The Stats Are In: No Global Cooling
Written by Nancy Atkinson
Global Temperature graph. Credit: National Climatic Data Center, via the Associated Press.
The idea that the world is now cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, talk radio, pundit television and more. After a poll was released last week indicating that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, which is down from 77 percent in 2006, Seth Borenstein from the Associated Press decided to check out what the statistics are really saying about global warming or cooling. In a blind test, Borenstein sent accumulated ground temperature data from the past 130 years to four independent statisticians. He disguised the sources (NASA, NOAA and British meteorological data) and didn't tell the statisticians what the numbers represented; he asked them to just look for trends in the data. The experts found no true temperature declines over time; additionally, the last ten years comprise not only the highest data set in the record, but they also have a continued, positive trend.
It seems recent weather trends have been cool — 2008 was cooler than previous years, especially the really hot years of 1998 and 2005.
Borenstein wanted to know if this was a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs. All four of the statisticians agreed independently the statistics overall clearly show an upward trend of warming. Also included was a data set of satellite temperature data that is often favored by skeptics of global warming. Same story there: global temps are on the rise.
The ups and downs during the last decade, which some skeptics say show a cooling rather than warming, are variations that are repeated randomly in data as far back as 1880.
One statistician said that "cherry-picking" a micro-trend within a bigger trend is not the way to look at data.
This "blind" review of the data isn't the only review that has shown obvious warming. Borenstein said that NOAA recently re-examined its data because of the recent "chatter" about cooling, and no cooling trend was found, and earlier this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years' temperatures against claims of cooling and found them not valid.
For the full story, read Borenstein's article here.
Source: Associated Press
Filed under: Earth
Tags: EarthRelated stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
"only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming"
The same survey found only 43% believe the warming is cause by man.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Nancy, do you see yourself as a propagandist for the Global Warming "crusade" rather than someone interested in presenting evidence or opinion about the issue? I ask that because I can't remember you (or any other author at UT) presenting evidence or opinion that argues against GW.
I often read about the opposing view here, but it is always from commenters who provide excerpts and links to information and opinion that they find in various newspapers and publications. For some reason, you only provide readers with one side of the issue.
Am I wrong about this? Are you interested in providing readers with information…. or propaganda?
October 26th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Mike, "Propagandist?" Really? Nancy presents an article that refutes ridiculous claims that we're now back in a cooling trend that is reversing global warming (something that is statistically trivial to refute, btw) and you throw out the "propagandist" tag?
Seriously, the claims being refuted here are about as sophisticated as looking out the window, seeing snow, and saying "so much for global warming".
Even *if* this does turn into a prolonged cooling trend, it will be at least several more years before anyone can seriously make the claim that's what's happening here.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
There's one vote for Nancy continuing to present only pro GW information.
"Nancy presents an article that refutes ridiculous claims that we're now back in a cooling trend that is reversing global warming (something that is statistically trivial to refute, btw) and you throw out the "propagandist" tag?"
No, Nancy *always* presents only pro-GW info. That is why I use the term propagandist.
Should I call her a "filterer" instead?
October 27th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Nancy takes the side of the scientific consensus. How hard is that to understand? Should she start posting articles about how the Universe might be 6,000 years old now as well, or is that not necessary since you don't happen to believe that one?
(Note, consensus can sometimes be wrong, but it's usually a very good bet.)
October 27th, 2009 at 12:07 am
@ Mike:
There is only one side of "the issue" in science, and that is the science side. Climatologists have come down with the fact that there is an observable AGW. AFAIU that was clear way back in the stone age of 2006 or so.
A science site can only but report scientific facts. Cultural issues, where you can actually have sides so it deserves the epithet "the issue" and where beliefs are kept in the face of facts, are neither here nor there. Such issues through history are astrology, phlogiston theory and, recently, the claim that "there is no AGW".
October 27th, 2009 at 12:09 am
LOL! The "6000 year old universe" is an even better example. "Flat Earth" is another.
_That_ is the status of claiming "no AGW" today.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Interesting. Presenting both sides of a scientific debate is now akin to religious fervor.
"Nancy takes the side of the scientific consensus."
So you say. Regardless, she is welcome to take any side but filtering out information for UT readers is engaging in propaganda, not science.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:13 am
"So you say. Regardless, she is welcome to take any side but filtering out information for UT readers is engaging in propaganda, not science."
Well mate, it may have something to do with the fact it is nigh on impossible to actually find genuine, peer reviewed science that suggests that climate change is not occurring, or suggests a reasonable alternate mechanism with any weight of evidence behind it. If you can find it, by all means, let the world know. Just be sure to keep it all in proportion – like letting people know that for every article you may find refuting some aspect of climate science, there is about 100 articles bringing more evidence to the table.
There is no burden on anybody to present all sides of a debate and everyone's opinion. Multiple points of view in a scientific debate are presented when we are considering theories on the cutting edge, when there is no clear consensus, or when there are many possibilities that each have supporting or contradictory evidence. Then you give them all airplay to thrash it out, much as the climate change debate was in it's infancy.
The fact is though, that a vast majority of scientists accept that climate change is occurring, and that it is being substantially caused by human beings. Now, when something is accepted by 99% of experts in the field, then opposing views will naturally be given only limited airplay, particularly if they offer no compelling reason to take them seriously. Such viewpoints will only be considered in any great depth if proponents of said theory can demonstrate a glaring problem with the consensus theory (that is solved by their own while still being fully consistent with all evidence gathered thus far) or some fantastic new piece of evidence comes to light which changes the whole ball game. And no, those who are working on ATM climate theories have not come close to achieving anything like this.
Why don't we present both sides of the evolution 'debate'? Why not let astrologers have their say on the way the universe works? Why don't we present both sides of the 'debate' on the efficacy of homeopathy, or of the effectiveness of vaccination? Why don't we give equal airplay to those who have psychic powers?
Because there is so little chance that, based on the evidence we currently have at hand, any of these things have much to do with reality. Am I comparing our level of certainty of climate change with the level of scientific certainty that we have with the above mentioned woo? Not at all, but still, the scientific consensus is in. So why shouldn't a scientific website disseminate such knowledge, particularly when it refutes a key point of an argument that has surfaced recently in the anti-CC camp?
If you want coverage of the CC debate to be truly balanced while still presenting articles that support the counter proposition, then UT would be printing hundreds more pro-CC articles to keep the balance found in the literature right.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:17 am
First of all this is in degrees fahrenheit, so since 1980 the mean temp has risen by a massive 0.64 degrees. Hardly anything to worry about, in Celsius terms that's next to nothing.
Further, this doesn't include the cold months of October, November and December which would presumably bring the years average down. This does seem a bit sensationalist to me.
