Climate was hotter in Roman, medieval times than now(theregister.co.uk)
theregister.co.uk
Climate was hotter in Roman, medieval times than now
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/
82 comments
Ugh. Lewis Page.
This article is being pushed down as people flag it, and given how popular pro-AGW hypothesis articles are on HN, it is, to me, a clear cut example of AGW proponents trying to bury scientific data that disagrees with their belief.
I'd rather none of these political stories were on HN at all, but I'm sad to see this rejection of rationality at work.
I'd rather none of these political stories were on HN at all, but I'm sad to see this rejection of rationality at work.
Alternatively, it's a scandal piece in a tabloid, going off a study that looks at a dataset a tiny fraction of the size and statistical quality that studies which have found the opposite have looked at.
In other words, low-grade journalism based off low-grade science. Maybe that's why it got pushed down.
In other words, low-grade journalism based off low-grade science. Maybe that's why it got pushed down.
Probably was. Climate doom and gloom is a political thing, not a scientific thing. It's not possible to take at best 80 years of reasonable data from 4.54 billion years of the planet's lifetime and come up with sensible climate projections.
>It's not possible to take at best 80 years of reasonable data from 4.54 billion years of the planet's lifetime and come up with sensible climate projections.
What an obviously vacuous statement. It's a lot like saying, "it's not possible to take at best 30 seconds of data from 10 years of a car's lifetime and come up with a sensible projects as to whether you're headed for a brick wall."
What an obviously vacuous statement. It's a lot like saying, "it's not possible to take at best 30 seconds of data from 10 years of a car's lifetime and come up with a sensible projects as to whether you're headed for a brick wall."
> Climate doom and gloom is a political thing, not a scientific thing.
No, it sure isn't. It's been made into a political thing because one group of businesses and their wholly-owned political party have decided to deny reality.
No, it sure isn't. It's been made into a political thing because one group of businesses and their wholly-owned political party have decided to deny reality.
Let's pretend for a moment that the entire Republican party has a miraculous change of heart, and agrees to everything the "scientists" are asking for. Cap and trade, emissions taxes, unshackled EPA emissions limits, huge subsidies for renewables... you name it. A cost in trillions, I'm quite sure.
What will we have accomplished? China's still going to keep right on industrializing. They'll probably industrialize even faster because we'll have pushed all our "dirty" energy consuming industries their way, where they'll be run at less efficiency and with even greater overall emissions.
The Chinese are the "deniers" you should be worried about: They've never promised to do anything but potentially reduce their emissions "intensity", which means emissions/GDP. That was always bound to happen anyway as their industries become more mechanically efficient. In absolute terms their emissions are going to keep on growing and growing. Even if they go as "green" as the nuclear French, they'll be emitting more than the U.S. in a decade or so. They are smart folks and they've decided that giving their people a Western standard of living is more important to them than a few potential degrees of warming. And there's nothing you or I can do about it.
EDIT: Oops, they're already emitting 50% more than the U.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...
What will we have accomplished? China's still going to keep right on industrializing. They'll probably industrialize even faster because we'll have pushed all our "dirty" energy consuming industries their way, where they'll be run at less efficiency and with even greater overall emissions.
The Chinese are the "deniers" you should be worried about: They've never promised to do anything but potentially reduce their emissions "intensity", which means emissions/GDP. That was always bound to happen anyway as their industries become more mechanically efficient. In absolute terms their emissions are going to keep on growing and growing. Even if they go as "green" as the nuclear French, they'll be emitting more than the U.S. in a decade or so. They are smart folks and they've decided that giving their people a Western standard of living is more important to them than a few potential degrees of warming. And there's nothing you or I can do about it.
EDIT: Oops, they're already emitting 50% more than the U.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...
>A cost in trillions, I'm quite sure.
First order of business would be to cut the $50 billion per year in oil industry subsidies in the U.S., so the first $50 billion/year spent in any sort of anti-climate change effort is "free". Denmark, China, Germany are all countries making large investments in renewables which are likely to provide large returns. Much of what can be done for climate change are investments with real returns, not just money sinks.
The tragedy of the commons you describe is real, of course. A pound of coal burned in China does damage just like a pound of coal burned in Ohio. And yet, the U.S. does quite well at pushing countries toward what it wants, in other areas. Worldwide, the U.S. has pushed nearly every country toward supporting pro-U.S. copyright laws. These laws hurt every other country, but the U.S. has been mostly successful at pushing them. Is there some reason the U.S. would be unable to push climate laws, if it wanted to? And at the various climate conferences, it's clear that many nations are ready and willing to combat climate change, but the U.S., Canada and perhaps a few other nations are strongly opposing any action.
Why should I not throw trash in the park? Someone else could come along and throw trash in the park (perfectly true), so I should too? It's a group effort: each piece of trash not thrown in the park makes a park that is slightly cleaner.
First order of business would be to cut the $50 billion per year in oil industry subsidies in the U.S., so the first $50 billion/year spent in any sort of anti-climate change effort is "free". Denmark, China, Germany are all countries making large investments in renewables which are likely to provide large returns. Much of what can be done for climate change are investments with real returns, not just money sinks.
The tragedy of the commons you describe is real, of course. A pound of coal burned in China does damage just like a pound of coal burned in Ohio. And yet, the U.S. does quite well at pushing countries toward what it wants, in other areas. Worldwide, the U.S. has pushed nearly every country toward supporting pro-U.S. copyright laws. These laws hurt every other country, but the U.S. has been mostly successful at pushing them. Is there some reason the U.S. would be unable to push climate laws, if it wanted to? And at the various climate conferences, it's clear that many nations are ready and willing to combat climate change, but the U.S., Canada and perhaps a few other nations are strongly opposing any action.
Why should I not throw trash in the park? Someone else could come along and throw trash in the park (perfectly true), so I should too? It's a group effort: each piece of trash not thrown in the park makes a park that is slightly cleaner.
> First order of business would be to cut the $50 billion per year in oil industry subsidies in the U.S.
Those supposed "oil industry subsidies" just keep getting bigger and bigger. In 2009, the claim from an environmental think tank was "approximately $72 billion over 5 years":
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090918100004.ht...
Where do you get your figures?
EDIT: Here's a good summary of where things stand. Nowhere near $50B, and the oil companies have a reasonable argument that the money they pay in royalties to drill in foreign nations is aptly described as a tax. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/breaking-it-down-oil-i.... Most of the other "subsidies" are the sort of tax breaks available to any producer of manufactured or extracted goods. Even windmills.
Those supposed "oil industry subsidies" just keep getting bigger and bigger. In 2009, the claim from an environmental think tank was "approximately $72 billion over 5 years":
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090918100004.ht...
Where do you get your figures?
EDIT: Here's a good summary of where things stand. Nowhere near $50B, and the oil companies have a reasonable argument that the money they pay in royalties to drill in foreign nations is aptly described as a tax. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/breaking-it-down-oil-i.... Most of the other "subsidies" are the sort of tax breaks available to any producer of manufactured or extracted goods. Even windmills.
I think you haven't been around long enough to remember the climate scandals of the 1970s. You know when we had an impending ice age. My grandfather also reminded me of the heatwaves in the 1950s and the associated "science" which came out then.
In climatology, the hypothesis has become the theory. The scientific method is therefore invalid ergo it is not science.
In climatology, the hypothesis has become the theory. The scientific method is therefore invalid ergo it is not science.
That if you choose to ignore all the scientific and industrial advances and their effect on the environment.
> That if you choose to ignore all the scientific and industrial advances and their effect on the environment.
