Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Whither the Earth's Temperature Now?
It's getting cold outside. How cold? As Daily Tech reports:
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down
Of course, one can always find anecdotal evidence for warming too. See, for example, this Reuters story that notes:
The warmest winter ever recorded in Finland may boost grain crops as the growing season is likely to be longer than usual, experts said on Thursday.
The Finnish Meteorological Institute said the December-February period was the warmest since records began more than 100 years ago, with average temperatures about 5 degrees Celsius (9 Fahrenheit) higher than usual.
Temperatures averaged above freezing point in southern Finland this winter. The balmy weather was partially due to global warming, meteorologists have said.
Southern and southwestern parts of the Nordic country known for its harsh Arctic winters had snow cover for only 20 days, well below the more than 70 usually.
Happily, as I reported from the U.N. Climate Change conference in Bali, the U.K. climate modeling research group, the Hadley Centre, has now given us something of a benchmark by which to judge climate model predictions. To wit:
Most interestingly, and to its credit, the Hadley Centre has now gone out on a risky prediction limb. The Centre has combined its weather prediction model with a climate change model to make definite forecasts about the world's climate for the next decade. To wit: "We are now using the system to predict changes out to 2014. By the end of this period, the global average temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3 degrees Celsius compared to 2004, and half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998." Since various temperature records—surface, satellite and weather balloons—have shown a temperature trend that increases at about 0.2 degrees per decade or less, this is a truly bold prediction.
One further climatological note, I will be covering the Heartland Institute's International Climate Change Conference in New York next week.
Hat tip to RS Davis over at Freedom Files for the Daily Tech link.
|2.28.08 @ 2:14PM|#
This is a bunch of BS, Ron. Remember that one time that you changed your mind about global warming? Yeah, what about that, huh? What about that?
|2.28.08 @ 2:16PM|#
WARNING! ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE!
Where I live we haven't had a big snowstorm since January 2000. We
used to get one every 2-3 years, so I had no idea there was that
level of cooling.
TallDave|2.28.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Of course, one can always find anecdotal evidence for
warming too.
What??? Did you not read the second half of the paragraph you
cited?
But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific
fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley,
NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that
over the past year, global temperatures have dropped
precipitously.
These are not "anecdotal" evidence.
|2.28.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Here on Long Island, it's way colder today than yesterday. In fact, over the last 5 months, I've seen a steep decline in temperature.
|2.28.08 @ 2:23PM|#
True it's anecdotal evidence, and certainly not evidence of a
longer term trend, but of course whenever the weather is unusually
warm, the talking heads almost always link it to global
warming.
So it works both ways. And it's freezing in NYC today, so take that
Al Gore.
|2.28.08 @ 2:26PM|#
All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley,
NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that
over the past year, global temperatures have dropped
precipitously.
So, not just anecdote.
The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a
value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over
the past 100 years.
Did any of the climate models allow for or predict anything like
this?
By the end of this period, the global average temperature is
expected to have risen by around 0.3 degrees Celsius compared to
2004
So, they're predicting that the average temperature in 2014 will
exceed that of 2004 by less than half as much as the temperature
decrease that we saw last year?
|2.28.08 @ 2:27PM|#
I have 6' snowbanks lining my driveway, and I'm not even in a snowy part of the Northeast. I can't wait for Global Warming to return.
|2.28.08 @ 2:28PM|#
As of three minutes ago, Bridger Bowl, where it is currently
snowing (as it is at my house) shows 274 inches of snowfall for the
year, which is a lot more than last year. People are telling me the
snowpack is at or near historical average, for the first time in
years.
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!
GG|2.28.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Here in the mountains of Northern Arizona, this winter has been
the best we've had since 1996. There has been snow on the ground
since Nov., and even Castle
Rock cut will be open this summer (but alas, high lake levels
also mean fewer sandy beaches.)
I just want to extend my congratulations to the AGW zealots. Ya did
it, kids! Good on you!
Can I keep my incandescent bulbs now?
Please?
|2.28.08 @ 2:32PM|#
What is this Daily Tech site?
From Daily Tech:
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a
century of warming
... All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley,
NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that
over the past year, global temperatures have dropped
precipitously.
From the NASA GISS site, one of the sources for the column:
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of
instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis.
Sounnds like the level of credibility we've come to except from the
denialists.
|2.28.08 @ 2:33PM|#
RC Dean:
Did any of the climate models allow for or predict anything
like this?
The Hadley Centre model predicts that global temperatures will
plateau or decline slightly for the next couple of years due to
natural forcings in the Southern Ocean and Pacific. We'll see.
|2.28.08 @ 2:34PM|#
I'll be skiing in a t-shirt in a couple of weeks, and it doesn't get much better than that.
|2.28.08 @ 2:42PM|#
That GISS site is pretty sweet.
Check this out.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
What strikes me is the way the line keeps going up and down over
short periods of time, but very clearly traces a distinct upward
arc over a longer period of time.
|2.28.08 @ 2:43PM|#
As of three minutes ago, Bridger Bowl, where it is currently
snowing (as it is at my house) shows 274 inches of snowfall for the
year
Hello from Missoula, P Brooks!
|2.28.08 @ 2:43PM|#
So, speaking of bets, looking at that chart, where would YOU put the over/under on temperature change over the next decade?
|2.28.08 @ 2:44PM|#
What strikes me is the way the line keeps going up and down
over short periods of time, but very clearly traces a distinct
upward arc over a longer period of time.
I made that same argument to you yesterday about rising income in
Vietnam. You are a bull-headed lump of penis shit.
TallDave|2.28.08 @ 2:44PM|#
Did any of the climate models allow for or predict anything
like this?
Yes. The solar models.
"We are now using the system to predict changes out to 2014. By
the end of this period, the global average temperature is expected
to have risen by around 0.3 degrees Celsius compared to 2004, and
half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the
current record hot year, 1998."
Didn't we already determine that 1934 was hotter than 1998?
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of
instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis.
Yes, it started out very warm and then had the biggest drop ever
recorded. The difference between "warm relative to other years" and
"temperature drop during the year" apparently escapes you.
And of course, the GISS data is rife with flawed
measurements.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/
That's about the level of accuracy we've come to expect from the
warmenists.
clark|2.28.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Nothing adds credibility to a scientific conference like having Tim Slagle as an opening act.
|2.28.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Sounnds like the level of credibility we've come to except
from the denialists.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
Ouch. That one has to hurt joe.
|2.28.08 @ 2:46PM|#
RC Dean: See also
Hadley prediction for 2008:
Global temperature for 2008 is expected to be 0.37 °C above the
long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, the coolest year since
2000, when the value was 0.24 °C.
Joe, so you have data saying that average temperatures haven't
fallen steeply?
Bingo|2.28.08 @ 2:49PM|#
How many ice ages have we had? Could it be there is a macro-level heating and cooling cycle that our 100 years of data is insufficient to cover?
|2.28.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Joe,
I think you are mixing measurements. The "drop over a year" is the
tempature in January 07 versus the temp in January of 08. The
warmest year for 07 is talking about 07 as a whole. What seems to
have happened is 07 starts out very warm and drops as the year goes
on giving us a much colder temp in January of 08 versus January of
07, thus the drop. However, since it started high and droped, the
average for 2007 in its entirety is still high.
The solar scientists have been saying for a while that the temp is
going to start to drop. It is a much simpler and more elegant
theory than antropromorphic global warming. But it doesn't feed our
narisism.
|2.28.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Ron Bailey,
I'm not saying that at all. Over a period lasting some single-digit
number of months, there has a been a sharp drop in
temperature.
You can similar drops over year-long periods ont the GISS chart,
too. Hence, my comment: What strikes me is the way the line
keeps going up and down over short periods of time, but very
clearly traces a distinct upward arc over a longer period of
time.