I think the problem for public opinion is that we are talking such tiny shifts in temperature that it to the average person it just doesn't raise much concern. While I'd agree that the planet in warming, I also think that it would have happened if we were here or not – although perhaps at a slightly slower rate.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:37 am
There is no scientific debate.
Just as there's no scientific debate as to whether Big Bang or Steady State describes the Universe.
There's no controversy left to be taught. Only consensus. To present 'both sides' (which?) as equally valid would be dishonest – indeed that would be propaganda.
Good to see a journalist who actually does some genuine investigative work. Far too many journos are only too happy to cater to Mike and his ilk.
October 27th, 2009 at 3:10 am
@idlelimey:
The only year that the data doesn't include "october, november, and december" is 2009, presumably because at the time, they hadn't happened yet.
Second we're looking at global average temperatures here, so I'd presume that the "cold months" of the Southern hemisphere of March, April,and May (as well as the southern-hemisphere's winter-containing months of June, July, Agust, and September) were included in 2009.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:01 am
@ notovny – Good point, I was basing my assumption on the months that haven't happened yet being colder than most previous months (I couldn't see past the green, yet cold, fields of England) and having done some google searches it seems the northern hemisphere averages warmer temperatures than the south over the missing period (Oct – Dec) so it would appear that it wouldn't actually skew the data by anything like as much as I thought initially. Indeed, at best the figure for the whole of 2009 would hold, going by past years it will likely rise ever so slightly.
That said, it would have been better if they didn't release this data until the year had finished and all the numbers were in, as it is there is little point in placing a 2009 figure in after three quarters.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:11 am
With only .000002% of the temperature of the Earth directly measured over it's 4.5 billions years….and much of what we do have being in question, we have too little data. And what is the "right" temperature of the Earth anyway? At one snapshot in time was the Earth the "right" temperature?
The Earth is a constantly evolving system that can be affected by many factors. Can man made influences also be impacting the Earth? I have no doubt it is possible. Is it quantifiable? Clearly not.
Who cares if the planet is warming or cooling? We could return to the stone age tomorrow and if we have a tiny increase in solar activity it will vastly outweigh anything we can do to the planet.
The real issue is that global warming is a political issue, nothing more. Science has nothing to do with it. Any scientific interest is esoteric and in sum amounts to virtually nothing of note.
Computer models are wonderful simulations, like Sim City….programmed and responding to what people think are factors at relevant proportions. Read that to be "guesses".
October 27th, 2009 at 5:43 am
I am certainly not a climatologist. I am not an atmospheric physicist or a planetary geologist and so forth. I do get my AAAS "Science," and there is usually at least one article each weekly issue devoted to this problem, and up to a half dozen or so over a month period. The news is not good. There is clearly a warming trend, and it is very rapid compared to previous climate shifts in the past. I am not going to reproduce all the methods used, from ice cores to satellite data, but the news is really clear: There is a marked and rapid accelerated heating of the atmosphere associated with elevated rise in CO_2. Further, the only possible source for this increased CO_2 is our combustion of carbon and hydrocarbons from fossil fuels.
The real science has come to shift towards the existence of a global warming. Deniers of this, particularly those claim scientific learning or credentials, have generally been funded by or have come from the coal and oil side of economic street, or they are disposed to fairly right winged politics. There is a whole media machine in the United States, mainly the cable news outlets, devoted to dispelling the issue of global warming. The reason for this is simple to see, it is not good for a lot of business. Intelligent people don’t watch cable news.
So there really is no credible science pointing to any global cooling or that global warming is some statistical anomaly. Many people disposed to conservative ideologies don’t like this, just as the religious right does not like biological evolution, and increasingly have umbrage against big bang cosmology, but that does not make the science wrong. We have a problem, and global warming has come to be a planetary wide signature of how we are increasing the entropy of the planetary atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere. If we continue to do this we run increased risks of pushing the planetary system into some radical shift or collapse that we are not able to adjust to or survive in.
Sadly I project a great likelihood that our efforts to address this problem may fall short of the magnitude of the problem. This is in part because the United States is still the leading economic and political influence in the world, and Americans are simply intellectually impoverished compared to the degree of influence their society has. I know, I live here. One piece of evidence for this is I am seeing “Sarah Palin 2012” bumper stickers — Do people really want a person to hold the highest office in the land, when she can’t hold a complete or consistent thought? So sadly Americans may ditch the current administration and put in the next psychopathic GOP administration that will scrap any efforts to manage global warming.
Lawrence B. Crowell
October 27th, 2009 at 6:01 am
"There's no controversy left to be taught. Only consensus."
Heh. The Scientific Method in the Age of Obama.
"Now, when something is accepted by 99% of experts in the field…"
Laugh out loud. All that typing and you ruined it with a patently dishonest claim. Pure laziness. Worse than the "we might as well depend on the Bible for our science if we are going to waste time with dissenting studies" zealot.
October 27th, 2009 at 6:13 am
Yes, global warming is a political issue, and science has everything to do with it.
It's a political issue because hundreds of millions of peoples livelihoods, homes, even lives are at stake.
Do we have to wait to be _absolutely certain_ that CC is for real and man made, to take action? Then let's wait forever, because as we all know nothing in science is ever absolutely certain.
What science and scientists show us here is that CC is _very probably_ for real and man made, that climate is complex and unstable, that reaching a tipping point (global ocean current stop, clathrate dissociation, you name it) is very much a possibility, that in the recent past there is a clear correlation btw CO2 / temp / ocean current, and a few other things. None of them is certain nor will they ever be.
It's now up to us to decide if we act upon what we think we reasonably know, or just wait and see, that's the political part of it. If we decide to just wait and see, which unfortunately is a likely issue, it will be too late to act when we do see. Which is the safer bet?
October 27th, 2009 at 6:54 am
I don't believe in global warming for a minute. It's way too politicized and if you follow the money, it always leads to more taxes, more fines, more fees, less rights, radical lifestyle changes, and dire predictions. Not one of the end of the world scenarios I was warned about when growing up have come to pass. Not one. No mass extinctions, no food running out, no cities underwater, no scorching deserts or runaway glaciers over the country.
And the best part is that none – NONE of the people – including YOU all here who preach this stuff have changed your lifestyles in what would be called a radical way. Many of you use more resources than ever! Jets, boats, cars, houses, heating, air conditioning, vacations, multiple children, plastic bags – don't tell me you and your environmentalist leaders aren't heavily invested in these things – but the rest of us are told we shouldn't be!
Oh, sure, a handful of you got a Prius to make yourselves feel better, or you use those worthless curly-Q lightbulbs (that DON'T last longer, are weaker than the old lightbulbs, and contain MERCURY).
You're perfectly willing to write off multiple rocket launches as necessary – no matter how much more pollution they could spew – than even ten thousand cars. And that's just the launch! Nevermind all the energy and fuel used to get the rocket conceived, designed, and built. Many times, they just blow up – environmental disaster, anyone?
