Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:I'm SHOCKED (Score 1) 630

maybe you should actually look into some climate research.
Some Scientists be believe that one of the effects of warmer global temperatures could be more and stronger hurricanes.

That's not exactly unequivocal language... Believe...could be...

This is one effect that may be caused by global warming. There are other effects that Might be caused by global warming including :
* more drought
* more floods
* desertification
* loss of productive farm land
* more extreme weather changes in local areas

So basically, no matter what happens, more or less moisture, any weather out of the "ordinary" (for a suitably loose definition of "ordinary") you can blame it on global warming and use it to support the theory? That's great, if you can get people to buy into it. Reminds me of tossing a coin - heads I win, tails you lose.

You also forgot to mention that some studies suggest that more C02 and warmer temperatures result in longer and more productive growing seasons and a net increase in food production. Oh wait, a plus side to "global warming?" We can't publicize that... ;-)

All of these effects are predictions of what might happen because of global warming based largely on data and simulation. Some effects are more widely accepted then other effects.

Simulations cannot prove anything. You know and can predict that putting X amount of energy into a given mass of water will raise its temperature by some amount. You know that from empirical tests and real science. Simulations of complex systems such as the global climate models can't even accurately predict the next El Nino event or two or three, let alone complex interactions of all the elements and factors that go into climate over the next 100 years. Different models predict different outcomes, and all are sensitive to a number of input criteria, weighting factors, etc. What you end up with is an educated guess, running monte-carlo simulations and taking what looks like the best or most likely outcome. But it is an estimate of what could happen, not a proof of what will happen. The real "inconvenient truth" is that we simply don't know enough to know what is going on - yet.

but what is OBVIOUS is that
1. we now have more carbon in the atmosphere then at any time in well a really long time.
2. CO2 is a green house gas
3. Global temperatures are starting to go up

Yes, but man's output of C02 into the atmosphere accounts for something like just under 2% of the total CO2 put into the atmosphere. Even if we stopped all our emissions, it wouldn't be but a drop in the bucket.

Global temperatures are not starting to go up, they have been going up for 6000 years - since the last ice age. There is some debate on if the global temps are really going up. You see, most of the temperature reporting stations have upgraded equipment over the last century - no longer Uncle Joe reading the mercury every day and writing it in his notebook. Unfortunately, many of the stations have been overtaken by rural land use changes (farm fields are hotter than forest), or urbanization (cities are hotter than country). So in order to "back out" these localized effects on the temp data "corrections" are applied to the data based on land use, population densities, etc. The problem is, these corrections are typically more than an order of magnitude greater than the "trend" we're looking for in the data! So how do you know there is a 0.3 degree trend/rise over the last 50 years if you've applied a graduated -6.0 degree correction? What if the correction is wrong or off just a little, or the graduation scale is off? You can adjust your corrections and "prove" to yourself we're going to bake-out in a decade, or that we're heading into another ice-age. Finally, if global warming really is happening, and is a global phenomenon, why did a study by a C02 group conclude Antarctica is gaining a net 29 billion tons of ice a year? Maybe we really are on the downslope towards the next ice age?

I'm not saying we shouldn't be good stewards of our planet and environment. I am saying we should make good decisions based on undisputed facts. There is far far too much "spin" on both sides of the global warming issue. It is suspicious in the extreme that the results of various studies so closely correlate to the views of the groups that fund them. That goes for both/all sides of the issue! We should also demand that our global climate models improve significantly in their ability to predict weather and climate patterns, past and present, before we start using their estimates as a basis for decision making.

Slashdot Top Deals

Heuristics are bug ridden by definition. If they didn't have bugs, then they'd be algorithms.