On the very cutting edge of theoretical statistics, this is called
"noise."
|2.28.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Could it be there is a macro-level heating and cooling cycle
that our 100 years of data is insufficient to cover?
"No, because we caused, God said it, I believe it, end of
story."
-- Al Gore
Bingo|2.28.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Leftists love the idea of global warming because it gives them excuse to expand the regulatory state.
|2.28.08 @ 2:54PM|#
On the very cutting edge of theoretical statistics, this is
called "noise."
On the very cutting edge of smug narcissism and condescension, you
are called "joe."
TallDave|2.28.08 @ 2:55PM|#
On the very cutting edge of theoretical statistics, this is
called "noise."
That's funny, I've been hearing that same argument for years. I
thought calling data trends noise was "denialism."
Baron Russo|2.28.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Global warming is a myth fabricated by a well-known intelligence service to sell summmer clothing and swim wear. The myth is not being pushed by any particular enthno-religious community per se, of course, but by a state that may or may not have the support of a certain ethno-religious community, all members of which must not be blamed (just the bad ones). Always ask cui bono? But summer clothing and swim wear are mostly made in China, you object. Aha! Ever heard of Kaifeng? Look it up. Don't be taken in. This global warming crock is a product of a certain Ahmen corner in the U.S. Congress. The neo-con war in Iraq is child's play compared to this hoax. Once we've all bought our seersucker suits and bikinis, it'll be a new Ice Age coming, and the Holywood-controlled fur industry will be the cui getting the bono. Stuff doesn't just happen, so think twice before you blame yourself for stuff. Do you wonder why you failed miserably at schoo? Find out who didn't fail, and you're on the right track. Who gained, and what was she wearing? Probably not a bikini.
Bingo|2.28.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Also I can't be the only one thinking that Al Gore, using his own graph as evidence, got his cause-effect relationship mixed up in that movie.
|2.28.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time trying to extract data from noisy signals: stop. Everyone. You'll just make your head hurt.
|2.28.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Actually, John, rather than being confused on that point, I made
it myself, above.
As for the solar theory, the records of greater solar activity
don't match up with the surface- and atmospheric-temperature data
very well over the past centure. That's probably why IPCC 4 stated
with such a high level of probability that solar activity cannnot
explain the changes.
PS, did you check out the global temperature-deviation map in that
link? Think of how dramatically hotter the first six months of the
year must have been for the map to still be so red and orange, even
after the multi-month drop in temperatures. It must have been much
more dramatic than the plunge, in order not to have been a wash.
Now THAT would make a good story for a science correspondant.
|2.28.08 @ 3:02PM|#
I thought calling data trends noise was
"denialism."
It depends on the size and consistency of the data trend. Take a
look at that chart I linked to. See the ups and downs from year to
year? That's noise.
See the overall upward trend? That's not noise.
See how there was a plateau in the middle of the century, and then
it started climbing again? That is probably not noise, but a real
mini-trend within a larger trend.
David Appell|2.28.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Ron, who's paying your way (transportation, hotel fees, meals)
to the Heartland Conference?
Plus, it's rather steep fees for journalists to attend?
TallDave|2.28.08 @ 3:04PM|#
More fun with looking at where the data actually comes
from.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://surfacestations.org/
|2.28.08 @ 3:05PM|#
The overall temperature trends in the data since 1998 have been essentially flat. Naturally, skeptics say that means catastrophic global warming isn't happening. Climate militants, on the other hand, retort that 10 years of data are not enough. Which is why the Hadley Centre prediction that I referenced is so useful and intriguing.
Lincoln|2.28.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Baron Russo, if you start a cult I am so in - but only if I get to wear an overflowing robe and initiate all the nubile young women. Also, can we find a way to work the Jews into the manifesto? Thanks.
Seitz|2.28.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Anecdotally, I can say that Chicago was much colder last year.
We had a good three week period or so where it never got above 15,
and bunch of nights below zero. The river froze all the way back to
Wolf Point.
More snow this year (a crapload more), but not as cold overall.
|2.28.08 @ 3:06PM|#
I've been watching a Teaching Company lecture series on archeology/paleoanthropology, and the lecturer mentioned past and current warming, with a particular note on how it affected us in the past. He was rather neutral on the anthropogenic cause argument (for today, that is), but he did note something interesting. Apparently, a warming trend can cause a long period of bitter cold (he explained why, can't remember right now). As a result, whether we continue warming or plunge into a major cooling period, the debate isn't going away.
Taktix®|2.28.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Whither the Earth's Temperature Now?
First something about Mississippi "taint" spilling, then
this?
There must be an URKOBOLD pool going on at the office.
|2.28.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Joe,
Do you seriously think of Global Warming skeptics as
"Denialists"?
C'mon you're bigger than that . .
|2.28.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Only a militant would say that you get a better result from 100
years of data than from 10 when discussing an event that occurs
over the course of decades.
Do these militants tuck their fatigues into their combat boots like
that guy in the Clash?
PC|2.28.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Is this why Congress is trying to raise the price of oil, so they can take credit for cooling the earth?
Bingo|2.28.08 @ 3:10PM|#
How come people aren't concerned about tectonic drift?
Earthquakes, tsunamis, North America smashing into Europe!
We must do something to stop this catastrophe.
|2.28.08 @ 3:10PM|#
Matthew,
I reserve the term "skeptic" for people who are skeptics. People
who assert that a six-month sample refutes a 100-year sample are
not skeptics.
Do you see the "skeptics" expressing any skepticism about the
report on Daily Tech?
If you're only "skeptical" of data that doesn't confirm your
beliefs, you don't get to call yourself a skeptic.
TallDave|2.28.08 @ 3:11PM|#
joe,
The time period is arbitrary. So if you like a trend, you can make
a graph over a period of time where it's not noise.
Plus, the surface measurements get an upward bias over time because
buildings and asphalt are put nearby them.
Bags|2.28.08 @ 3:12PM|#
lol at joe getting his shorts up in a bunch over the use of the word "militants", but has no problem with throwing the word "denialists" around.
|2.28.08 @ 3:12PM|#
serious question: suppose we are able to determine that the
effect of greenhouse gases on the world's temperature(s) is so
outweighed by some other macro-scale non-anthropogenic influences
as to be rendered negligible (with regard to temperature shifts).
aren't there other climate effects from all that carbon-burning?
are there non-climate detrimental effects to humans and other parts
of the environment, like lower air quality (beijing e.g.)?
what other problems are associated with it? also, even if global
warming isn't going to happen significantly, or if it is but it
turns out not to be a problem for us in and of itself, how does
this affect how we think about other effects (usually denoted by
negative labels) of modern civilization on the earth, like
non-biodegradable garbage dumps, soil erosion, monoculture,
deforestation, overfishing, declining water tables, water
pollution, ozone layer hole, extra power
distribution/communications-induced E-M radiation etc?
TallDave|2.28.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Do you see the "skeptics" expressing any skepticism about
the report on Daily Tech?
I could have sworn some guy named joe was posting all kinds of
skepticism about it.
|2.28.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Tall Dave,
So if you like a trend, you can make a graph over a period of
time where it's not noise. Well, not quite. You can make a
graph over a period of time that makes it LOOK like it's not noise.
For example, I could cherry pick a one-year period that ended with
an unusual cooling trend and make it look meaningful. It would
still be noise if it was an unusual period during a larger
trend.
I think the observation about heat-islands is interesting, but
unless those heat islands are causing real global warming, and not
just localized changes, then the atmospheric temperature
measurements would seem to refute the notion that the increase in
temperatures observed at the ground stations is not real.
matt|2.28.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Even if there is a significant warming trend, there's little
that we can do about it. Even if we could cut emissions growth by a
significant percentage (which is extremely unlikely), the climate
models don't predict much of a change in the warming trend. Also,
this assumes that the climate models are accurate, a claim about
which I am highly skeptical.