Space Program? In a real environmentalist-wacko run world, the space program would be one of the first things to go. No one can justify multiple launches of climate studying satellites to tell us – what? That we're still here arguing this nonsense today? When those launches could have been used to send spacecraft to other planets for real science.
And finally, anyone notice how cold it's been lately?
October 27th, 2009 at 7:14 am
@ UncleDan – Satellites that study the climate don't just help us understand global warming, that's a by-product of learning as much as we can about the climate as a whole. that's real science! I'm not in agreement with man-made climate change but I'd rather climate studying satellites up there for overall advancement in our knowledge. It's what people do with that knowledge that will divide opinion.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:51 am
This is not the way to address the issue. You cannot artificially force an economy to change by making people poor. High gas prices are what lead to the recession to begin with – people couldn't afford to pay their mortgages, which led to the Wall Street crisis.
The administration is out of touch when it comes to real solutions.
LOWER costs for alternative energy sources, including solar panels, solar water heaters, wind-powered generators, geo-exchange HVAC, etc is the way to go. Right now, these items are too expensive for most households. The current administrations seems to have lost touch with this idea.
By helping people attain these items, there will be a natural decrease in power demand. People will be able to rely on themselves for power instead of electric companies (which is probably the reason this hasn't happened).
We also need to STOP ALL deforestation, in the tropics and in our own country. When there are fewer trees to absorb CO2, then there is more CO2 in the air, regardless to human output. We need to replenish the forests around the world as quickly as possible, and encourage the use of alternative building materials. We also need to use more eco-friendly resources for paper, such as hemp.
Even if human CO2 outup is not having a major effect, these measures would help offset our activities even more.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Mike Jackson Says: Heh. The Scientific Method in the Age of Obama
Well you do realize that after a certain point a hypothesis enters the theoretical stage. After a sufficient amount of supporting data for that theory it becomes tentatively true at least within some domain of observation. We don't teach F = ma to high school students and college freshmen with the idea there are viable alternatives to classical mechanics. The physics is taught in that domain of reality in a rather demonstration fashion, where "experiments" done in a lab are really more repeated demonstrations.
This is the intellectual state that global warming is entering. Of course it is nowhere near the solid status one has with Newtonian mechanics, or even biological evolution. However, the alternatives to global warming are falling to the wayside. In cosmology (my area) the basic big bang concept has been established well enough and supported by observations to effectively rule out alternatives, such as steady state theory. In a similar way global warming is pushing its way forward as a credible scientific theory.
Yet, as we see in the news there are those who want alternatives to Darwinian theory (solidly established in its basic form) as well as cosmology. Global warming does not impact the theology of a deity, but it does impact the theology of the dollar. So there is a lot of investment in creating noise and confusion on the matter. This is not too different from the tobacco industry's "Tobacco Institute," meant to make counter claims against cancer links and to generate noise and a smoke screen to protect profits from the industry. We have been seeing similar trends, with the Heartland Institute and others.
So we really should not "teach the controversy," as the creationists want, because there really is no scientific controversy — or at least with global warming the controversy is damping away. The anti-global warming movement is on the losing end of the scientific debate, and instead of shedding light on the matter, these people can only make unwanted heat.
Lawrence B. Crowell
October 27th, 2009 at 8:45 am
What are the testable predictions made by the AGW theory, and how long do we have to wait before these predictions come to frutition?
October 27th, 2009 at 9:24 am
See, here we go again – this site, which is generally excellent, has been hijacked by global warming alarmists/environmentalist wackos. Now, all the good astronomy and science gets kicked to the curb because those who insist on using this site to push a politically-charged topic can't seem to understand that a large number of us are sick of hearing about climate change and don't believe in the so-called science behind it. Can we get back to the astronomy now?
October 27th, 2009 at 9:29 am
At those who think that GW is not an issue:
Shall we take the risk of destroying the planet as it is? Shall we wait until there is no point of return, just to be sure? Couldn't it be better just to say that there could be a possibility of GW and it is not worth the risk?
Even if there is no AGW, cutting pollution is still a thing one should consider. We are poisoning the rivers and the seas, the air, everything. GW is just a by-product of all the posion we dump into the earth and what belongs to the planet.
Human beings are strange animals, because they are the (most likely) first creatures that can destroy their entire home – and if it's just by nuking ourselves. Weird.
So: Take the risk?
October 27th, 2009 at 9:35 am
uncledan Says:
"Can we get back to the astronomy now? "
I second that.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:46 am
A significant number of the usual commenters are making the usual comments (long-winded and all) — but this time, as much as they might like to think there is consensus, the reality is different.
As for this report:
Mark Twain said long ago:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
There are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW, if you think I'm lying, you aren't looking very hard.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Don't worry about Global Warming weatherwise… by the time it really 'kicks in' we will be distracted by more pressing issues… like the disappearance of all the plankton in the world's oceans and the subsequent collapse of the base of the food chain… AND that means shutting down the major source of oxygen production on this planet.
Why will this happen? Acidification of the oceans due to too much CO2 in the atmosphere being absorbed by the sea(s)… is why.
There is no room or time for argument. The time to act is NOW!
October 27th, 2009 at 10:01 am
The good Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet.
Lord Stern stated: "“Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Are you guys down with that?
Think I'm kidding? See for yourself:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece#
Say's me Lord: Give up meat…
This is where this AGW train of thought leads.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:07 am
'Better late than never?' or is that 'Better never late?'
You decide… because after all is said and done, it IS your fate!
October 27th, 2009 at 10:08 am
@ Aqua:
You're house is on fire assertion and arrogant, "no time for argument", cliche is not born out by the scientific evidence.
But it is a classic case of hysterics run amok.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Bait? You offer me bait?
Tell you what fool.. there are NO FISH LEFT IN THE SEA… YOU GO FISH and find out for yourself…
Then go give a listen to Dr. Silvia Earle andl be reborn in your opines?
October 27th, 2009 at 10:23 am
@ Aqua;
You are babbling and foaming at the mouth…
But hey, keep on doing what you are doing…
It's the best poster child against AGW — folks like you…
October 27th, 2009 at 10:27 am
@idlelimey
1 F difference = 0,5555556 C difference
That's significant. Half Celsius over 30 years, that's 1.851852 per 100 years.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:27 am
http://deepdeep.org/
October 27th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Anaconda… Your reputation proceeds you.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:42 am
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/sylvia_earle_s_ted_prize_wish_to_protect_our_oceans.html
October 27th, 2009 at 11:08 am
@UncleDan…can't seem to understand that a large number of us are sick of hearing about climate change and don't believe in the so-called science behind it.,
LOL, UD. You come on here–the first post on GW for weeks, if not months–and vomit up the most paranoid politically-charged comments about conspiracy theories and environmentalist "whackos," and then have the nerve to claim that you're sick of reading about this??!!!
