empirical measurement that only a lunatic would dispute. Having thus destroyed their credibility, they go on to make some interesting and valid points. On the other side of the issue, climate change proponents spend an awful lot of time focusing on INPUT measurements, which doesn't do their credibility any good either, while at the same time doing all kinds of excellent science.
If we could focus on the EFFECT of increased CO2 on the Earth's energy budget we might learn something important because CO2 forcing is global and well-mixed in the atmosphere, and so can be compared to other global forcings like insolation varation.
It's a curious thing that a simple figure like W/m**2/ppm is not universally available and serving as the basis for all these discussions, because if it was, at least both sides would be talking about the same thing, and it would be the thing that matters.
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact is that they are saying that the Earth's weather, as opposed to climate, is a chaotic system. It's like boiling water, which is a chaotic system. When it comes to predict
Re: (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 an
Bickering (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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: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: (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 does
And truly, my sentiment captured in comic form (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you xkcd.
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.
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:issues with some of the graphs (Score:4, Informative)
Besides, the point is not to make it look "threatening", but to zoom in on the region of interest.