I'm all for reducing pollution, within reason. Government mandated
light bulbs and unrealistic CAFE standards to meet subjective
emissions goals are definitely not the way to go about it,
though.
|2.28.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Bags | February 28, 2008, 3:12pm | #
lol at joe getting his shorts up in a bunch over the use of the
word "militants", but has no problem with throwing the word
"denialists" around.
I do tend to get militant in my insistence on precision in
terminology.
Journeyer|2.28.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Al Gore the Global Warming Whore may be upset by evidence of
this disturbing cooling trend.
Here in the generally crappy climate mid-west USA, this is probably
the coldest winter overall that I can remember in a long time, in
that it has stayed cold more consistently and longer. The winters
have been fairly cold and snowy here for the last 4 - 5 yrs., but
before that there seemed to be several consecutive years of milder
than norm.
There is good scientific evidence that the climate has bounced up
and down and all around for as long as we can record back with ice
core samples or whatever, and apparently it continues to do
so.
I myself have given up on the once seemingly golden promise of
global warming. Just less than a decade ago, I had visions of
growing coconut palms in my back yard here in Northern IN, but now
here I am freezing my ass off once again. I've decided to call it
quits here and move to a warmer climate very soon.
|2.28.08 @ 3:19PM|#
I could have sworn some guy named joe was posting all kinds
of skepticism about it.
Yes, but I'm not a "skeptic."
Bingo|2.28.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Hey joe just fyi, considering we are talking about a planet that
has been undergoing changes for at least 4,000,000,000 years, your
100 years is just about as statistically relevant as Ronald's 10
years. In other words, its not relevant at all.
I think its quaint that people think humans are able to alter the
course of an entire planet based on 100 years of
industrialization.
Roger Maltz|2.28.08 @ 3:20PM|#
You know, I have a solution to the global warming problem: wide scale genocide. Join myself and the Bilderberg Group in decimating the human population of earth and therefore petrolem consumption. Together we can restore the ecosystem to where it belongs. Don't believe me? Read Ishmael and My Ishmael. It's all there, man.
|2.28.08 @ 3:22PM|#
I think its quaint that people think humans are able to
alter the course of an entire planet based on 100 years of
industrialization.
Actually we could do it in about ten minutes, given enough
simultaneous nuclear detonations.
|2.28.08 @ 3:23PM|#
I read this yesterday:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/02/27/here-comes-the-sun-again/
And anecdotally speaking, the part of Colorado I live in feels much
warmer this year than last. The snow on the ground is patchy at
best, when last year there were 6' drifts as tall as my head. Right
now there is a nice breeze coming in from my window that really
feels quite temperate and refreshing, unlike last year when it was
really goddamn cold.
I'm not really hard over one way or the other on global warming,
but I think "anecdotal evidence" is a pretty argument about
anything global warming-related.
TallDave|2.28.08 @ 3:24PM|#
How come people aren't concerned about tectonic
drift?
Because Rand McNally and the other "Big Map" corporation keeps
funding studies that say the problem won't affect us.
Our children will suffer.
|2.28.08 @ 3:24PM|#
It's a noisy line graph. Reliable global temperature measurement
is a very recent phenomenom. If anthropogenic global warming is a
reality, we can still expect short term reversals. If anthropogenic
global warming is not a fact we can still expect periods of
warming. We are discussing something that noisily cycles up and
down naturally over thousands of years.One year of cooling
proves nothing. Thirty years of warming doesn't prove a whole lot
either. My thinking that global warming is real, hasn't changed
with this new data. I won't swear to it. I swear to gravitation and
evolution as facts.. I doubt the veracity of those that
do.
This ain't rocket science. It's much more difficult than that.
TallDave|2.28.08 @ 3:25PM|#
I could have sworn some guy named joe was posting all kinds
of skepticism about it.
Yes, but I'm not a "skeptic."
Right, by your own definition you're a denialist:
If you're only "skeptical" of data that doesn't confirm your
beliefs, you don't get to call yourself a skeptic.
robc|2.28.08 @ 3:26PM|#
joe,
Just as skeptics should be skeptical of all data, "non-skeptics"
should accept all data. To be consistent and all. You seem to be
skeptical of some of the new data.
MattXIV|2.28.08 @ 3:29PM|#
joe,
The claim is factually accurate, although there isn't much to be
read into single year data either way.
The data series is here
and there is indeed a -.75 C delta between Jan07 and Jan08.
This is mostly due to the fact that Jan07 is a high outlier and
Jan08 looks like a low outlier, so which one you include in
constructing your year will either make a large difference. Shift
your interval one month foward and you have one of the cooler
recent years. The choice of interval is arbitrary (GISS includes
both J-D and D-N). This has been a legitimately cold winter - the
last NDJ period has been the coldest comparable period since Nov
2000 - Jan 2001. The Jan outlier will probably make 2008 one of the
colder recent years.
matt|2.28.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Actually we could do it in about ten minutes, given enough
simultaneous nuclear detonations.
Not really - we'd all die, which will happen eventually anyway, and
a few thousand or tens of thousands of years down the road,
everything will be back to normal in the long-term sense.
Lurker Jack|2.28.08 @ 3:32PM|#
"10 or 100 years is "noise" over a period of 1000 years."
Hell, do I hear
12000?
Why not 500000?
And what, precisely, is the 'global average temperature' supposed
to be? Looking at these charts and some of the others in the wiki
articles it seems to me we might be too cold. If that's the case,
AGW might be just what we need.
Bingo|2.28.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Sage: even a massive nuclear exchange would sort itself out
eventually. Short of blowing up the planet or sterilizing the
entire surface into carbon ash (a nuclear exchange would accomplish
neither) life will regenerate itself eventually, even if it takes a
million years (a hiccup in cosmological time).
Also nuclear winter itself was based on a flawed model, but the US
went ahead and presented it as fact because it gave them an
advantage during the SALT talks. Click
here if [citation needed]
|2.28.08 @ 3:37PM|#
to step back for a moment: are people saying that there isn't
such a thing as anthropogenic pollution which is harmful to human
beings and other currently living things? it seems like pretty
much, no. or do we think that there is, but the effect is so small
compared to non-anthropogenic sources that it won't make enough of
a difference? or that it is, but the effect has as much or more
chance of being positive or neutral for life on earth as negative?
or that it is, and will most likely make a drastic negative
difference, but that it's impossible for human society to do
anything to change that course without destroying itself? if it is,
and will most likely have a drastic negative impact if human
behavior doesn't change in the next few decades, what are our best
realistic options? (don't say 'privatize every piece of earth'
because we all know that will not happen in the next 100 years, if
ever.)
i, for one, believe most in the last hypothetical, and propose
unleashing private technological enterprise upon this in some way.
does cap-n-trade (& similar systems for other types of
pollution) economically incentivize it enough for that, or would
massive govt-directed man-on-moon-style R&D be the best
approach? i think we are on the road to fouling our planet to (at
least) our own detriment, but that we are capable of fixing it, and
turning off that road.
Suetonius|2.28.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Reason,
getting scooped by Freedom and Shit again? First
truck balls. (2 days) Then
Ice Breakers.(4 days) Now
this. (2 days).
Tsk. tsk.
Ever hear of an RSS feed?
Just kidding (and shamelessly self-promoting).
We love you guys!
-Sue
Episiarch|2.28.08 @ 3:46PM|#
This is one of the most awsome-est threads ever. Watching joe
scramble to deny any effect, using the same points that "deniers"
and "skeptics" use--which joe routinely denigrates--is
priceless.
Next he's going to say that short-term weather trends don't mean
anything. By which he'll mean 1 year. But if you say that 10, or
100-year trends don't mean anything because they are so short on a
planetary scale, he'll call you an idiot.