We've had a negative effect on the environment even since we've decided to not be just herders anymore, many thousands of years ago. Just as a couple of examples, the Eastern parts of Syria and Southern Turkey (which are now in an almost desert-like condition) were a lot more greener, Sicily and present day northern Libya were Rome's breadbasket, while continental Europe was covered almost entirely by forests until the Middle Ages.
We've had a negative effect on the environment even since we've decided to not be just herders anymore, many thousands of years ago. Just as a couple of examples, the Eastern parts of Syria and Southern Turkey (which are now in an almost desert-like condition) were a lot more greener, Sicily and present day northern Libya were Rome's breadbasket, while continental Europe was covered almost entirely by forests until the Middle Ages.
So, climate change and the holocaust are fabricated.
Anything else you wish to add to your list of things we've been lied to about?
Anything else you wish to add to your list of things we've been lied to about?
Oh here we go. Go and re-read my comments, then attempt to understand them again.
The word fabricated is wrong.
The issue is that we are fed assumptions and conclusions without the supporting facts or evidence and expected to consider them as facts.
I choose not to take the conclusions as gospel unless the facts are presented to me. In neither case facts are present which are independent and not politically biased.
If you believe something without having done the research or finding any facts, it's called faith. I do not support faith of any kind. It's illogical.
The verdict on both is open. That is my view.
Please try to understand this.
Thank you for listening.
The word fabricated is wrong.
The issue is that we are fed assumptions and conclusions without the supporting facts or evidence and expected to consider them as facts.
I choose not to take the conclusions as gospel unless the facts are presented to me. In neither case facts are present which are independent and not politically biased.
If you believe something without having done the research or finding any facts, it's called faith. I do not support faith of any kind. It's illogical.
The verdict on both is open. That is my view.
Please try to understand this.
Thank you for listening.
No, the issue is you are a Republican voter who watches Fox News, and you've been told by your team that climate change is made up, and therefore when forced to choose between the worldwide scientific consensus and your team, you're choosing your team.
This is a very human thing to do, but it has nothing to do with science or facts. The science is, of course, 100% in favor of climate change:
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-co...
This is a very human thing to do, but it has nothing to do with science or facts. The science is, of course, 100% in favor of climate change:
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-co...
Well that's kind of the reply I expected. You're reacting as per my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4223478 (see note on red vs blue).
I am neither a Republican voter nor a US citizen. In fact I'm sitting here at home in London in the UK staring at the Thames out of my front window.
I do not choose a team. I have no political allegiance. I do not vote as I do not wish to be responsible for the person I voted in. I try to be a rational independent human and do not align to a stereotype well. A close stereotype is secular humanist.
I suggest you do some research on "accepted norms" and how it applies to climatology plus how conflicting views with theories and data are thrown out without being considered.
I am neither a Republican voter nor a US citizen. In fact I'm sitting here at home in London in the UK staring at the Thames out of my front window.
I do not choose a team. I have no political allegiance. I do not vote as I do not wish to be responsible for the person I voted in. I try to be a rational independent human and do not align to a stereotype well. A close stereotype is secular humanist.
I suggest you do some research on "accepted norms" and how it applies to climatology plus how conflicting views with theories and data are thrown out without being considered.
Sighs.
So you must necessarily not accept anything without having obtained the raw data, formed a hypothesis, processed the data, and formed a conclusion, by yourself.
Or are you just selective in the facts you choose to accept without personal research and verification and the ones you don't.
Ludicrous hypocrisy.
So you must necessarily not accept anything without having obtained the raw data, formed a hypothesis, processed the data, and formed a conclusion, by yourself.
Or are you just selective in the facts you choose to accept without personal research and verification and the ones you don't.
Ludicrous hypocrisy.
I accept tangibles without evidence. Neither of the original points were tangible or independently verifiable.
I do not accept memes and ideas without supporting evidence.
Please provide me with some examples and I will guide you through my thought processes if you do not understand my point.
I suggest that your point is that critical thinking is wrong?
I do not accept memes and ideas without supporting evidence.
Please provide me with some examples and I will guide you through my thought processes if you do not understand my point.
I suggest that your point is that critical thinking is wrong?
Ok, so you are selective in what you choose to accept as fact. That's fine, we won't get into bias effects and the subjectivity of any possible definition of tangibility.
It's also interesting that you would categorise the holocaust as a meme or an idea, but I think that pretty much sums up the way your own personal biases affect your thinking process.
It's also interesting that you would categorise the holocaust as a meme or an idea, but I think that pretty much sums up the way your own personal biases affect your thinking process.
We all are - that's what defines your personality. We are just a bunch of memes.
You are selective in what you have chosen to accept as fact too. You can't get out of that argument on a moral high ground as there isn't one.
You and me are alike, but are exposed to different memes.
You are selective in what you have chosen to accept as fact too. You can't get out of that argument on a moral high ground as there isn't one.
You and me are alike, but are exposed to different memes.
So how come glaciers that are thousands, if not tens of thousands of years old are disappearing now?
Some are growing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9...
Hotter atmosphere but with less direct sun exposure (more clouds, less solar activity) may mean less ice melting on a glacier.
I'm not versed in climatology or environmental science, and frankly neither are most people.
As such the issue of global warming really confuses me, to the point that I'm now on the fence. I've seen people with no knowledge on the matter become violent when it is challenged. A typical rebuttal might be "Well the glaciers are disappearing" in the same way christian fundamentalists use one liners to negate evolution.
Science shouldn't be emotional, and I find that worrying.
As stated though, I don't know much about the issue first hand, I read the paper and have to make my assumptions based on it. If anyone can chime in and correct me then by all means feel free.
--- P.S I have no doubt we are screwing up our environment and need urgent change, but the psychology surrounding global warming is a bit odd to me.
As such the issue of global warming really confuses me, to the point that I'm now on the fence. I've seen people with no knowledge on the matter become violent when it is challenged. A typical rebuttal might be "Well the glaciers are disappearing" in the same way christian fundamentalists use one liners to negate evolution.
Science shouldn't be emotional, and I find that worrying.
As stated though, I don't know much about the issue first hand, I read the paper and have to make my assumptions based on it. If anyone can chime in and correct me then by all means feel free.
--- P.S I have no doubt we are screwing up our environment and need urgent change, but the psychology surrounding global warming is a bit odd to me.
> Science shouldn't be emotional, and I find that worrying.
This, definitely. Was I the only science-minded person that saw the Al Gore presentation and was more convinced that global warming ISN'T an issue? Anytime someone speaks under the guise of science but has to use rhetoric and emotional appeal to prove a point, it makes me instantly doubt it. I don't know what to really think anymore. Clearly we aren't helping the ecosystem out, but to think we can extrapolate any realistic climate future out of just a sliver of information is lunacy. We can't predict tomorrow's temperatures with any reasonable accuracy, but somehow know the whole earth is going to turn into waterworld?
We need ecological change and responsibility, but fearmongering and cherry-picking data is not the way to achieve it.
This, definitely. Was I the only science-minded person that saw the Al Gore presentation and was more convinced that global warming ISN'T an issue? Anytime someone speaks under the guise of science but has to use rhetoric and emotional appeal to prove a point, it makes me instantly doubt it. I don't know what to really think anymore. Clearly we aren't helping the ecosystem out, but to think we can extrapolate any realistic climate future out of just a sliver of information is lunacy. We can't predict tomorrow's temperatures with any reasonable accuracy, but somehow know the whole earth is going to turn into waterworld?
We need ecological change and responsibility, but fearmongering and cherry-picking data is not the way to achieve it.
"We can't predict tomorrow's temperatures with any reasonable accuracy, but somehow know the whole earth is going to turn into water world?"
I can predict temperatures in Connecticut next January with a pretty reasonable accuracy. Probably in the 30s for the most part. That's climate.