Perhaps you've never realized, but there is a very easy trick to avoid reading the stuff that upsets you so. See the narrow vertical area to the right of the web page? The one with the arrow at the top and the bottom? Did you know that you can click the mouse on the down arrow and, hey presto!, it will scroll you right past the offending article. You may even avert your eyes when doing so, too. It's like magic!!
Also, if your eyes are inadvertently drawn to the article despite yourself, the important thing to remember is that the link "Click to continue" is optional, not a command you must obey.
I'm only telling you this out of concern for your blood pressure, of course.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:08 am
ZomZom Says: What are the testable predictions made by the AGW theory, and how long do we have to wait before these predictions come to frutition?
Answer to how long: About the same time when we get the Soylent Green factories up and running.
As I hear it people object to this becoming political. The problem is this does not involve the collision of galaxies or black holes producing gravity waves, where in those cases we are not directly involved. In this case we are directly involved, we are the drivers of the change. It is a classic case of a species of life influencing their environment, and we are that species. So the issue involves our behavior and activities, which brings politics and economics into the mix if we are going to change what we are doing. We can of course elect not to change our activities, but we will run ever greater risks of adjusting the planetary biosphere into a different form that we are less able to live in. This might be particularly the case if the change in the biosphere makes agriculture far more difficult.
There are predicable tests of global warming, such as glacier melt, decreased icecap cover, ocean acidification (CO_2 absorbed in water to form carbonic acid), and the basic observation of increased CO_2 correlated with averaged increases in temperature. All of these are observed. The Earth cycles through 15 years of warmer and 15 years of cooler temperatures. We are in a cooler period, so the effects of global warming have been less dramatic in terms of temperatures. The polar regions have experienced increased heating however, and 50 deg temperature at Point Barrow have been observed in the last few weeks.
We will of course not kill the Earth. What ever transpires with respect to global warming, life on this planet will be running along just fine 25 million years from now. Even if we induce a mass extinction the biosphere will rebound, just as it has in the past. Yet we might also say that it does not matter that what we do now will not matter 10 million years from now. We need to take stock in general that we are in a period of the Earth that should be called the Anthrocene, which followed from the Pleistocene. We are the major large scale life form which is adjusting conditions of the planetary biosphere. We are a curious mix of being somewhat intelligent, or at least clever, but we also might be thought of as 6.8 billion ground apes on an exponential rampage. How this works itself out in the next century or so should prove to be interesting.
Lawrence B. Crowell
October 27th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
While there's an upwards warming trend in the past 100 years, without knowing what the trend was in the last 1000 years, is it really known that human activity is the main/only cause of this warming?
Weren't temperature changes, global warming and global cooling, also present throughout the life-time of the Earth (the billion-year version, not the 6000 year version)? Something caused the Ice Ages, and something caused the re-heating.
Do we even know what the 'average' temperature of the Earth really should be?
(P.S. I don't think this article was propagandist in anyway, simply because it doesn't try to talk about the cause of the warming, only that the warming exists)
October 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
We also seriously need to cut down on light pollution, which I think everyone can agree is bad for astronomy.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
But surely cutting light pollution is just another commie plot to allow the government to take over our lives turn us into slaves of the state??? Those astronomist whackos!! Everyone knows that the real answer is to build bigger telescopes — let the free market decide!!!!!!!!
October 27th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
http://www.goveg.com/veganism_environment.asp
October 27th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
why do i take backup of my files every day, even though for the past year my hard drive keeps working? the trend says the hard drive will work tomorrow. but i prefer to take precaution just in case. if we don't take precaution and GW is really happening, what are the consequences and can we reverse GW, and how soon?
October 27th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
The most offensive thing in the whole global warming debate (man made anyway) is the abuse of science.
Arguments like "99% of scientists….", "We must act now before it is too late!", "mankind is responsible", etc. are not scientific arguments. they are emotional arguments wrapped in some scientific data. The whole man made global warming is laughingly close to Intelligent Design. An abuse of science.
There's not one solid piece of scientific proof that any global warming that may be happening is caused by mankind — yet alarmists want the world to revert to the stone age. We can't predict the weather with any reliability a week out (heck, a day or two in most cases), yet we KNOW what will happen in a hundred years. As if the single most important factor controlling the global temperatures — the sun — wasn't in the equation at all. Volcanic eruptions….ocean currents….countless trends and historical patterns not yet understood….they're all factors….but we know what will happen….laughable!
Frankly a warmer planet would likely overall be better for mankind.
Man Made Global Warming has more to do with Intelligent Design than with science.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
@kcuhC
How can you call empirical evidence that the planet is warming as alarmist. How can you say there is no evidence. Have you been looking at any of the climate figures? The planet is warming at an unprecidented rate, so it slows for a few years, that means nothing in the big picture…you think that CO2 consumption is just a coicidence, then explain how the two increasing graphs are nearly parellell! Explain how they began at the same time, at the industrial revolution! Its common sense, the sun is left out of the equation because its changes were shown to be nonexistant, another reason its our fault!. And as for the "warming is better for mankind" You clearly care very little for everybody that will suffer from droughts, floods, hurricane's, famines and typhoons or whatever the hell else the warming would cause.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Ice cores in Greenland tell a lot about climate in the past. I am not an expert on this by any stretch, but the climate history of the planet is knows back thousands of years pretty well from ice cores. For times beyond that fossilized pollen is used, where its size and distribution amongst species tells something about climate. It is known from this what the climate was during times in the Cretaceous. You will have to check out paleoclimatology if you want more information. I know about the existence of these subjects and a few results from them.
It is known that the current warming of the climate is happening on a very short time scale. The suddenness of this is not precedent in the climate's history.
No a warmer climate will not be good for us. It means that species and ecosystems living at certain latitudes are no longer suited for the climate there and must "relocate" up to several hundred miles north. This will result in extinctions. The Florida Everglades are not going to move enmass 100 miles north to the shores of South Carolina by 2060. It will also mean huge disruptions in growing seasons. It will mean tropical diseases will become common in more northern latitudes, where freezinbg no longer takes place. Malaria may become a problem in Georgia or E. Texas.
It will also cause the release of enclathrated methane from hydrates and the loss of permafrost. This will result in a runaway global warming, which is what the so called tipping point is about. Once that happens, estimated to occur with about the added 1-deg C, the resulting heat trapping gasses released will increase global warming by up to 10deg-C. This is the point where we may end up with really serious trouble.
By the end of this century we could well be into that stage of this problem. We might be doomed by then, or we will be forced to engage in extreme measures. Such measures could include putting light scattering systems at the L-1 Lagrange point to reduce solar irradiance. We may be forced into planetary engineering schemes to hold the problem at bay.