This is fucking great.
|2.28.08 @ 3:48PM|#
No, Bingo. That's not correct.
It IS statistically relevant FOR THE 100 YEAR PERIOD. It might not
be for the 1,000,000 year timeframe.
It's some solace, I suppose, that temperatures would go back down
and smooth out our warming if we disappeared, and that warming
would appear to be so much noise, but since I take a human-centered
persepctive, it's only a small amount of solace.
|2.28.08 @ 3:48PM|#
"It depends on the size and consistency of the data trend. Take
a look at that chart I linked to. See the ups and downs from year
to year? That's noise
See the overall upward trend? That's not noise.
See how there was a plateau in the middle of the century, and then
it started climbing again? That is probably not noise, but a real
mini-trend within a larger trend."
as a trader, i spend a LOT of time looking at charts, market
profiles, supply/demand inbalances, etc. and the same concepts come
up.
what appears to be noise to one person is a tradeable "trend" or
countertrend movement. and markets are fractal, and i suspect
climate is as well.
there is also a VERY well defined psychological tendency to try to
assign patterns and meaning, to even randomly generated charts, as
has been repeatedly proved.
some academics deny that even IS such thing as a trend, but these
are the same idiots who think efficient market hypothesis is valid,
so they are idiots.
what it comes down to is this. if you can make positive expectancy
trades off a pattern on any timeframe, by definition it can't be
"noise" since you can trade it. if it was noise, then you couldn't
trade it profitably. the slippage and commissions would eat you up,
as you traded what was for all intents and purposes to you -
random.
that's really the test. it's not a matter of how it LOOKS after the
fact. it's a matter of whther positive expectancy bets can be made
about the future.
so, are you reading the chart from right to left or left ot
right?
|2.28.08 @ 3:49PM|#
MattXIV,
Thanks for making my point above better than I did.
Joe,
What the hell are you talking about? See MattXIV's point above.
|2.28.08 @ 3:50PM|#
robc, TallDave, picture the top of the line graph as me, and the
bottom of that graph as "caring about your little word
games."
While you can note some ups and downs, the trend is pretty
clear.
|2.28.08 @ 3:50PM|#
J sub D at 3:24 said just about all that needs to be said.
Since he is urging caution about all the data, rather than just
throwing rocks at data that is inconsistent with the AGW
hypothesis, that makes him a (true) skeptic.
Or, on Planet joe, a denialist.
|2.28.08 @ 3:51PM|#
"that's really the test. it's not a matter of how it LOOKS after
the fact. it's a matter of whther positive expectancy bets can be
made about the future."
True. If you were betting on January 08 temps based on trends, you
would have lost.
|2.28.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Episiarch,
Could you point out the part where I denied that there was any
effect?
Would you like me to walk you through the debate so far? Maybe
bring you up to speed on what "statistical noise" means?
Good grief, THINK for second about something other than how awesome
it would be if I was wrong.
Jennifer|2.28.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Apparently, a warming trend can cause a long period of
bitter cold (he explained why, can't remember right
now).
I think it has to do with disrupting the Great Conveyor Belt, the
undersea "river" that carries tropical heat up through the North
Atlantic. It's the reason the south of France has such a warm,
sunny climate despite having a latitude similar to Boston's. The
theory is that enough melting Arctic ice dumped into the conveyor
belt disrupts it someway-or-other, so that global warming could
paradoxically result in a much colder Europe.
|2.28.08 @ 3:57PM|#
If I promise to live my life in a constant state of vague,
unidentified fear and dread, can I sit out the next few FGC's
(Future Global Catastrophes)?
I mean, I'm really kind of tapped out right now.
|2.28.08 @ 3:58PM|#
When you have a mountain of data all pointing in the same
direction, and it vastly outweighs the counterdata, a person with a
healthy degree of skeptisim does NOT treat additional supportive
data the same as the same amount of contrary data.
If my thermometer tells me on July 21 that it is 80 degrees out, it
is rational to think it is working. If it tells me it is 23 degrees
out, it is rational for me to think there's something wrong with
it.
Now, maybe I just happened to wake up on a very unusual day...but
probably not.
Treating those two data points as equally reliable is NOT rational,
and not rationally skeptical.
You KNOW this, people. Stop embarrassing yourselves.
These silly arguments about how one should look at every bit of
data with the same level of skeptism are not the statments of
reasonable people arguing in good faith.
|2.28.08 @ 4:01PM|#
J sub D | February 28, 2008, 3:24pm | #
It's a noisy line graph. Reliable global temperature measurement is a very recent phenomenom. If anthropogenic global warming is a reality, we can still expect short term reversals. If anthropogenic global warming is not a fact we can still expect periods of warming. We are discussing something that noisily cycles up and down naturally over thousands of years.One year of cooling proves nothing. Thirty years of warming doesn't prove a whole lot either. My thinking that global warming is real, hasn't changed with this new data. I won't swear to it. I swear to gravitation and evolution as facts.. I doubt the veracity of those that do.
This ain't rocket science. It's much more difficult than that.
This seems to suggest, reasonably to me, that we don't know much
for sure here. i also *suspect* AGW is real. i would add that its
existence (and that of associated negative effects for current life
on Earth) is enough of a risk to warrant action of some kind. any
suggestions on how best to act in the absence of clear measurements
of the effects of our actions?
|2.28.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Who's right? Who's wrong? In the end, we're all going to die. And then what? Will we be worried about whooping cranes or the sea level?
Episiarch|2.28.08 @ 4:04PM|#
joe, if you think that it's you being wrong that would entertain me, you don't get it at all. I'm not going to wait the years to see if you are right or wrong. It's watching you scramble like an egg in Death Valley that I enjoy. Please continue.
|2.28.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Anyway, let's not rehash the same, stale arguments I always
win.
Let's find some common ground here.
It's encouraging that so many people have come around to
recognizing that these surface- and atmospheric-temperature
measurements actually are meaningful data. That's an encouraging
development. It demonstrates a newfound willingness among many to
let evidence of warming and cooling influence people's
understanding of the climate change question, where there is
usually a knee-jerk denial that "corrupt government-funded
scientists with a political agenda" can be relied upon to provide
reliable data.
And that's good. There's really no place for the paranoid style of
American politics in scientific questions.
Can I conclude that this acceptance of reality is actually the
beginning of a trend, and not just so much noise? I mean, you all
wouldn't just cherry-pick one bit of data to believe, and then
dismiss other data sets from the same sources, depending on how
whether it backs up your pre-existing beliefs, would you?
Nah, you wouldn't do that.
|2.28.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Sure, Episiarch. I sure am in trouble here, what with the complete lack of difficulty I'm having explaining how statistical noise isn't unusual in temperature readings.
Bingo|2.28.08 @ 4:07PM|#
joe: Do you really think 100 years is enough to gauge
planet-scale phenomenon?
It really strikes me as similar to evolution deniers that say "well
we haven't seen evolution in action." Large processes don't happen
over years, or hundreds of years. It takes millennia for trends to
even begin to emerge.
The only convincing dataset that I've seen shows that over large
periods of time the planet goes through cyclical heating and
cooling periods, before human beings even evolved. That is an
undisputed fact. Over the next 10 years it could get hotter or it
could get colder and chances are we can't do fuckall about
it.
I'm not trying to be unreasonably stubborn here; the data that I've
seen are just simply not convincing that human beings are capable
of causing global warming or averting it. If you can show me
otherwise that would be great, but keep in mind 100 years means
nothing on a planetary scale.
|2.28.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Anyone else here old enough to remember the global cooling scare
of the 70's? It was a scientific fact too, and anyone who didn't
except that, was ignorant or a tool of the corporate interests or
both. You could not pick up a science magazine without finding a
story about global cooling, usually accompanied be the scary
illustration of the skyscrapers of Manhattan being swallowed up by
the oncoming glaciers.