I can predict temperatures in Connecticut next January with a pretty reasonable accuracy. Probably in the 30s for the most part. That's climate.
The problem is, very little other than emotional appeals and rhetoric get through to the political class and to very many of the masses.
Der oylem iz a goylem, as it says on my coffee mug.
Der oylem iz a goylem, as it says on my coffee mug.
We can't predict tomorrow's temperatures with any reasonable accuracy, but somehow know the whole earth is going to turn into waterworld?
Hold on a moment. I can't predict tomorrow's lottery numbers with any reasonable accuracy, but I can make an accurate long-term prediction about how often a given number is going to appear over the next decade of lotteries.
Hold on a moment. I can't predict tomorrow's lottery numbers with any reasonable accuracy, but I can make an accurate long-term prediction about how often a given number is going to appear over the next decade of lotteries.
False analogy. You can indeed predict tomorrow's lottery numbers, or at least their probabilities, with extreme accuracy; the odds are defined and exact. This is why long-term predictions of lottery numbers are extremely accurate, because the day-to-day probabilities are known and exact.
Temperatures, however, are not random and probabilistic; they are the explicit result of many factors. These same factors are used to predict long-term climate change. If the climate models that use these factors work so well for the future, why do they not work well for the next week? It's the same model, the same factors. In the analogy of the lottery numbers, if you mess up the near-term probabilities, you can rest assured the error is magnified over a long term.
Temperatures, however, are not random and probabilistic; they are the explicit result of many factors. These same factors are used to predict long-term climate change. If the climate models that use these factors work so well for the future, why do they not work well for the next week? It's the same model, the same factors. In the analogy of the lottery numbers, if you mess up the near-term probabilities, you can rest assured the error is magnified over a long term.
It's not a false analogy - predicting the precise temperature tomorrow is analagous with predicting the exact numbers tomorrow, not the probabilities of the numbers tomorrow. Climate predictions are predictions of long-run means and weather predictions are predictions of short-run outcomes.
Consider that the ball being drawn out of the lottery machine is not truly random and probabilistic, either - it is a direct result of the laws of physics, the starting condition of the ball-drawing machine and the inputs to it.
Just like the ball-drawing machine, the short-run weather in the next minute, hour, day or week is a highly noisy process that can be accurately modelled as a random, probabilistic process. This is how weather forecasts work - they'll give the probability of rain in the next 24 hours.
Consider that the ball being drawn out of the lottery machine is not truly random and probabilistic, either - it is a direct result of the laws of physics, the starting condition of the ball-drawing machine and the inputs to it.
Just like the ball-drawing machine, the short-run weather in the next minute, hour, day or week is a highly noisy process that can be accurately modelled as a random, probabilistic process. This is how weather forecasts work - they'll give the probability of rain in the next 24 hours.
For the same reason that we can predict how a large body of mass will react to a collision but can't explain how the subatomic particles will react to that same event, or the overall trend of the stock market without being able to predict the behavior of any individual stock.
Scale matters. Most climate prediction software looks at weather on a far vaster, long-term scale than hours, days, or even weeks. Variations over such short periods ultimately have little effect on long-term trends.
Scale matters. Most climate prediction software looks at weather on a far vaster, long-term scale than hours, days, or even weeks. Variations over such short periods ultimately have little effect on long-term trends.
The reason it introduces so much emotion is that it's used as political leverage and people get all uppety when red vs blue comes into the picture.
We're screwing up our direct environment for certain as that is directly observable, but we're not necessarily screwing up our climate. The latter is pseudo-science, despite how we wrap it up. We just haven't been around long enough to come up with a climate model that makes any sense.
Correlation does not imply causality.
We're screwing up our direct environment for certain as that is directly observable, but we're not necessarily screwing up our climate. The latter is pseudo-science, despite how we wrap it up. We just haven't been around long enough to come up with a climate model that makes any sense.
Correlation does not imply causality.
> We're screwing up our direct environment for certain as that is directly observable...
Is it really? I guess it depends on what you mean by "we", but I was under the impression that major "tangible" environmental statistics in the U.S. have been on a positive trend for decades. Smog, acid rain, toxic metals etc.
http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2011/09/01/the-fi...
Is it really? I guess it depends on what you mean by "we", but I was under the impression that major "tangible" environmental statistics in the U.S. have been on a positive trend for decades. Smog, acid rain, toxic metals etc.
http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2011/09/01/the-fi...
It's a fair observation, but that is the US. There's a big rug in the far east with lots of toxic crap under it. There's also a lot of stuff we buried in various places and cross fingers it'll never escape.
It's occasionally said that we aren't importing manufactured goods to China, we're exporting pollution.
That's fair, though. They'd rather have dirty, labor-intensive manufacturing to grow a middle class out of grinding agricultural poverty and we'd rather have desk jobs and cheap clothes.
It's a fantasy to believe there's anything more than a marginally better alternative. Certainly China is going to industrialize a lot "cleaner" and faster than we did, and when they have a real middle class they'll start caring about pollution a lot more. And it won't be "too late", I suspect.
It's a fantasy to believe there's anything more than a marginally better alternative. Certainly China is going to industrialize a lot "cleaner" and faster than we did, and when they have a real middle class they'll start caring about pollution a lot more. And it won't be "too late", I suspect.
IMO, deforestation is one of the worse global problems. Also those giant rafts of trash in the oceans.
Regarding screwing up the direct environment- I only want to say that I believe a historical survey, and economics, would support the perception that as societies advance in standard of living, they tend to clean up their local environments.
People start having higher standards for everything, including the quality of their local environment, when mere survival is no longer the primary concern.
So, it could be said that this environmental damage is more a sign of poverty than a result of success. And that if/when the world economy is unleashed and allowed to grow for a couple decades, as a side effect of eliminating poverty we'd likely see massive improvements to the direct environment.
This is also consistent with the evolution of business- when its more competitive you want to minimize waste because its cheaper to use more efficient methods, which has a positive environmental side effect.
People start having higher standards for everything, including the quality of their local environment, when mere survival is no longer the primary concern.
So, it could be said that this environmental damage is more a sign of poverty than a result of success. And that if/when the world economy is unleashed and allowed to grow for a couple decades, as a side effect of eliminating poverty we'd likely see massive improvements to the direct environment.
This is also consistent with the evolution of business- when its more competitive you want to minimize waste because its cheaper to use more efficient methods, which has a positive environmental side effect.
This is a fair point and one I agree with, however the issue at the moment at least is that as standard of living grows, problems are pushed to other places. This is because they are truly uneconomical to solve locally due to people wanting to protect their standard of living.
The lowest rung of the ladder always gets to solve the problem at the end of the day.
The lowest rung of the ladder always gets to solve the problem at the end of the day.
"Science shouldn't be emotional, and I find that worrying."
This.
Science is just science, looking for answers trying to ask the question in different ways see if you get the same answer, trying create theories by which you can predict changes and thus validate (or not) your theories.
Climate changes over time. We know this because there have been hot periods and ice ages and everything in between on the planet. Rapid climate change has caused mass extinctions, this too is also in the fossil record. The idea of everyone being dead is scary, and therein lies the problem.
Humans are creatures of emotion, that emotion can stir them to action, action at random is like entropy, of little use. Concerted action however is power. Some humans have used fear to cause other humans to act, and by their action, to achieve the objectives of the humans scaring them.
The very same mechanisms the Church used to cause 'regular' people to go out and kill other people in the crusades, is being used to get people to go out and kill corporations, policies, Etc. The mechanism harnesses fear, faith, and redemption in a three way linkage of motivation.