Lawrence B. Crowell
October 27th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
uncledan, you've given yourself away. "environmentalist wackos?" How about the feminazis that are posting here that you obviously disagree with? I hope you don't have any children or grandchildren, because when all life in the oceans cease to exist, they'll soon follow. Please, you have the unmitigated gall to whine about making this argument political, all the while spewing Rush dittoisms. At least make an original argument.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
@uncledan:
As an addendum, I've been using what you call those "useless curly Q things" (They're called CFL's, BTW) for years, and they last in excess of 8 years. They may be a bit less bright, but if you're intelligent enough, you just choose the proper wattage equivalent. Oh, they also reduce energy consumption dramatically, but of course that is of little consequence to you in the "I got mine" set.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Here's another angle. The world warms and then we can grow more crops in more latitudes solving world hunger
.
Seriously though I don't get this. If the antarctic is 35 below and in 100 years it becomes 33 below…whats the big deal?
That aside, I think people seriously underestimate the capacity for animals to change and adapt.
Also, people saying stupid comments like "plankton will be extinct"..its the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Plankton have been around for eons and lived through far more diverse climate changes than we are seeing today. Plankton inhabit the pelagic zone which exists regardless of latitude (i.e. temperature).
October 27th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
LOL
Global Warming denialists supported by Electrical Universe propagandists. How appropriate!
October 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
MitchyMitch.. did you listen to Dr. Earle as I suggested? Do you even know who she is? Google her an take a sample…
October 27th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Mitchy Mitch, World hunger would not be solved; for every acre of land that became fertile, many more would likely be lost to desertification, droughts and flooding. And animals can't adapt this quickly…evolution requires thousands to millions of years (we've been the same for hundreds of thousands of years), migration isn't an option as there will be no where to go, only the parasites and mesquitos will thrive, a great extinction event is already happening and things will only get worse unless we do something, now!
Mr. Man
October 27th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Mr. Man Dr. Earle is talking mainly about over fishing. 90% of the large fish disappearing is from over fishing not global warming.
Countries like Japan and China refuse to adhere to catch limits.
October 27th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
The melting of glaciers and the reduction of sea ice should concern us all. Sea level as part of climate change, an historic fact. What we should be concerned with is how FAST those changes may occur. One element that is often overlooked is the release of methane from the now defrosted tundra/permafrost of the far north.Hundreds of gigatons of once sequestered methane gas is being released as the ice melts. Methane as a greenhouse gas is 20 times stronger than CO2! Rising sea levels may take decades or less, not centuries or milenia…. Film @11!
October 27th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
MitchyMitch… obviously you didn't catch that part about how the ocean is a carbon sink and has its limits…. The ph factor of the sea has actually CHANGED due to pollution. Micro organisms that make up the base of the food chain are disrupted by this chemical change to their habitat. Plankton eat micro organisms….
October 27th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
I would like some evidence of "mass extinctions" caused by global warming.
People always look for a scape goat. They want one word that can fix all their problems.
Strong empirical evidence drives me to believe that global temperature increases is no where near our main problem. In fact it is dwarfed by other human problems like over fishing, over hunting, and non-organic farming practices. For example, most of the deterioration to coral reefs is believed to be due to non-sustainable farming practices. The phosphates and nitrates are deadly to coral.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Global warming is one factor in an array of environmental issues. There are others of course, and a growing measured issues is the occurrence of blooms H_2S producing bacteria around shorelines. Global warming is however a planet wide issue and one which could have completely devistating consquences.
LC
October 27th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Well, seems like I hit a nerve.
One here says that because I may be a Rush Limbaugh listener, that I am to be ignored.
Another, in true Global Warming Hysteria fashion, tells me to go away and never to argue with their articles. Others tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about. One tells me I don't know how to find the correct lightbulb – completely missing the point of my argument.
How Universe Today has been hijacked! Is this what the site founders intended?
Fine then, astronomy be damned! Let's get into it over this stupid Leftist power grab otherwise known as Global Warming/Climate Change, whatever you guys call it from month to month.
OK Environmentalist Wackos – tell everyone here all the things YOU are doing to save the planet. No lies now. I want to see YOUR work and YOUR sacrifices. It's one thing to talk, it's entirely another to walk the walk.
While you're at it, let's see if you can show us all the cities underwater from flooding. The legions of extinct animals, the collapsing economies, the rapidly rising temperatures, the endless hurricane seasons, etc. All the stuff YOU, not ME predicted was to happen by now.
Don't like the fact that I stand up to you arrogant climate change punks? Too bad. Someone around here needs to do it. There's a new generation of us coming up in the science world and we're sick of your nonsense.
Go get your proof. And don't forget to tell us all the sacrifices YOU'RE making.
We're waiting.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
OK Environmentalist Wackos – tell everyone here all the things YOU are doing to save the planet. No lies now. I want to see YOUR work and YOUR sacrifices. It's one thing to talk, it's entirely another to walk the walk.
Typical ditto-head retort. If you reply that you're not living in a cave, then they accuse you of not being serious about your convictions, and if you reply that you *are* living in a cave, they mock you for being completely unrealistic about what you're expecting everyone to do. It's heads they win, tales they lose.
You have no interest in a dialog — another trait you share with Limbaugh (notice he never comes out from behind his microphone to debate anyone).
October 27th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Well I used to love to come to this site but I guess now I'll have to go elsewhere and just surf around for Astronomy tidbits. I applaud the work of the site owners to bring all the tidbits together however this isn't the only time I've seen a political or geopolitical or monitary charged article on the site. If I want politics, money grabs, or even religious stuff I'll go look elsewhere for that. I really came to UNIVERSE TODAY because of the Outerspace and not the innerspace, or geopolitcal landscape.
Dont bother to reply to this post I wont be back.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Really, UT posts umpteen astronomy and science related articles a day and you take umbrage on the first GW-related post in weeks (and not even that controversial either!). Seriously, your faux outrage is duly noted, and ignored.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
tacitus, you seem to be the leader on your side in this debate. But you haven't refuted one argument I've made.
I can see why chameleon left – for the same reason I probably will. This is ridiculous. You come here for some science and once again you have to slug it out with the latest global warming propagandists.
Well, let's try again.
What cities were submerged by rising oceans? We were told there would be cities flooding by now.
Why is this year on record as tied for being the most calm in relation to hurricanes? We were told the opposite would happen.
Where are the scorching temperatures? There has been a rash of record lows this year.
Why does no one mention the rapidly increasing ice at the South Pole?
Why does no one mention the tremendous number of scientists who are now disagreeing with global warming and climate change? (Are they dittoheads too, tacitus? )
Why doesn't anyone ask the people who are the loudest in the pro-global warming/climate change crowd why they live like gods (multiple boats, cars, planes, trips, yachts, homes, lots of kids, jetsetting, parties, banquets, etc. etc.) while telling the rest of us to do without?