It's right out out the 1984 playbook: "Global is the problem it has
always been the problem!" All to keep the population in a state of
panic and ready to follow their masters without question.
|2.28.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Being that the earth has a history of climate change longer than our existance, I'm skeptical of anything that says it's our fault. Personally, I think it's humans giving themselves more credit than they deserve.
|2.28.08 @ 4:15PM|#
The truth of the matter is that the cause of global warming is in dispute, neither side has actually won the argument, so the debate continues. Anyone claiming one side is the winner isn't paying attention to the whole argument.
|2.28.08 @ 4:15PM|#
joe - before I bother to go look it up again... do you accept
the data at the NASA GISS website? I don't want to be bothered to
find (again) that the current global warming trends have occurred
at least 5 times before, to the same degree (pun intended) if you
are going to come back and say "Yeah, but NASA GISS is just a bunch
of denialists funded by Exxon" or some such crap. Do you trust
their data?
CB
|2.28.08 @ 4:20PM|#
joe,
I think my problem with your statements in these global warming
threads is that you appear to be espousing certainty that many
climatologists don't have when it comes to the source of the
current warming trend and the extrapolation of that trend into the
future. The historical data makes it clear that there are a large
number of variables that can cause a short-term (century or less)
cooling or warming period.
We could be the primary cause of the current warming, but
we also could not be. I don't think there's anything to "win" here,
since some skepticism about conclusions relating to complex chaotic
systems is entirely reasonable. Besides, I think it's hubris to
assume that we can undo what we've set in motion, if we in fact are
responsible. Better for us to adjust to the changes that come.
Until we get domes and weather control, that is.
Zeb|2.28.08 @ 4:31PM|#
Blah, blah, blah.
Nobody knows the answer, so lets all speculate about things we know
nothing about.
|2.28.08 @ 4:42PM|#
i would add that its existence (and that of associated
negative effects for current life on Earth) is enough of a risk to
warrant action of some kind. any suggestions on how best to act in
the absence of clear measurements of the effects of our
actions?
As I see it.
If mankind is causing temperature to trend upwards, CO2
and methane emissions are the only credible explanations to date.
Any attempt to mitigate global warming that we can rationally make
is reducing the amounts of those gases in the atmosphere. Building
nuke plants today would help. But the Greenpeacers would have a fit
over that. Provide an economic incentive to replace fossil fuel
with other energy sources. A global, enforceable, carbon tax would
do that.
Kyoto was a joke, I won't even argue the point with people anymore.
Even as a "first step" it's a failure. China and India (>2
billion people) are not going to stop increasing their energy
desires nor should they. So Glabal caps won't work without the
industrialized world cutting their energy use by 2/3 while limiting
the emerging nations to 1/3 of what we are using today. That's just
to stay even.
Any carbon tax scheme enforcement bring up so many problems it
makes my head hurt. Who believes the Bush administration would be
honest about it, much less Peru and China? I think it's worth a
shot, but I have serious doubts about it reducing energy use. I
expect it will speed development of non-fosill energy
development.
One last note in this rambling, top of my head, discourse. Ask your
favorite global warming fearmonger what rivers we should dam for
CO2 free electricity.
|2.28.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Bingo,
Bingo | February 28, 2008, 4:07pm | #
joe: Do you really think 100 years is enough to gauge planet-scale
phenomenon?
It depends on the scope of the phenomenon, and its duration.
Do you think population growth from 1850-1950 is enough to gauge
global population growth and make estimates about 1960-2000?
Heck, I think internet-access growth rates from 1990-2008 are
enough to make reasonable estimates about the growth of the
internet over the next 20 years, globally.
|2.28.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Cracker's Boy | February 28, 2008, 4:15pm | #
joe - before I bother to go look it up again... do you accept the
data at the NASA GISS website?
CB, I LINKED TO data from the GISS site. This chart, here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
I think they are a fine source of data about global temperature
trends.
|2.28.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Pro Lib,
I'm sorry if it comes off that way. I also often "appear to be"
saying that Clinton's budget bill caused the 90s boom when I point
out that it did not cause the recession some predicted.
But worldwide, climatologists and biologists DO express a high
degree of certainty that global warming is happening, and that
human CO2 emissions are the cause. Read the IPCC 4 report - most of
the panel wanted to give a 99% certainly level to these statements,
but to placate a minority, they bumped their certainty about the
human cause down to 90%, IIRC. That's a pretty high degree of
certainty.
I express great deal of certainty that the deniers' constant
trumpeting of their "proof" that global warming is a hoax is
bullshit. That's because their arguments are consistently bullshit,
and I'm very certain of that.
|2.28.08 @ 4:56PM|#
joe - Good. You believe their data.
Now. Considering that 4 of the 5 earlier occurrances of this
"global warming phenomena" happened well before humans existed, and
the 5th occurred before human industrialization, then how can you
POSSIBLY blame mankind for THIS period of global warming? If it's
man's fault, please explain the first 5?
Thanking you in advance, and eagerly awaiting your smug response, I
remain, sincerely yours,
CB
|2.28.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Roger Maltz,
The force is strong in you. Judging by our good friend Dr. Reed
Noss's statements and the Wildlands Project that fits into the UN
Agenda 21 treaty (signed by George Bush)...it seems like a lot of
other urban McCain/carbon-tax lbertarians want some
depopulaton.
How else do you depopulate 95% of the 6 billion people in the
world? I understand that many of you are genuinely concerend about
the environment. If we were really worried about pollution we'd
talk about mercury pollution(from coal plants), Sulfer dioxide,
fluoride and nitrogen oxide. These chemicals really do cause acid
rain, retardation, killing all sorts of animals...and there are
lots of technologies available to reduce the output of these deadly
chemicals. When we focus on boogie man chemicals like CO2 which
enhance plant growth...We are enjoying the idea that we can produce
PR campaigns that actually lead otherwise intelligent people who
consider themselves to be smart humanitarians, to advocate rasiing
energy...and therefore food prices this is the best way to kill the
two or three billion people who survive on less than a $1 a
day.
The best part of it is that after we kill a couple billion we will
have the next poorest 2 billion begging us to take their remaining
freedoms in exchange for government gauarantees of sufficient food.
That is why I advised the Rockefeller family to fund a lot of these
groups pushing the "CO2 is public enemy #1 line".
|2.28.08 @ 5:02PM|#
Let's hear more from people that have anecdotal evidence of how hot/cold their town currently is. That's always illuminating.
|2.28.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Cracker's Boy,
There have been literally hundreds of megaton-scale explosions
caused by natural phenomena (asteroids and comets) in the Earth's
history. How can I then conclude that the explosions in the South
Pacific and northern China were human-induced phenomena? Very
easilty, actually.
If you are genuinely interesting in learing about why
climatologists have so overwhelmingly concluded that anthropogenic
global warming is happening, and why that consensus keeps growing
as more data is gathered, there's a great chapter in IPCC 4, which
I won't reproduce here.
I hope that's smug enough for you.
TallDave|2.28.08 @ 5:15PM|#
robc, TallDave, picture the top of the line graph as me, and
the bottom of that graph as "caring about your little word games."
While you can note some ups and downs, the trend is pretty
clear.
Awww. What happened to your militant precision on
terminology?
Just ignore the fact only my middle finger is raised at you. The
overall trend of my other fingers clearly indicates this is just
"noise."
TallDave|2.28.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Anyway, let's not rehash the same, stale arguments I always
win.
LOL Your imagination must be a rich and wonderful place.
|2.28.08 @ 5:18PM|#
I am genuinely interested in learning why YOU think man is
responsible for THIS period of global warming. I'm not sure what
that has to do with explosions in the Pacific, unless you are
suggesting that meteor impacts are responsible for the earlier warm
ups. (That would be interesting because those are usually credited
with cooling periods, not warming.)