That said, this part is where you should step off the train: "I have no doubt we are screwing up our environment and need urgent change," That is simply apologizing for being rational, you shouldn't have to do that. We aren't "screwing up our environment" any more than a fish swimming is "screwing up the glassy surface of a pond." We exist, we live, we breed, we do things, in what is effectively a closed system. We are the fucking environment. We should (and do) seek out opportunities to do things in way that maximizes our benefit and minimizes our pain, sometimes that changes the environment in difficult to reverse ways. But we keep living, moving, and changing.
There is no 'nirvana' of living in balance and peace with the world. This planet kills off all life periodically. It did it to the dinosaurs, it has done so several times. You and I will end up dead at some point. Humans will, if history is a good predictor, end up all dead at some point. Get over it.
In the mean time, its great to develop new science around how the planet's climate is related to all sorts of things.
This.
Science is just science, looking for answers trying to ask the question in different ways see if you get the same answer, trying create theories by which you can predict changes and thus validate (or not) your theories.
Climate changes over time. We know this because there have been hot periods and ice ages and everything in between on the planet. Rapid climate change has caused mass extinctions, this too is also in the fossil record. The idea of everyone being dead is scary, and therein lies the problem.
Humans are creatures of emotion, that emotion can stir them to action, action at random is like entropy, of little use. Concerted action however is power. Some humans have used fear to cause other humans to act, and by their action, to achieve the objectives of the humans scaring them.
The very same mechanisms the Church used to cause 'regular' people to go out and kill other people in the crusades, is being used to get people to go out and kill corporations, policies, Etc. The mechanism harnesses fear, faith, and redemption in a three way linkage of motivation.
That said, this part is where you should step off the train: "I have no doubt we are screwing up our environment and need urgent change," That is simply apologizing for being rational, you shouldn't have to do that. We aren't "screwing up our environment" any more than a fish swimming is "screwing up the glassy surface of a pond." We exist, we live, we breed, we do things, in what is effectively a closed system. We are the fucking environment. We should (and do) seek out opportunities to do things in way that maximizes our benefit and minimizes our pain, sometimes that changes the environment in difficult to reverse ways. But we keep living, moving, and changing.
There is no 'nirvana' of living in balance and peace with the world. This planet kills off all life periodically. It did it to the dinosaurs, it has done so several times. You and I will end up dead at some point. Humans will, if history is a good predictor, end up all dead at some point. Get over it.
In the mean time, its great to develop new science around how the planet's climate is related to all sorts of things.
The IPCC has a great website with a lot of information. There are books you can download which explain the science and answer questions from skeptics. Its very calm and very respectful of the intelligence of the reader.
You may find this resource useful: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/the-ultimate-cl...
In my view, the climate debate gets emotional because it's scary and upsetting to see so many people refusing to accept what is now essentially solid science, and in such a way that the future wellbeing of humanity (not to mention other species) is put at serious risk.
It's probably also the case that those who have a vested interest in climate change denial (or 'scepticism') would like it to get emotional, because if you're arguing about emotions than nobody gets to be right.
In my view, the climate debate gets emotional because it's scary and upsetting to see so many people refusing to accept what is now essentially solid science, and in such a way that the future wellbeing of humanity (not to mention other species) is put at serious risk.
It's probably also the case that those who have a vested interest in climate change denial (or 'scepticism') would like it to get emotional, because if you're arguing about emotions than nobody gets to be right.
> vested interest in climate change denial
> (or 'scepticism')
There is certainly plenty of "here's a probability distribution, subject to caveats". There is also some radical uncertainty (unknown unknowns).
However, I understand that the balance of evidence is that it is certainly worth doing significantly more than we are right now to mitigate climate change.
This is particularly so since there are currently still some win-win options -- i.e., options where we gain however bad climate change is or isn't (e.g. energy efficiency, cutting fossil fuel subsidies).
If you like, you can see this (in the non-win-win case) as a kind of insurance. I am not certain that my house is going to burn down -- in fact, I hope and trust that it's very unlikely. But I'm still more than happy to insure my house for a few hundred pounds a year to hedge against it.
However, I understand that the balance of evidence is that it is certainly worth doing significantly more than we are right now to mitigate climate change.
This is particularly so since there are currently still some win-win options -- i.e., options where we gain however bad climate change is or isn't (e.g. energy efficiency, cutting fossil fuel subsidies).
If you like, you can see this (in the non-win-win case) as a kind of insurance. I am not certain that my house is going to burn down -- in fact, I hope and trust that it's very unlikely. But I'm still more than happy to insure my house for a few hundred pounds a year to hedge against it.
How would you feel about the argument that, while I can't prove god exists, you should give %30 of your income to the church anyway. IF there is no god, you've still helped the world by funding the spread of his word. And if there is a god, you've saved your soul?
Ok, wait, that's not a correct analogy. It would be correct if I was advocating that men with guns go around and force you to give up %30 of your income to the church and saying that forcing you to do it was justified because its like insurance, right?
If the policies that the IPCC etc. are advocating are put into place, one estimate I've seen is that 100 million people will be killed as a direct result in the next 20-50 years due to increased starvation worldwide. (and that this is a "conservative" number where it likely would be 1 billion.)
"cutting fossil fuel subsidies" is dishonest, because fossil fuels are not subsidized, they are highly taxed, and increasing those taxes will hurt poor people the most by driving up food costs, increasing starvation... remember the IPCC et. al want to do this globally.
But there might be a god, right? So its worth it that they should die, right? (Just putting your argument in a different context so you can see the shape of it. I don't think you really want people to die, you probably think you're advocating for the less death alternative... but since your position is not grounded in science, you're ending up doing what the USSR did. They thought they were making a better society (or claimed they were) but they rejected science (specifically economics) and advocated policies that caused starvation.)
Ok, wait, that's not a correct analogy. It would be correct if I was advocating that men with guns go around and force you to give up %30 of your income to the church and saying that forcing you to do it was justified because its like insurance, right?
If the policies that the IPCC etc. are advocating are put into place, one estimate I've seen is that 100 million people will be killed as a direct result in the next 20-50 years due to increased starvation worldwide. (and that this is a "conservative" number where it likely would be 1 billion.)
"cutting fossil fuel subsidies" is dishonest, because fossil fuels are not subsidized, they are highly taxed, and increasing those taxes will hurt poor people the most by driving up food costs, increasing starvation... remember the IPCC et. al want to do this globally.
But there might be a god, right? So its worth it that they should die, right? (Just putting your argument in a different context so you can see the shape of it. I don't think you really want people to die, you probably think you're advocating for the less death alternative... but since your position is not grounded in science, you're ending up doing what the USSR did. They thought they were making a better society (or claimed they were) but they rejected science (specifically economics) and advocated policies that caused starvation.)
>Ok, wait, that's not a correct analogy. It would be correct if I was advocating that men with guns go around and force you to give up %30 of your income to the church and saying that forcing you to do it was justified because its like insurance, right?
You realise that you just described taxes, don't you?
You realise that you just described taxes, don't you?
Let me make it clear upfront: I'm responding to the issue of emotional talk about this issue, not trying to debate the science with you.
---
The IR absorption of CO2 is less than that of water vapor, is it not? CO2 is rising while the planet is getting colder. The models have never shown to be predictive. Shouldn't a "solid science" be able to make even short term predictions?
You say it is "essentially solid science" you do this instead of making an argument, or citing evidence to indicate that it is settled. I gave three quick ones above to indicate it isn't. But right after you say it is solid, you talk about the "wellbeing of humanity (not to mention other species) is put at serious risk". Is this not an appeal to emotionalism? ("You're going to die" is pretty emotional, isn't it?) You spent more words on that than you did even referencing a scientific argument.