Why does no one mention the correlation between sunspots and temperature?
Why does no one question the solutions for this so-called crisis – like carbon credits. Carbon credits? Huh? I purchase credits that let me pollute more so that some unnamed organization in some unnamed place does something with the money that is going to be traded in a commodities market with people like Al Gore getting a cut… Huh? No one here thinks this whole thing REEKS of a scam?
This all started because of the post entitled 'The Stats are In…' Boy, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard THAT line used.
Again, I want to hear your solutions – solutions that YOU are implementing NOW.
And if I'm this much of a problem for daring to speak to my betters, then go tell the owners to ban me.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
wow.
in spite of the flying spittle (above post for example), this comment section has become a very interesting read. assuming you are "typical" people, there clearly is nothing close to a consensus regarding this issue.
for the request to "return to astronomy":
global warming is happening. the surface of the earth and atmosphere will continue to slowly heat as the sun ages. one day it'll get mighty warm around here.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:52 am
WOW what a massive comment column.
I am under pressure to write up an article I have in note form. It describes the whole scenario that leads us to the climate change situation we find ourselves in.
It will take a while an no doubt the keyboard will contribute to CC.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:11 am
uncledan Says
There are those, like Lawrence B. Crowell who explains the side of the story of global warming in a logical manner and in a way without trying to tell people to change their style which I fully agree with, then, there are people like tacutis who yells and foams with his beliefs, these types of so-called environmentalist I can do withou-t-phonies who have petroleum guzzling SUV, lives in 'McMansions' and believes his waste don't stink-'as long as they got theirs, the hell with others'. This person I now talk about, Ted Kazenski or the 'unibomer; although he is a maniac, practiced what he preached-living low on the hog with a modest home and lifestyle before he got caught . I was born and am a cycnic, and don't listen to any of this BS about this 'end of days' and BS that unless I hear the persons who preaches things like 'global warming' and such practice what they preach!!!!!!!!! Perhaps then I will listen!!!!
I don't doubt the Earth has warmed up since the end of the 'little ice age' , but we better remember also the Sun, and humans should
remember if the North Atlantic Drift stops , slowing and stopping the 'Global Coveyor Belt' and is the cause for Europe to be much warmer than should be normal due to Europes' high latitude, what will humans do if an ice age begins probably caused by one of the possibilities which is Global Warming!???? The Earth will do what it will do.!!!!
October 28th, 2009 at 2:43 am
@ HeadAroundU
It's not even 1 degree fahrenheit though, it's 0.64 that means the magic 2 degrees Celsius will take at least 200 years. Loads of time, what are we all so worried about?!? [remove tongue from cheek]
October 28th, 2009 at 3:05 am
"arrogant climate change punks"
Time for some mod action on this thread I'd say.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:31 am
Remember the good old days when the Earth was one consistent temperature….4.5 billion years of an exact balance of temperature that never had wild flux (like .6 degrees)? Those were the days of milk and honey. Then evil man started creating factories — daring to feed and cloth themselves… especially the evil United States! Now we have wild swings in temperature, the atmosphere will explode into flames, oceans will rise…..boil away….land on the moon and flood it too! The tidal forces will cause it to come crashing down on us! The facts are in, I have written a computer model, and it's going to happen, likely by next Thursday, +/- 40,000 years. But there is nothing we can do to stop it. We might slow it if we dismantle the US and world economy — well, fortunately Obama is working on that. Gotta sign off….I'm trying to grow some gills in a petri dish.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:43 am
Pvt.Pantzov Says:
the surface of the earth and atmosphere will continue to slowly heat as the sun ages. one day it'll get mighty warm around here.
Yeah in about 1,000,000,000 years.
By then the bacteria living in your armpits will probably have evolved into multi celled lifeforms.
So we do have lots of time to get on with the astronomy.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:31 am
I believe in the scientific method, but I must admit that AGW stretches my faith in accepting the scientific consensus. I am open to testable predictions (as my question above) but AGW seems to be an unfalsifiable hypothesis akin to string theory.
Add to that the politicization that has taken place (I've heard Phil Plait describe AGW as being caused by the "SUV-driving Christians who deny it's happening") and I see what may be a kernel of truth being distorted by other agendas.
For the record I do not drive an SUV and I am not a Christian.
Lastly, while there is a valid argument to be made that the prudent path is to take preventative measures just in case AGW turns out to be true, the cost of these measures must be considered and weighed as well. It would be wonderful if we could stop dumping pollutants into the enironment, but we derive benefits from the production that leads to these pollutants, benefits that are essential to freeing us from the primitive existence from which we originated.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:12 am
The statistics are probably correct for the data provided. I am not here to dispute the validity of the statistics or the interpretation of such. Any “good” statistician would tell you that the outcome would vary depending on the data used. If you use data with a starting point between 1600AD and 1900AD you will obtain a positive (warming) slope from the data. If you start around 1100AD to 1300AD, the 1950’s or 1998 as a starting point your result will be a negative slope (cooling). Remember in the 50’s when they thought we were entering another ice age? My point being that statistics, these included, are subjective. I would also like to point out that our climate does not follow linear trends. It is “DECEPTIVE” to say that these statistics PROVE anything.
Now, using the scientific method which requires repeatable results to give irrevocable proof of a hypothesis, can you say this information has any scientific merit? Is the methodology fallible? Draw your own conclusions but I would like to point out that this questionable information is conveniently surfacing in the media at a time when polls say people are losing faith in Global Warming. Also, these statistics suggest warming but cannot differentiate between what is natural and what is Anthropogenic but I am sure will be used to suggest that we are all killing the planet with CO2.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:13 am
It's funny to see GW-deniers accusing me of foaming at the mouth. Let's review and see who's doing the foaming.
Nancy posts one news story on this site related to global warming — the first one she's posted on the subject in weeks, if not months. I certainly can't remember the last one, and I read almost all of them.
The topic isn't even that controversial — it simply refutes the denier's claims that there is a statistically significant cooling trend. That's absolutely correct — it's far too soon to make that claim based on the evidence so far, even if it turns out to be true.
And what does Nancy get for her troubles? She's immediately accused of being a propagandist for GW (based on no evidence whatsoever) and another says he's quitting the site because he's fed up of the constant politics and religion on the site — er? based on what??
And if you look through the rest of the comments, there is only one side doing the foaming. Yeah, my comments are heavy on the sarcasm and disdain, but given the knee-jerk reaction from the deniers to a single article about GW on a site that posts hundreds of astronomy articles a month, I believe it is well deserved.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:03 am
For those of you who haven't heard… Here's a Google search for 'Dead Zones'.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=dead+zones+in+the+ocean&aq=0&aqi=g10&oq=Dead+zones&fp=8ec9ea851cee2c5b
I am PARTICULARLY concerned with the West Coast of the US… I am a recreational shore fisherman, I've fished for more than 40 years. There USED to be fish. Today? There aren't any…. Deep trawlers strip mining the bottom and Long Liners taking out the middle and top.. They've just about got them all! When WHAM! Pollution from overpopulation finishes the deed?