By the way, did you see the news today about Michael Crichton's new
"Religion"?
CB
|2.28.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Well, I remain skeptical, though I'm willing to be convinced in
the coming years. Not about the current warming trend, which I
think is real enough, but about its causes and implications. And,
perhaps most of all, about what we should be doing about it. Some
caution is certainly warranted, since we really can do things like
use up natural resources or screw up the environment, but I don't
see much value in taking radical steps of any kind at this
juncture.
If I end up posting from underwater in Tampa, I'll admit error and
demand satisfaction.
|2.28.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Over a period lasting some single-digit number of months,
there has a been a sharp drop in temperature.
Which is exactly the point the article raised and you
criticized.
|2.28.08 @ 5:31PM|#
Cracker's Boy | February 28, 2008, 5:18pm | #
I am genuinely interested in learning why YOU think man is
responsible for THIS period of global warming.
For the same reason I think the new bridge over the river will hold
my weight: Because the most reliable sources have concluded,
through the application of sound scientific principles, that they
can say with a very high degree of certainty that that is the
case.
|2.28.08 @ 5:34PM|#
joshua corning,
Which is exactly the point the article raised and you
criticized.
No, that is not the point I criticized. I criticized the argument
that that evidence falsifies anthropogenic global warming.
I don't dispute at all that we've had a cold winter. As a matter of
fact, I've stated that the data demonstrating such was credible
several times now.
|2.28.08 @ 5:37PM|#
Do you see the "skeptics" expressing any skepticism about
the report on Daily Tech?
Anthony Watts did and he was the one who gave Daily Tech the
fucking story in the first place.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
Jesus you are an asshole.
|2.28.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Aw, now look at that. You had a perfectly valid point, almost
like a respectable human being, and you just couldn't help but
throw in a gratuitous curse.
I am way, way under your skin, aren't I?
Maybe it would be a good idea to get away for a little while,
joshua. Get some perspective.
|2.28.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Aw, now look at that. You had a perfectly valid point,
almost like a respectable human being, and you just couldn't help
but throw in a gratuitous curse.
I think i cus in a comment about lobster girl...
Nothing really much to read into that accept i have a foul
mouth...and am not ashamed of it.
Urkobold™|2.28.08 @ 6:05PM|#
JOSHUA CORNING! YOUR LACK OF VERBAL CONTROL IS UNDERSTANDABLE, FOR THE URKOBOLD HIMSELF WAS HEARD TO SAY, "DAMN, THAT BITCH IS SWEET! VIKING MOOSE, HAVE HER ABDUCTED FOR THE URKOBOLD AT ONCE!" WHEN THE URKOBOLD ENCOMPASSED THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME.
TallDave|2.28.08 @ 6:13PM|#
Because the most reliable sources have concluded, through
the application of sound scientific principles, that they can say
with a very high degree of certainty that that is the
case.
Really? Then why did the IPCC say they were only 90% certain?
I'm a little more than 90% certain that bridges won't collapse when
I cross them, or I'd have great difficulty travelling.
This is exactly the kind of exaggeration that the fearmongering AGW
apocalyptics are constantly throwing around.
|2.28.08 @ 6:27PM|#
"Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything
about it" used to be just a humerous Twain quotation. Now it's not
so funny as everyone jumps on the Stop Global Warming
bandwagon.
So the world gets hotter? It doesn't care. However, humans who
arrogantly believe that the climate we've had for the past few
centuries is the only climate that we should have forever more, are
idiots. If the world gets hotter, we'll adapt. If the world gets
colder, we'll adapt to that, too. We always have. Sure, there'll be
some winners and some losers. Oh well.
Why are we wasting our time, money and effort to try to effect
change in something that: 1) we don't even know if we can, and 2)
we don't know which direction to make the change?
MattXIV|2.28.08 @ 6:40PM|#
Too many comments to address directly, so I'll make some general
points:
-The mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is pretty simple and
well-understood. All other things being equal, adding more CO2 to
the atmosphere will make it retain more heat.
-GHGs aren't the only thing. The reflectivity of the surface of the
earth with regards to solar radiation (aka albedo) matters, as does
the EM radiation output of the sun (which varies significantly both
cyclically and randomly). The albedo is impacted by particulates in
the atmosphere (which can come from volcanos or exhaust), cloud
cover (which is also a function of the particulates), land use, and
a lot of other things.
-The impact of CO2 is the best understood part of all this.
-Between all these phenomena, you have potential sources for
significant warming and cooling on timescales both longer and
shorter than the recent warming trend, but most of these phenomena
are empirically observable and nobody has convincingly demonstrated
an alternate mechanism for explaining the recent heating
trend.
-Models involve fits to historical data with a large number of
degrees of freedom. They're the best available tool for making a
prediction, but their ability to make predictions hasn't been
validated by a long term comparison with observation. Checking a
model against the data used to generate it is meaningless and the
large number of degrees of freedom put them at risk for
overfitting. This is a risk of large models in general, and the
current models don't show definitive signs of overfitting, such as
radically changing results when fit to new data.
David Appell|2.28.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Ron, I'm glad Reason is paying you way. Now I can believe what
you write :-)
Unfortunately I can't swing the travel expenses to NYC now that I
live in Oregon, and that most mainstream outlets don't take this
conference seriously, I think.
I'd be really interested to know how many reporters pay to attend
this conference. Let us know, OK?
Paul|2.28.08 @ 7:03PM|#
So, speaking of bets, looking at that chart, where would YOU
put the over/under on temperature change over the next
decade?
About the same decadal trend for Mars.
|2.28.08 @ 7:16PM|#
Um . . . global warming denialists, could you not trumpet this
too loudly? This is one year of data. Even if it's true
(which it appears to be), it could be just a blip on a long-term
upward trend. If temperature starts trending downwards for four or
five years, and no climate models can account for it, then
you can start talking about how global warming is wrong. In the
meantime, if you want to maintain any crediblity, don't talk about
one year trends. It's called statistical
variability.
I hope that global warming is false as much or more than any of you
do. But until there's some good data disproving it, don't jump all
over it.
|2.28.08 @ 8:57PM|#
"I do tend to get militant in my insistence on precision in
terminology."
Joe, can you talk about anything other than guns?
Neu Mejican|2.28.08 @ 9:08PM|#
One year of data.
Much ado about nuthin.
Sad to see the vigor on this thread.
|2.28.08 @ 9:34PM|#
"No, because we caused, God I said it,
I God believes it, end of story."
-- Al Gore
There, fixed that for ya.
|2.28.08 @ 9:44PM|#
If that's the case, AGW might be just what we
need.
Jeez, some people just DON'T understand anti-Western leftist angst.
It must be bad because it can be associated with Western
civilization and capitalism. Which is why we exempt India and China
from GHG reductions - it can never be their fault because they
aren't white westerners. Got it now?
|2.28.08 @ 9:48PM|#
joe sez It's some solace, I suppose, that temperatures would
go back down and smooth out our warming if we
disappeared
Really joe, what's the solace in that? And why would the
environment suddenly behave in a way (smoothed out temps) that it
never did before we invented the internal combustion engine? More
like a load of millienarian bullcrap.
|2.28.08 @ 9:58PM|#
joe sez But worldwide, climatologists and biologists DO
express a high degree of certainty that global warming is
happening, and that human CO2 emissions are the cause.
Seriously joe, no scientist runs with this crap half as hard as the
militant left does. Scientists are always skeptical, even about
their own work; political activists are always certain they are
right (and their opponents aren't just wrong, but evil too).