The thing I find perplexing-- and I'm not trying to argue the science here, merely pointing out the issue of emotionalism-- is that the first, and often, only, defense for AGW that I see from proponents is the claim that the science was settled (or "essentially solid" as you put it.)
This was the claim 6 years ago. This was the claim 12 years ago. This was the claim the first time I'd ever heard the phrase "global warming".
When did the debate happen that settled it, so that proponents of this scientific theory never seem to feel that they need to justify their belief in it, and can move right onto the "we're all in trouble" claims?
---
The IR absorption of CO2 is less than that of water vapor, is it not? CO2 is rising while the planet is getting colder. The models have never shown to be predictive. Shouldn't a "solid science" be able to make even short term predictions?
You say it is "essentially solid science" you do this instead of making an argument, or citing evidence to indicate that it is settled. I gave three quick ones above to indicate it isn't. But right after you say it is solid, you talk about the "wellbeing of humanity (not to mention other species) is put at serious risk". Is this not an appeal to emotionalism? ("You're going to die" is pretty emotional, isn't it?) You spent more words on that than you did even referencing a scientific argument.
The thing I find perplexing-- and I'm not trying to argue the science here, merely pointing out the issue of emotionalism-- is that the first, and often, only, defense for AGW that I see from proponents is the claim that the science was settled (or "essentially solid" as you put it.)
This was the claim 6 years ago. This was the claim 12 years ago. This was the claim the first time I'd ever heard the phrase "global warming".
When did the debate happen that settled it, so that proponents of this scientific theory never seem to feel that they need to justify their belief in it, and can move right onto the "we're all in trouble" claims?
Honestly, climate change was a bad way to go on the "we're all going to die" front.
Ocean acidification is a much juicier target. As carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, more of it is dissolved in the oceans. As more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the oceans, the pH of the oceans drops and the acidity increases.
And then everything in the ocean dies and then we all die.
Well, the last couple of parts are extrapolation and up for argument, but the great thing about ocean acidification (so to speak) is that it's indisputable up to a point. We know we're increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and from there it is high school chemistry that the pH of the ocean will decrease by a certain amount. Granted, most of us didn't pay enough attention to high school chemistry to do the maths ourselves, but it's like two equations.
From there the only question is how bad the rapid acidification of the oceans actually is. We know that corals are probably screwed, because the calcium carbonate reacts poorly to the acidification, but on the other hand the single-celled organisms are probably fine, just because they have tens of thousands of generations to react to the change. Everything in the middle is fair game.
Oh, and ocean acidification is a much more rapid process than climate change, because it takes much less time for the ocean to reach a new equilibrium with the carbon in the atmosphere than the atmosphere to reach a new temperature equilibrium. (Recall that CO2 isn't supposed to increase temperatures directly, it increases the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere from year to year.)
In my opinion, ocean acidification is a much better reason to worry about atmospheric CO2 than climate change
Ocean acidification is a much juicier target. As carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, more of it is dissolved in the oceans. As more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the oceans, the pH of the oceans drops and the acidity increases.
And then everything in the ocean dies and then we all die.
Well, the last couple of parts are extrapolation and up for argument, but the great thing about ocean acidification (so to speak) is that it's indisputable up to a point. We know we're increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and from there it is high school chemistry that the pH of the ocean will decrease by a certain amount. Granted, most of us didn't pay enough attention to high school chemistry to do the maths ourselves, but it's like two equations.
From there the only question is how bad the rapid acidification of the oceans actually is. We know that corals are probably screwed, because the calcium carbonate reacts poorly to the acidification, but on the other hand the single-celled organisms are probably fine, just because they have tens of thousands of generations to react to the change. Everything in the middle is fair game.
Oh, and ocean acidification is a much more rapid process than climate change, because it takes much less time for the ocean to reach a new equilibrium with the carbon in the atmosphere than the atmosphere to reach a new temperature equilibrium. (Recall that CO2 isn't supposed to increase temperatures directly, it increases the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere from year to year.)
In my opinion, ocean acidification is a much better reason to worry about atmospheric CO2 than climate change
"but on the other hand the single-celled organisms are probably fine, just because they have tens of thousands of generations to react to the change. Everything in the middle is fair game."
Maybe not the single-celled organisms that build shells out of acid-sensitive materials like calcium carbonate.
Maybe not the single-celled organisms that build shells out of acid-sensitive materials like calcium carbonate.
"The IR absorption of CO2 is less than that of water vapor, is it not?"
CO2 doesn't condense and fall as rain, so this is a red herring.
"CO2 is rising while the planet is getting colder."
The planet is not getting colder.
CO2 doesn't condense and fall as rain, so this is a red herring.
"CO2 is rising while the planet is getting colder."
The planet is not getting colder.
This isn't the place, and I'm also not the person, to summarise the whole of climate science for you. That's why I provided a link to more information. Here's another: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide
"You're going to die" -- or "you or your descendants stand a decent chance of living less happily and/or less long" -- is indeed pretty emotional. I'm afraid that's inevitable, and was part of the point I was making.
"You're going to die" -- or "you or your descendants stand a decent chance of living less happily and/or less long" -- is indeed pretty emotional. I'm afraid that's inevitable, and was part of the point I was making.
I always suggest Spencer Weart's 2008 history of climate change, published by the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm (also available as a book). It provides a lot of technical detail and shows how, for example, climate models were improved over time. Reading it resolved the question for me: global warming's theory and observations developed over time, much like any other scientific field.
I think that part of the issue is the old school title of 'global warming' - as a whole it may well be that the planet earth is warming - but many (may) see their areas get cooler, or nothing happen at all.
I prefer to refer to it as 'climate change' - you can add 'man made' to the front of that if you wish, but just slightly changing the term of reference stops at least a few of the standard comments in the UK; "well the last few summers have been rubbish, so there is no global warming!".
Just a thought.
I prefer to refer to it as 'climate change' - you can add 'man made' to the front of that if you wish, but just slightly changing the term of reference stops at least a few of the standard comments in the UK; "well the last few summers have been rubbish, so there is no global warming!".
Just a thought.
I'm with the parent on this one. The politics really make it difficult for a normal person to see the wood for the trees, let alone the science.
There are interest groups on all sides, and I have a couple of research scientist friends who've told me that they've been able to find funding for research that otherwise wouldn't be available as long as they can relate that research in terms of climate science, which also makes me feel as though the whole thing is politicised.
I think I can definitely agree that the climate is changing, so the term climate change would (at least as far as I can tell as a layman, not a climate scientist) be accurate. Historical records in either direction show that the climate has changed, and that continuation makes a lot of sense. It would also make sense to me that changes in one area in one direction may be different to others, making it more difficult to measure in a simplified manner.
There are interest groups on all sides, and I have a couple of research scientist friends who've told me that they've been able to find funding for research that otherwise wouldn't be available as long as they can relate that research in terms of climate science, which also makes me feel as though the whole thing is politicised.
I think I can definitely agree that the climate is changing, so the term climate change would (at least as far as I can tell as a layman, not a climate scientist) be accurate. Historical records in either direction show that the climate has changed, and that continuation makes a lot of sense. It would also make sense to me that changes in one area in one direction may be different to others, making it more difficult to measure in a simplified manner.
There is no divinely ordained "natural" temperature for the planet, either in the past, the future, or the present. That's pretty much all you really need to know.
What about the increase in average temperature. A well documented and statistical fact.No doubt this has a global effect on a complex system as the Earth. You don't have to be a climatologist to feel uncomfortable about this, yes maybe to explain it or put in perspective.