October 28th, 2009 at 11:06 am
It is amazing how this topic has generated an avalanche of posts. This is a hot topic, and it is one which gets people's dander up. Glen Beck of course thinks he has single handedly shown how the majority of the scientific community devoted to this are wrong. Yeah right?! BTW, there are deniers, and some are meteorologists and climatologists, but they are frankly losing the scientific debate. Over the last few years they have been pretty clearly demonstrated to be wrong. Though that does not deter them from speaking out.
This does involve politics (note the number of posts to see evidence of that), and it means we will have to change things. Conservatives rarely like change of this sort, for it means an economic adjustment. Many conservatives don't like to change how they think as well — and that is where it gets strange. So of late we have had tea bag parties and some right winged vitriole against healthcare reform, global warming, and immigrants.
We are in a time where we will find out whether science and reason will guide policy and public opinion, or whether overweight yelling windbags on radio/TV media will fill that role.
LC
October 28th, 2009 at 11:08 am
It just goes to show that most people don't even look at the ground, let alone the sky….
Lets get back to astronomy…
But first, this thought: "Remove Thy sandals, for thou art standing on Holy ground."
October 28th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
"And what does Nancy get for her troubles? She's immediately accused of being a propagandist for GW (based on no evidence whatsoever) "
Tacitus lies. I clearly stated my reason for asking the question. In fact, the usual suspects immediately verified my reason by stating that Nancy shouldn't post any dissenting news or opinion because " the debate is over". Great scientific method, boys. But still Acticus claims " no evidence whatsover". No shame.
"…there is only one side doing the foaming. Yeah, my comments are heavy on the sarcasm and disdain…. I believe it is well deserved."
Laugh out loud. Again, no shame. "Yeah, I foam at the mouth, but only the other guy is a mouth foamer."
And LC is the biggest hypocrite of all. He can't talk about an issue without adding in his juvenile assertions that "the other" is ignorant and simple minded. He even goes after Sarah Palin in this comment thread as a dimwit when his idea of a genius can't even keep track of how many states there are in the Union (it's 50, Obama). Our Idiot-in-Chief even admitted that he dragged his children to a racist church for years and only picked up on the pastor's hatemongering after twenty years of admiring him.
And let's not forget that Mr. Crowell votes Democrat, the Party of Slavery and Jim Crow. The party of Margaret Sanger, the famous founder of Planned Parenthood who warned white Democrats about the danger of "defective races" overwhelming all her white friends.
Good company for some, not for Republicans who fought against the Democratic racists.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
This post by Mike Jackson should probably be removed. I think we got a good example of foaming at the mouth here. Either that or this whole thread should be closed for further comment.
In the end either we do something about our energy/entropy situation on this planet or we don't. Biological evolution in the end cares little if we collapse into extinction because of our exuberant consumption of the planet's resources and end up drowning in our wastes. It is a maxim that any species of life influences its environment, which adjusts accordingly to attenuate any overgrowth of that species. The same applies for Homo sapiens. It should take little to see that our massive mining and dumping (including putting CO_2 in the air) activities must have some impact, and in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics this is increasing entropy of the planetary biosphere. Once entropy reaches a maximum point that is equilibrium, and in biology equilibrium is the same as death.
If people fail to see this, or refuse to acknowledge at least the plausibility of this, then yes I will say they are either ignorant or stupid. For S = entropy it is a simple fact that dS/dt >= 0, and anyone who denies this is living in an intellectual dark age.
As for politics, which is to my mind a form of secularized religion, in the end our choice amounts to sanity or insanity. It matters little right now whether Democrats were the party of Jim Crow Dixiecrats, who the GOP snatched up in Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” BTW, 50 years ago. What matters is that we get people who have some shred of sanity and realism and who pilot this troubled ship in some way which conforms to reason — at least some bit of reason. As I see it the Republicans are the Party of lunatocracy, and we got eight years of this just recently — along with two wars. I will make no bones about this, Bush was a delusional madman and Cheney a psychopath, along with a cadre of madmen and thugs like Rumsfeld and Rove. At least if nothing else that is over. Hey and besides, Steven Chu is Secretary of Energy, a Nobelist in physics and someone who can work to put things on some basis of reality. If we throw Obama out and put Palin in, and this seems to be what GOP’ers are working towards, then we will be back to lunatocracy. It is appalling that bellicose demagogues like Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Dobbs are becoming the ideological voice of this nation. If this is where we are going then maybe it is best to spend one’s days questing for the bottom of whiskey bottles.:-)
Sorry for the politics, it really is not appropriate here, but this topic seems to bring it on. I suppose this strikes a raw nerve in the same way that Anaconda gets Crumb on his high horse. For the most part the science is in. The avenue of escape where the QGW-deniers will win the day is very narrow and closing up fast. Them’s just the way it is. Denialism is then becoming a program of disinformation and lies.
Lawrence B. Crowell
October 28th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
"This post by Mike Jackson should probably be removed."
But not your dozens and dozens of political remarks, your snarky comments about people of religious faith, your sexist comments about Sarah Palin, your sarcastic remarks about conservative IQ and cognitive abilities. And on and on.
What a hypocrite.
By the way, what poltical party to this day honors the "former" West Virginia Grand Kleagle of the KKK, Robert Byrd, as their CURRENT senior U.S. Senator?
No surprise. It's the Democratic Party.
.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Both the Dems and the Reps have their dirty laundry. Yet one party is working to do their wash, while the other is piling up more dirty laundry. Beside Byrd did modify his views. It might be wrong to be wrong, but it is worse to stay that way.
As for Palin, my views have nothing to do with gender. She can't hold a complete thought, let alone the highest office in the land.
LC
October 28th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Mike Jackson,
you are but one of the many, many science-denying crazies, feverishly poping out aggressive comments. Your attacks at LC and Tacitus are mean and rabid and your anger at Nancy's article is baseless! I don't aggree with LC on everything…but I don't throw a goddamned tantrum, that just shows your either insecure, angry or an exec at exxon mobile. And Nancy's 'propaganda' is simply the scientific truth, if you don't like it…read another article (hardly any are about GW) or do us all a favor and leave the site for good like the other guy.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
"you are but one of the many, many science-denying crazies"
"Your attacks at LC and Tacitus are mean and rabid"
But not your" science denying crazies" comment, right?
You guys are immersed in the Saul Alinsky scientific method. Those who disagree with you are crazy, ignorant, for sale to the highest bidder, not worthy of being heard.