Read the IPCC 4 report
You do of course mean the actual SCIENTIFIC report and not the
POLITICAL summary, right joe?
|2.28.08 @ 10:10PM|#
In the early years of the plant, The earth was a warm and happy
place, most of its CO2 was atmospheric and this proved to be a rich
source of food for photosynthetic life. As this life grew and
evolved over billions of years, it was slowly depositing it's life
giving CO2 deep within the bowels of the plant. This depositing
deep within the Earth,left the planets with less and less of their
food, but they continued to draw it from the atmosphere, slowly
cooling the once warm and tropical planet. The cooling became so
profound that the tropics retreated to the only the lowest of
latitudes, and ice (usually unseen anywhere on the planet) began to
form in vast sheets at the poles. The cycle of cold gradually
became worse and worse; with the vast ice sheets sometimes moving
into the mid-latitudes for tens of thousands of years at a time.
The Earth was in a death spin. The loss of carbon into the ground
was turning Earth into Mars, a cold and bitter wasteland.
As luck would have it, when the Earth was only a few ice age cycles
from being completely frozen over, a new species evolved. One that
dug deep into the earth and fed on the long buried carbon,
releasing it back into the atmosphere. The more the humans fed, the
more the earth returned to normal. This scared some of the humans.
Having evolved and only lived when the Earth was abnormally cold;
they didn't realize that their actions, were not destroying the
planet, but saving it from it's self.
|2.28.08 @ 10:18PM|#
I could have proof-read that a little more before submitting, but shit that good doesn't happen without a few glasses of vino.
|2.28.08 @ 10:19PM|#
nobody has convincingly demonstrated an alternate mechanism
for explaining the recent heating trend.
This should be no surprise, because nobody has ever figured out the
mechanism for all the heating/cooling cycles our planet goes
through.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Until you understand
the baseline, you can't even identify variations from the baseline,
much less explain them.
Global Warming Denialist|2.28.08 @ 10:25PM|#
I hope that global warming is false as much or more than any
of you do. But until there's some good data disproving it, don't
jump all over it.
grylliade,
You are misplacing the "burden of proof".
|2.28.08 @ 11:02PM|#
YOUR LACK OF VERBAL CONTROL IS UNDERSTANDABLE
You are mistaken URKOBOLt....it is not a lack of control...the
"fuck" the "shit" and the "asshole" are written intentionally.
Sam Grove|2.28.08 @ 11:42PM|#
I'm still waiting for the explanation that provides the IPCC
with even that much certainty for the A in AGW.
And what developing nation is willing to stall its economy in a
vast experiment to see if we can impact the climate sufficiently to
affect trends.
The earth is still on the low side of its multi-millennial climate
swings.
What is the current yearly average temperature anyhow?
|2.29.08 @ 2:11AM|#
Ron Bailey said:
"The overall temperature trends in the data since 1998 have
been essentially flat. Naturally, skeptics say that means
catastrophic global warming isn't happening. Climate militants, on
the other hand, retort that 10 years of data are not enough. Which
is why the Hadley Centre prediction that I referenced is so useful
and intriguing."
huh? I took Statistics 101, I know how to compute a trend line. Are
you actually looking at the trends, or are you
playing 'Connect the Dots' in lieu of actual homework?
Here, let's look at the recent Trends in global
mean temperature over the past couple decades in terms of
slope-of-the line in 7 year mean averages:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-7yr.jpg
This is sufficient to smooth out the noise from El Nino and la
nina, as well as volcanic disruptions.
There hasn't been an 'essentially flat' year since '92-'93
(Pinatubo). 2004 almost qualifies, but still has too much slope
IMO. All years from 1994 on have had notably positive global
temperature trend slopes; ie no negative slope years.
As we do not have the temp data for '08 yet, we cannot yet go
beyond '04 using a 7 year average. Maybe we can see this so called
flatness on a 5 year average. My linked source doesn't bother with
such a short time period; but perhaps they should, given how often
5-year mean trend lines are brought out.
|2.29.08 @ 2:32AM|#
"I'm still waiting for the explanation that provides the IPCC
with even that much certainty for the A in AGW."
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/109.htm#341
Estimates of annual global emissions from fossil fuel
burning and cement production by Marland et al. (2000) span the
period from 1751 through to 1997, reaching a maximum in 1997 of 6.6
PgC/yr (0.2 PgC/yr of this was from cement production). The primary
data for these estimates are annual energy statistics compiled by
the United Nations (2000). Emissions for 1998 and 1999 have been
estimated based on energy statistics compiled by British Petroleum
(2000). Emission factors (IPCC, 1997) were applied to consumption
statistics (British Petroleum, 2000) to calculate emissions over
the period 1990 to 1999. Emissions were then scaled to match the
estimates for emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement
production from Marland et al. (2000) over the overlap period from
1990 to 1997. The scaled emission estimates, therefore, implicitly
include emissions from cement production.
we can also see the increase in isotope traces of CO2 isotopes
unique to burning fossil fuels. ie non-isotopic Carbon bonded to
isotopic oxygens. And then there is the blatant land use changes
which release lots of otherwise stored natural CO2, this is
measurable with various sensors too.
|2.29.08 @ 2:42AM|#
Larswrote:
"Anyone else here old enough to remember the global cooling
scare of the 70's?"
funny you should say that...Recent study time:
http://tinyurl.com/2lkooc
"The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists
in the 1970s - frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as
proof that climatologists can't make up their minds - is a myth,
according to a survey of the scientific literature of the
era."
and before I goto bed, this should settle the debate:
http://tinyurl.com/2q9j9y
Neu Mejican|2.29.08 @ 2:44AM|#
Sam-Hec,
You own these threads.
juris...[yawn]
RC Dean...I've said it before and I'll say it again...just because
you don't understand the baseline doesn't mean it isn't
understood.
|2.29.08 @ 2:55AM|#
"Sad to see the vigor on this thread."
You're too kind. It would be nice to actually read an intelligent
debate without having to wade through all the muck thrown out by
the likes of Jamie Kelley and Joshua Corning. Is one a clone of the
other or just slightly different aspects - as in the many faces of
Shiva? Anyway, I wish these Neanderthal children would go find
someone else's cave to sling poo from.
This kind of thread demonstrates a danger of ideology. Sure, it's a
fine thing to lean libertarian (and I definitely tilt that way) but
let's not let our biases interfere with good reasoning, data, and
interesting counter-arguments that come from a direction opposing
our biases.
|2.29.08 @ 10:35AM|#
RC Dean...I've said it before and I'll say it again...just
because you don't understand the baseline doesn't mean it isn't
understood.
So, NM, just what is the theory that identifies and accounts for
the drivers for historical temperature swings?
I did overstate a little previously. You can identify a baseline
without understanding it, but you until you can identify the
variables that drive the baseline, you can't isolate one variable
and say it is driving the current trend.
Speaking of the baseline, how do we explain all the pre-industrial
warming trends that are no less pronounced than the one we are in
now?
|2.29.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Oops, clicked too soon. I should have said:
Until you understand can explain
the baseline, you can't even identify
explain variations from the baseline, much
less explain them.
Neu Mejican|2.29.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Speaking of the baseline, how do we explain all the
pre-industrial warming trends that are no less pronounced than the
one we are in now?
Which specific trend.
Some are well understood and explained, others not so much.
Just because you don't know the explanations doesn't mean they are
not known.
|2.29.08 @ 11:24AM|#
The answer is simple. We should put a carbon tax in place to increase the cost of energy. Food prices will double or triple and the 1 or 2 billion folks living on less than $1 a day will starve to death. Once we get rid of these people we can be assured that carbon output will be reduced considerably and we will see what happens to the Earth's temperature. If we are wrong then so what, it was only 1 or 2 billion peasants and we still have a more beautiful planet. Anyone who disagrees is just not scientific like me and Ron Bailey.
Michael Ejercito|2.29.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Anecdotal evidence is all but useless in determining changes in global temperatures.