What about the increase in average temperature. A well documented and statistical fact.No doubt this has a global effect on a complex system as the Earth. You don't have to be a climatologist to feel uncomfortable about this, yes maybe to explain or put in perspective.
One thing I do know is this:
There are uncounted[1] numbers of glaciers in alaska alone. I mean that literally.
There are so many glaciers on the planet that nobody has ever even counted them, let alone done a study on whether they are, on average, advancing or declining. They do both, advance and decline as a natural part of changes in weather not climate...they'll do one for a very long time and then change as weather patterns change. This is certainly an indicator of changes in local weather patterns, but to draw global conclusions requires a global survey of some sort.
I don't see evidence that we are screwing up our environment. I see that as taken as an article of faith, and when I attempt to discuss the issue with people, as soon as they detect that I'm not a believer, they decide I'm a denier. And once they decide you're a denier, they seem to think that the rules of science no longer apply, because by being a "denier" you're somehow irrational by definition.
I think the Glaciers example you bring up is one of the best... because it is purely unscientific. (If someone's got an example of a holistic study of glaciers, let me know. I have never seen one.)
Another unscientific claim is that all scientists agree with global warming, therefor it is scientifically "true" that it is happening. This simply isn't right. I've never seen evidence that even a majority agree, and even if a majority do agree, that itself is not an actual argument. What percentage of them are experts on the area? Certainly most scientists are not climatologists (and even this "specialty" seems to be brand spanking new, and basically seems to include acceptance of the AGW hypothesis in its definition of what a "climatologist" is.)
The argument that a majority believing makes it true is like saying that science is based on consensus or democracy, and it is not.
Most people in the USA are christians (according to demographics.) While scientists may be more likely to be atheists, I believe that most of them are going to be christians as well.
Since a majority of scientists are christians, and thus believe in god, does that translate into proof of gods existence, scientifically? (If not, why does this same mechanism work for the AGW hypothesis?)
At the same time I've seen many examples of prominent scientists coming out against the theory, or parts of it, and read about a petition with, I think, 45,000 signatures from scientists.
The reason that this issue is so prominent is not that it is a scientific controversy, but a political one. The IPCC and the UN at large sees it as an opportunity to get the UN some control, some global governmental powers, and politicians in individual countries see it as a political opportunity.
If you make carbon a pollutant, then you have the power to regulate every industry, even eventually, people themselves (as carbon emitters). That's significant power!
[1] If you want to disagree with me on this, please first give me a link to some exhaustive survey that shows how many glaciers there are, then we can have a basis for any question not whether a statistical number of them are growing or declining.
There are uncounted[1] numbers of glaciers in alaska alone. I mean that literally.
There are so many glaciers on the planet that nobody has ever even counted them, let alone done a study on whether they are, on average, advancing or declining. They do both, advance and decline as a natural part of changes in weather not climate...they'll do one for a very long time and then change as weather patterns change. This is certainly an indicator of changes in local weather patterns, but to draw global conclusions requires a global survey of some sort.
I don't see evidence that we are screwing up our environment. I see that as taken as an article of faith, and when I attempt to discuss the issue with people, as soon as they detect that I'm not a believer, they decide I'm a denier. And once they decide you're a denier, they seem to think that the rules of science no longer apply, because by being a "denier" you're somehow irrational by definition.
I think the Glaciers example you bring up is one of the best... because it is purely unscientific. (If someone's got an example of a holistic study of glaciers, let me know. I have never seen one.)
Another unscientific claim is that all scientists agree with global warming, therefor it is scientifically "true" that it is happening. This simply isn't right. I've never seen evidence that even a majority agree, and even if a majority do agree, that itself is not an actual argument. What percentage of them are experts on the area? Certainly most scientists are not climatologists (and even this "specialty" seems to be brand spanking new, and basically seems to include acceptance of the AGW hypothesis in its definition of what a "climatologist" is.)
The argument that a majority believing makes it true is like saying that science is based on consensus or democracy, and it is not.
Most people in the USA are christians (according to demographics.) While scientists may be more likely to be atheists, I believe that most of them are going to be christians as well.
Since a majority of scientists are christians, and thus believe in god, does that translate into proof of gods existence, scientifically? (If not, why does this same mechanism work for the AGW hypothesis?)
At the same time I've seen many examples of prominent scientists coming out against the theory, or parts of it, and read about a petition with, I think, 45,000 signatures from scientists.
The reason that this issue is so prominent is not that it is a scientific controversy, but a political one. The IPCC and the UN at large sees it as an opportunity to get the UN some control, some global governmental powers, and politicians in individual countries see it as a political opportunity.
If you make carbon a pollutant, then you have the power to regulate every industry, even eventually, people themselves (as carbon emitters). That's significant power!
[1] If you want to disagree with me on this, please first give me a link to some exhaustive survey that shows how many glaciers there are, then we can have a basis for any question not whether a statistical number of them are growing or declining.
"If you make carbon a pollutant, then you have the power to regulate every industry, even eventually, people themselves (as carbon emitters). "
Shit is a pollutant. People themselves are emitters. And people are regulated as emitters of shit. Sanitation is rather important. Poor sanitation by UN troops in Haiti led to a massive cholera outbreak and thousands of deaths. (The UN troops were from Nepal, where cholera is endemic. Cholera hadn't appeared in Haiti for decades prior.)
If you disagree that shit is a pollutant, prove it: don't wipe your ass for a month.
Shit is a pollutant. People themselves are emitters. And people are regulated as emitters of shit. Sanitation is rather important. Poor sanitation by UN troops in Haiti led to a massive cholera outbreak and thousands of deaths. (The UN troops were from Nepal, where cholera is endemic. Cholera hadn't appeared in Haiti for decades prior.)
If you disagree that shit is a pollutant, prove it: don't wipe your ass for a month.
> (If not, why does this same mechanism work for the AGW hypothesis?)
Because your comparison is flawed in multiple ways.
> Another unscientific claim is that all scientists agree with global warming, therefor it is scientifically "true" that it is happening.
This is something of a straw man. I have no doubt that there are people out there making this claim...just as there are people out there who think unicorns exist. It does nothing to refute this claim because only a small kooky minority are making it.
The REAL point is that "Most experts in the field believe it is true, therefore it is reasonable to go with that belief until we have a reason to think otherwise".
You are confusing "scientific proofs" with how one should act when faced with making a decision. We cannot say that "AGW is true because So-and-so says it is"....that is an argument from authority. However, as citizens trying to make decisions about how to run our society, it's reasonable to go along with the consensus of (expert) scientists in matters of science.
This brings up another point, it's not a matter of what scientists as a whole statistically believe... it's a function of what field the scientists are in, their experience, and their expertise. The assertion is that most experts in the field of climate science (and related fields) agree with AGW and that it is a somewhat concerning issue (though the issue of to what degree is in debate), and there is a sort of rippling of agreement throughout semi-related fields which is worthy of consideration but less heavily weighted.
Where your point is fatally flawed is you are making a false comparison. You cannot compare Christianity which is a vague cultural identity with what they have found via research.
I think if you talk to the majority of scientists who are Christian, you will find that they are Christian mostly only in culture. They are not fundamentalists. They believe there is something called God, and there was this guy a few thousand years ago with some good ideas and maybe he was connected with this God....but if you press them I think you will find they are generally flexible and admit they don't know for sure and are just going on belief.
What you are talking about is an UNSCIENTIFIC BELIEF that they have arrived at completely arbitrarily. It's the same as if you found out that the majority of scientists prefer chocolate ice cream....that doesn't lend some validity to chocolate...it's just an interesting statistic.
AGW on the other hand IS a scientific idea. It's something that was arrived at THROUGH A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. The fact that most experts agree with it (if it's true) lends it credibility because they either:
a) were able to reproduce the results with their process b) studied the process of others and found them reasonable
You can argue that the science is flawed, or argue that most experts DON'T agree with it...but it's perfectly reasonable and correct to think that something is more likely to be true if the experts say it is in proportion with the amount of consensus...when you are talking about science . The logical fallacy is only if you claim it is DEFINITELY true, particularly based on a small amount of consensus.
The opinion of scientists absolutely has weight....in matters of science. Christianity as a whole is entirely outside the realm of science, and therefore the fact that many scientists happen to be Christian is irrelevant.
Furthermore, if you do a survey of all the scientists in the world, I think you may find that the majority of them are not Christian. However, the consensus for AGW and it's potential harm will remain.
Because your comparison is flawed in multiple ways.
> Another unscientific claim is that all scientists agree with global warming, therefor it is scientifically "true" that it is happening.
This is something of a straw man. I have no doubt that there are people out there making this claim...just as there are people out there who think unicorns exist. It does nothing to refute this claim because only a small kooky minority are making it.
The REAL point is that "Most experts in the field believe it is true, therefore it is reasonable to go with that belief until we have a reason to think otherwise".
You are confusing "scientific proofs" with how one should act when faced with making a decision. We cannot say that "AGW is true because So-and-so says it is"....that is an argument from authority. However, as citizens trying to make decisions about how to run our society, it's reasonable to go along with the consensus of (expert) scientists in matters of science.
This brings up another point, it's not a matter of what scientists as a whole statistically believe... it's a function of what field the scientists are in, their experience, and their expertise. The assertion is that most experts in the field of climate science (and related fields) agree with AGW and that it is a somewhat concerning issue (though the issue of to what degree is in debate), and there is a sort of rippling of agreement throughout semi-related fields which is worthy of consideration but less heavily weighted.
Where your point is fatally flawed is you are making a false comparison. You cannot compare Christianity which is a vague cultural identity with what they have found via research.
I think if you talk to the majority of scientists who are Christian, you will find that they are Christian mostly only in culture. They are not fundamentalists. They believe there is something called God, and there was this guy a few thousand years ago with some good ideas and maybe he was connected with this God....but if you press them I think you will find they are generally flexible and admit they don't know for sure and are just going on belief.
What you are talking about is an UNSCIENTIFIC BELIEF that they have arrived at completely arbitrarily. It's the same as if you found out that the majority of scientists prefer chocolate ice cream....that doesn't lend some validity to chocolate...it's just an interesting statistic.
AGW on the other hand IS a scientific idea. It's something that was arrived at THROUGH A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. The fact that most experts agree with it (if it's true) lends it credibility because they either:
a) were able to reproduce the results with their process b) studied the process of others and found them reasonable
You can argue that the science is flawed, or argue that most experts DON'T agree with it...but it's perfectly reasonable and correct to think that something is more likely to be true if the experts say it is in proportion with the amount of consensus...when you are talking about science . The logical fallacy is only if you claim it is DEFINITELY true, particularly based on a small amount of consensus.
The opinion of scientists absolutely has weight....in matters of science. Christianity as a whole is entirely outside the realm of science, and therefore the fact that many scientists happen to be Christian is irrelevant.
Furthermore, if you do a survey of all the scientists in the world, I think you may find that the majority of them are not Christian. However, the consensus for AGW and it's potential harm will remain.
>If someone's got an example of a holistic study of glaciers
I'm not so sure how holistic this is: http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html
I'm not so sure how holistic this is: http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html
[deleted]
Wow, so the Romans must have used fossil fuels too!
Its probably important to point out that this study is about one area of the globe only (northern Scandinavia).
Similarly to ramblerman, I am not well versed in climatology. I do remember reading in Superfreakonomics, though, that what's cause for concern is not the temperature or the amount of CO2 in the air (both being arguably normal), it's the rate at which CO2 amounts are increasing (which is abnormal).
That chapter in superfreakonomics is terrible. I only have a superficial knowledge of common claims and counter-claims in climate science, but I put down the book in disgust halfway through that chapter.
Read more at [The Economist](http://www.economist.com/node/14738383) or Eric Pooley for [Bloomberg](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2009-10-19/freakonomics-guys-f...). If you do a google-search, you'll probably find point-for-point rebuttals at the normal climate science blogs, too.
Read more at [The Economist](http://www.economist.com/node/14738383) or Eric Pooley for [Bloomberg](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2009-10-19/freakonomics-guys-f...). If you do a google-search, you'll probably find point-for-point rebuttals at the normal climate science blogs, too.
This graph is of a single data source (tree rings) with no error bars.
If the world isn't warming significantly, fantastic, but tree rings is a data source already heavily incorporated into the climate models. Climate models don't just look at one data source -- thermometers, ice cores, tree rings -- they look at all data sources. It's quite possible a subset of the lines of evidence actually indicate cooling, but pulling them out and reporting on them separately isn't breaking the great climate change conspiracy, it's cherry-picking.
And regarding error bars, if you look at the classic hockey-stick graph[1], you'll notice the error bars (grey region) are so huge, especially for times prior to 1600, that the data could indicate a cooling trend. But the un-shown error bars on the tree-ring only graph are going to be even larger, because the tree-rings are a subset of the data going into the hockey stick graph. Not showing error bars on a graph like this is extremely deceptive.
All in all, I don't like the smell of this article. Cherry picking and omitting error bars smells like a hit.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_la...
If the world isn't warming significantly, fantastic, but tree rings is a data source already heavily incorporated into the climate models. Climate models don't just look at one data source -- thermometers, ice cores, tree rings -- they look at all data sources. It's quite possible a subset of the lines of evidence actually indicate cooling, but pulling them out and reporting on them separately isn't breaking the great climate change conspiracy, it's cherry-picking.
And regarding error bars, if you look at the classic hockey-stick graph[1], you'll notice the error bars (grey region) are so huge, especially for times prior to 1600, that the data could indicate a cooling trend. But the un-shown error bars on the tree-ring only graph are going to be even larger, because the tree-rings are a subset of the data going into the hockey stick graph. Not showing error bars on a graph like this is extremely deceptive.
All in all, I don't like the smell of this article. Cherry picking and omitting error bars smells like a hit.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_la...
This sort of article is Lewis Page's stock in trade. (Have a look at his article history to get an idea of the bees in his bonnet.) I wouldn't bother agreeing or disagreeing with it, if I were you, because there will be another one along next week.
What specific models are you talking about? Can you give me links with the lists of the sources of data, the adjustment factors applied, and also the predictive results of the model (forward in time, not backward)?[1]
Regarding the chart you link to, it is at least 11 years old, and we don't know what factors were applied to it. It seems to confirm the claims of this article, showing a clear, slow, decline in temperatures up to the point where a different source of data is introduced. At the more resent end, what it could be showing is simply incorrect correction of the differences in results from the new sources of data.
[1] Totally sincere question. I am always hearing about these "models" but have never gotten a link to a specific model with an explanation of these relevant issues.
Regarding the chart you link to, it is at least 11 years old, and we don't know what factors were applied to it. It seems to confirm the claims of this article, showing a clear, slow, decline in temperatures up to the point where a different source of data is introduced. At the more resent end, what it could be showing is simply incorrect correction of the differences in results from the new sources of data.
[1] Totally sincere question. I am always hearing about these "models" but have never gotten a link to a specific model with an explanation of these relevant issues.
For the sake of argument, let's just say the Mann, et al, 2008 models. [1] They include an updated version of the hockey stick graph. [2]
But I'm not actually arguing that this specific model is correct or even that the IPCC's review of the state of the science is correct; I'm arguing that the article on the Register smells like a hit job.