Neu Mejican|2.29.08 @ 7:57PM|#
RC Dean,
but you until you can identify the variables that drive the
baseline, you can't isolate one variable and say it is driving the
current trend.
Yes, causal reasoning is a very very difficult nut to crack in
complex systems.
However, when there is a well understood relationship between two
of your variables, and one of them, let's say co2, is clearly
changing away from baseline and the related variable, oh let's say
temperature, is reacting just as predicted by the well understood
relationship (within tolerance due to noise, etc...), it is not a
bad guess to say that the well understood relationship holds in
this situation and to infer that it is the mechanism driving your
outcome (which conforms to what you know about the relationship
between the variables).
It takes more than this to definitively demonstrate a causal link,
but probabilities are in your favor that you are looking at a good
candidate.
Neu Mejican|2.29.08 @ 7:58PM|#
I will point out as well that there is no doubt about the source of the increased c02...it is caused by human activity.
|2.29.08 @ 8:09PM|#
NM sez increased c02...it is caused by human
activity.
So, there's never been other c02 increases linked with the past
upswings of global temp? I'm not being sarcastic - I'm asking.
|3.1.08 @ 4:10AM|#
"So, there's never been other c02 increases linked with the
past upswings of global temp? I'm not being sarcastic - I'm
asking."
Contextually, Neu Mejican is clearly referring to the current
highly anomalous CO2 increase, not previous increase.
Previous non-human-caused increases were more often than not
feedback responses to Milankovich cycles...feedback which preserved
warming periods when the orbital cycles cooled down from their
warming peaks. More rarely still are the non-human caused very
large orbital strikes, super-duper volcanic periods, and sudden
tectonic shifts messing with trapped methane; the current
human-caused increase in CO2 most closely resembles these other
catastrophic events in their suddenness and sheer volume of CO2.
But the isotopes differences measured in the increased CO2 clearly
point to human cause; that and the lack of current large asteroids
impacts, and mega-vulcanism.
|3.1.08 @ 1:44PM|#
But the isotopes differences measured in the increased CO2
clearly point to human cause; that and the lack of current large
asteroids impacts, and mega-vulcanism.
OK, but those really are cataclysmic events, not a source spread
over 50-100 years of accumulation. But let's stipulate the cause -
why then exempt ANYONE (let alone the fastest growing sources) from
reducing CO2? Obviously not because the science says to.
Neu Mejican|3.1.08 @ 1:55PM|#
juris,
Sam-Hec covers it.
I would point out that the mega-vulcanism is actually much closer
to the current event than the impacts...the rise in c02 is spread
out over decades...think of the Siberian Traps 250 million years
ago (iirc).
- why then exempt ANYONE (let alone the fastest growing
sources) from reducing CO2? Obviously not because the science says
to.
I agree that we need to consider emerging economies in any plan to
reduce emissions. But the biggest bang for your effort will be to
reduce emissions in the economies that are the biggest polluters.
This should, of course, be done in parallel with efforts to help
the emerging economies grow in was that are less harmful.
Neu Mejican|3.1.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Siberian Traps: As soon as I posted "decades" I said...Juris
won't get that I mean thousands of decades...
The gigantic lava flow in Siberia lasted upward of a million
years and flooded an area about the size of the lower 48 United
States with layer upon layer of dark basalt lava - thousands of
feet thick....As for exactly how the Siberian eruption could wipe
out most life worldwide, it's probably not simply by burying the
Earth in lava or ash, says Lucas. Instead, it was likely a
complicated series of events, involving dust, volcanic gases and
how they conspired to wreak havoc on the global climate - perhaps
even causing the oceans to become oxygen deprived ("anoxic").
"I still think that right now greenhouse warming and anoxia is the
strongest interpretation" for why most plant and animal species
died across the globe, said Keller.
http://www.armageddononline.org/Casualty-by-Natural/known-super-volcanoes.html
|3.1.08 @ 4:03PM|#
As soon as I posted "decades" I said...Juris won't get that
I mean thousands of decades...
I would've given you a pass on that one, since I had already framed
it in terms of 5 to 10 decades. But you're right, I wouldn't have
assumed you meant thousands of decades since you didn't say
millenia.
Although, again, you are pointing to something that happened in
geologic time scale, which isn't exactly comparable to the current
situation either.
|3.1.08 @ 5:21PM|#
"OK, but those really are cataclysmic events, not a source
spread over 50-100 years of accumulation."
Geologically speaking the past 5-10 decades is on the scale of an
'event'.
"But let's stipulate the cause - why then exempt ANYONE (let
alone the fastest growing sources) from reducing CO2? Obviously not
because the science says to."
I tend to promote my Libertarish approaches.
In the category of CO2:
End subsidies and other Market Protections for fossil fuel
industries. Which just ends up ending corporate welfare
entirely.
Have the government(s) reduce their own objective CO2 emissions
gradually over the next 20 years, and offset the rest..with those
freemarket carbon offsetting services which are already out there.
That should be enough subsidies for renewable energies; it ends
when fossil CO2 emissions end.
Apply an offset purchasing tariff on all imports and incoming
travelers for all which cannot prove to be carbon neutral. This can
be imposed gradually over the next 20 years. No need for
complicated treaties involved. It ends when fossil fuel emissions
end.
These should be enough to provide leadership, innovation, and
actual reductions without ruining anyones economy. No need for
Absurdly Big Government Programs Which Won't Work Anyway.
Government assisted basic science should still be pursued...and not
trampled on as it currently is.
Controlling methane concrete/cement can be put under the umbrella
of CO2 controls.
Soot, Land and water management are trickier matters. I have for
those no well thought ideas of mine as yet.
Neu Mejican|3.1.08 @ 8:35PM|#
juris,
The thing about the Siberian Traps is that you had a million years
of activity, but it was not continuous. Decades/centuries of flows,
decades without flows, more on than off, co2 build up increasing
over time...yadda yadda.
But as Sam-Hec points out, the last two hundred years look like a
spike on geologic time scales.
For approaches to the problem, I like the ideas of Amory Lovin and
company...
They are very similar to Sam-Hec's suggestions, but include more
technological details.
http://www.rmi.org/
|3.1.08 @ 9:38PM|#
But as Sam-Hec points out, the last two hundred years look
like a spike on geologic time scales.
The Siberia Traps appears to be a very different thing from other
volcanic and/or extra-terrestrial events. Those are even less
duration, higher intensity incidents with long term [if not in
geologic time] effects.
One problem I have in general, is that this is an "anomolous" [per
Sam] situation - and the analogous events are very different - thus
making it very difficult to compare the two, both in
theoretical/model terms, and in actuality.
Complexity should lead to humility and skepticism, not
self-assurance and arrogance. [Which are not faults being exhibited
here, but are common in the larger AGW crowd.]
Lastly, since this is a global problem, the solutions should be
global - not exempting major, growing sources of GHG. That smacks
of a political agenda that I alluded to previously. [Again, not
your issue except by association. Kinda like, for a website named
reason...]
|3.1.08 @ 10:21PM|#
Juris,
at this point would you say that your original question of,
"So, there's never been other c02 increases linked with the
past upswings of global temp? I'm not being sarcastic - I'm
asking." has been answered?
|3.1.08 @ 10:52PM|#
p.s.
just to reiterate the two very basic ways in which past
non-anthropogenic CO2 increases linked to temperature upswings
occurred:
As a slow feedback from Milankovich cycles, sustaining the original
warming event forming a warm period. Gradual changes in the
tectonic plates restrict or accentuate these cycles.
And as result of violent [insert favorite violent action] preceding
the warming.
The current clearly anthopogenic CO2 release and consequent warming
is more similar to the latter than the former. There are
differences yes; but they are similar enough. And both should
logically answer your original question. If not please carefully
explain why.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245