Let's just look at the differences between the Register's graph and the original article's graph. [3]
First, they've bizarrely omitted the scale from the left-hand side of the graph. Maybe they were trying to save space, since the ticks are each one, but when your story is your graph you shouldn't skimp. The "Reconstruction" has been relabeled "Summer temperature". The "Trend" has been helpfully relabeled the "Cooling trend". The hundred year filtered reconstruction has been left completely unlabeled, despite its prominence in the graph, and as mentioned previously, the error bars have been left off entirely.
This looks like an interesting line of evidence, and it may even point towards what the authors of the original article claim (some orbital forcing of climate). But this is only a single line of evidence, so far: Scandinavian tree rings collected and studied by a group of Scandinavian researchers. I would like to see followup studies, by other researchers looking at tree rings in other parts of the world -- and non-tree ring based temperature records! -- before people start jumping up and down declaring the IPCC to be lying liars who lie. A single line of evidence can be wrong; a single line of evidence can mean something different from what you think it means. Only many corroborative lines of evidence can build a scientific consensus.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/?tool=pm... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/figure/F... [3] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab...
But I'm not actually arguing that this specific model is correct or even that the IPCC's review of the state of the science is correct; I'm arguing that the article on the Register smells like a hit job.
Let's just look at the differences between the Register's graph and the original article's graph. [3]
First, they've bizarrely omitted the scale from the left-hand side of the graph. Maybe they were trying to save space, since the ticks are each one, but when your story is your graph you shouldn't skimp. The "Reconstruction" has been relabeled "Summer temperature". The "Trend" has been helpfully relabeled the "Cooling trend". The hundred year filtered reconstruction has been left completely unlabeled, despite its prominence in the graph, and as mentioned previously, the error bars have been left off entirely.
This looks like an interesting line of evidence, and it may even point towards what the authors of the original article claim (some orbital forcing of climate). But this is only a single line of evidence, so far: Scandinavian tree rings collected and studied by a group of Scandinavian researchers. I would like to see followup studies, by other researchers looking at tree rings in other parts of the world -- and non-tree ring based temperature records! -- before people start jumping up and down declaring the IPCC to be lying liars who lie. A single line of evidence can be wrong; a single line of evidence can mean something different from what you think it means. Only many corroborative lines of evidence can build a scientific consensus.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/?tool=pm... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/figure/F... [3] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab...
"it is a central plank of climate policy worldwide that the current temperatures are the highest ever seen for many millennia, and that this results from rising levels of atmospheric CO2 emitted by human activities"
No, it's not. It's known (see edit) that the earth was warmer about 1,000 years ago - it was part of why I resisted climate science for so long (the Roman part is new to me, though of course no Romans were growing trees in Scandinavia).
That it was hotter then does not mean recent warming is natural - it just means needing other evidence for claims of human contribution. Which I believe exists.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
No, it's not. It's known (see edit) that the earth was warmer about 1,000 years ago - it was part of why I resisted climate science for so long (the Roman part is new to me, though of course no Romans were growing trees in Scandinavia).
That it was hotter then does not mean recent warming is natural - it just means needing other evidence for claims of human contribution. Which I believe exists.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Err...even if temperatures were higher in the past, that doesn't affect whether humans are contributing to recent warming (i.e. whether it is natural).
Everyone agrees that humans are warming the climate. It's referred to as a "forcing" in the quoted study.
The disagreement is on how much of an impact we're having.
edit: sorry, just noticed the study didn't mention human forcings. But, if you read most skeptic scientists, they're just disagreeing about impact.
You can replicate CO2's warming effect in a lab.
Everyone agrees that humans are warming the climate. It's referred to as a "forcing" in the quoted study.
The disagreement is on how much of an impact we're having.
edit: sorry, just noticed the study didn't mention human forcings. But, if you read most skeptic scientists, they're just disagreeing about impact.
You can replicate CO2's warming effect in a lab.
Nothing to do with Hacker News, therefore flagged.
Here is a very simple, short, 15-minute guide to climate change:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90
Here is a very simple, short, 15-minute guide to climate change:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
[deleted]
The Register are very biased concerning climate change. For example, take http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_kn... and compare and contrast it with the original paper at http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nc....
Things you might notice include the absence of any horrible backfire; that they didn't just find a slight decrease in perceived risk over climate change with increasing scientific literacy, but also a polarisation of opinions between the left and the right, where increased in scientific literacy strengthens one's beliefs about climate change whatever they are (see also: the title of the paper); and the way the quotes used by The Register don't say what the author wants them to.
This isn't just a case of differing opinions over complicated ideas, this is blatantly dishonest twisting of words.
(For even worse reporting, The Telegraph picked up The Register's article and made it even worse: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100161868/...)
I don't yet have anything in particular to say about the present article, but being by The Register doesn't inspire confidence in me...
Things you might notice include the absence of any horrible backfire; that they didn't just find a slight decrease in perceived risk over climate change with increasing scientific literacy, but also a polarisation of opinions between the left and the right, where increased in scientific literacy strengthens one's beliefs about climate change whatever they are (see also: the title of the paper); and the way the quotes used by The Register don't say what the author wants them to.
This isn't just a case of differing opinions over complicated ideas, this is blatantly dishonest twisting of words.
(For even worse reporting, The Telegraph picked up The Register's article and made it even worse: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100161868/...)
I don't yet have anything in particular to say about the present article, but being by The Register doesn't inspire confidence in me...
> If it is the case that actually the climate has often been warmer without any significant CO2 emissions having taken place - suggesting that CO2 emissions simply aren't that important...
How does one follow the other? Just because it's been that hot "naturally" doesn't in itself imply that CO2 isn't causing the warming now, nor that CO2 won't cause warming to rise over Roman levels.
How does one follow the other? Just because it's been that hot "naturally" doesn't in itself imply that CO2 isn't causing the warming now, nor that CO2 won't cause warming to rise over Roman levels.
I really thought we all knew this, already, and the only reason our current situation was an issue is because of the slope of the current temperature graph, the extrapolated temperatures that would be disastrous.
This is an interesting article, but I don't think it's saying what the register writer or climate change deniers think.
Casting my mind back to primary school, we all learned that Earth's axis wobbles -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession -- and that today the north has hotter summers than the south because the northern hemisphere's summer is mainly driven by the axial tilt, but reinforced by orbital eccentricity (i.e. the Earth is closer to the sun during Summer, further during Summer).
The degree to which tilt varies and coincides with distance from the sun will drive the intensity of Summer (in a given hemisphere), and this article argues (with evidence) that this effect has been stronger than the effect of greenhouse gases over the last 2000 years.
I.e. that Summer in Europe has been getting cooler over the last 2000 years owing to axial precession.
Not that Summer has gotten cooler on average over the entire Earth, or that the Earth has gotten cooler on average, or anything else.
I am neither a physicist nor a climate scientist.
Casting my mind back to primary school, we all learned that Earth's axis wobbles -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession -- and that today the north has hotter summers than the south because the northern hemisphere's summer is mainly driven by the axial tilt, but reinforced by orbital eccentricity (i.e. the Earth is closer to the sun during Summer, further during Summer).
The degree to which tilt varies and coincides with distance from the sun will drive the intensity of Summer (in a given hemisphere), and this article argues (with evidence) that this effect has been stronger than the effect of greenhouse gases over the last 2000 years.
I.e. that Summer in Europe has been getting cooler over the last 2000 years owing to axial precession.
Not that Summer has gotten cooler on average over the entire Earth, or that the Earth has gotten cooler on average, or anything else.
I am neither a physicist nor a climate scientist.