I visit this site regularly and LC and Tacitus are the very worst offenders when it comes to personalizing issues. LC more than Tacitus, but still…
Any honest observer here would laugh at the idea that they have not used this site to attack those who question the Global Ice Age ('70s), Global Warming. then Global Climate Change, and now back to Global Warming again. All in insulting terms. I dare either one to deny that they have been insulting commenters here for years.
As Tacitus admits, he does, but "THEY HAVE IT COMING."
Save me the tears. I decide to inject the same kind of political snark into my post that LC has been dishing out for years and he whines about having the post removed. What a guy.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
'Global climate change' is just a posh term for Global Warming, and Global Ice Age? what are you talking about? The issue has always been global warming and you know it! Nobody's trying to invent a scary new alarmist movement, its always been one problem…GW, which has loads of empirical backing (which, for some reason, you always seem to ignore when you scream "wheres the evidence? wheres the evidence?" after everyone trys to explain the evidence). Yes its scary, yes its alarming…but not alarmist
sometimes the truth IS alarming. did that ever cross your mind?!
If you think your arguement has any weight, then tell me, why is there no global warming, what makes Nancy's data wrong….where's YOUR evidence!
October 28th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Chameleon257 –
If you are still here to read this, I feel your pain and aggravation. I left this site months ago because of stuff like this. I only came back here to see what people had to say about Ares 1-X. And to my surprise I had to register to leave a comment.
I won't waste my 'breath' offering my opinion on the subject here because I have already done that in the past.
As for some writers here, yep… Some of them sure do portray popular theories as fact. I don't appreciate that myself. Yes maybe sometimes they say ".. and it is believed..", Or use the word "consensus", but the context of some of the articles are portrayed to be assumed as fact.
Global warming
Dark matter
Dark energy
Even Einstein's theories. "The math says we can't travel faster than the speed of light? Damn. Well, I guess that we should try to create some other way, Something fantastical to get us 300 million meters in a second (not travel 300.Mm p/s mind you)." .. Maybe we just don't know all of the math.. "No, no that can't be because Einstein said it and his math works. Don't waste your time trying."
My point is that I believe too many people jump on bandwagons too fast and it detours some from true knowledge or discovery. Stop listening to your peers and mentors!!! Go on your own and occasionally confer. What is wrong with that? Anyway…..
Dark Matter – Occam's razor. Sounds like normal gravity to me. What's so dark about it. Just because we don't understand gravity. Must be the math…
Dark Energy – Occam's razor. I don't think things are being "pushed". I think they are being pulled. Oh and its speeding up? What is that word for when something is falling and it speeds up until a certain speed then after a certain point the speed remains constant? Maybe we haven't gotten to that point yet. Sounds like gravity to me.
Global Warming – The planet has experienced dramatic climate changes in its four billion plus years. Yes, even fast ones.. and yes, the ice core samples even show that. Are we in the midst of a dramatic change now? Maybe. And if so, are we the cause of it? Maybe. The key word is "Maybe:.
Because our life-spans are so short – comparative to the Universe and our own planet, of course – we don't see things as a … Sequoia for example. Or that of a common housefly… Okay, okay.. I won't start.
A lot of people are convinced that our planet is in a warming trend and it will continue to warm and that we are the cause of it… and they also say it is a bad thing. .. Well, I'm sorry but I don't subscribe. Before you start screaming your replies I just want to mention that the THEORY isn't a fact. It may very well be true, but it isn't a fact. Sorry. So don't effort yourself replying to me with your "data". If you had comprehensive data from scientists ten to twenty thousand years ago, then maybe I would listen…. For what we have now, I'm not convinced. Perhaps sometime soon -from good science and possibly smarter scientists- we will have something a little more conclusive one way or the other.. I really hope so because I am tiring of this.
Oops. I think I said I wouldn't comment on this subject anymore.. Oh well..
Lawrence B. Crowell –
What are you talking about? We want to hear all sides. There is passion on "both" sides and we want to hear all, don't we?.. I do..
October 28th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Mr. Man Says
Mike Jackson is correct, but it should be Global Cooling that was the rage in the 1970s' and early 80s' when there was many blizzards hitting NE U.S., Global Warming rage started after the 1982-1983 El Nino and really peaked out in the strong El Nino 1997-1998. I've been waiting years for the media rage 'promised many El Ninos' to ravage Earths coastal areas ', however, so far,quiet.!!!!! I've been waiting for several years for the Sun to have many SUNSPOTS, however, very little. My previous post said, ' we better remember also the SUN'!!!!!!, I stand by Al Hall post. No other comment.!!!!!
October 28th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
" Global Ice Age? what are you talking about? The issue has always been global warming and you know it! Nobody's trying to invent a scary new alarmist movement, its always been one problem…"
See where it says "('70s)" right next to "Global Ice Age". I put that there for a reason.
And the second part of your polite comment is incorrect. The Scientific Consensus in the Seventies was that we were heading into a man made ice age, brought about by particulate? pollution reducing sunlight at ground level and causing massive crop failures and starvation. And so on.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Al Hall Says: Stop listening to your peers and mentors!!! Go on your own and occasionally confer. What is wrong with that? Anyway…..,
Well yeah, and we could have arguments on UT whether the sun is a huge ball of hydrogen with nuclear fusion, or whether a god named Helios rides across the sky, or that the Earth is flat and rides on a turtle, or geocentrism, or Descarte's vortex theory, or … .
LC
October 28th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Well…. Yes… I suppose… If that is where your mind takes you… In that case, it may be time to confer with your peers and mentors..
October 28th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Spoodle58 Says:
October 28th, 2009 at 4:43 am
Pvt.Pantzov Says:
the surface of the earth and atmosphere will continue to slowly heat as the sun ages. one day it'll get mighty warm around here.
Yeah in about 1,000,000,000 years.
By then the bacteria living in your armpits will probably have evolved into multi celled lifeforms.
So we do have lots of time to get on with the astronomy.
////////////////////
yeah. glad you got that one. your post does bring an interesting question to mind: since it will happen over such a long period of time, will life evolve alongside this gradual warming into a form that can survive at what would today be condsidered impossibly extreme temperatures? the time frame is (relatively) vast, so perhaps…
October 28th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
hey aqua:
your name is aqua and you keep trying to let us know how bad things are in the oceans.
i respect that.
i remember reading somewhere that the overall level of marketable fish in the ocean has decreased by close to 90% in the last 100 years. i never bothered to verify that claim. the article also claims that most of us are simply unaware, due to the fact that the changes happened over the course of a few generations.
i live in a coastal community and i can certainly verify that in the last few decades, the number of fish around here has decreased by quite a large amount.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Pvt.Pantzov Says
Actually, I thought it was about 95%. People are now eating fish they would dare not eat 50 years ago, humans are now eating 'the so called bottom of the barrel fish'. Beggars can't be choosy, however, we overfish too much and everyone wants their fish, soon, there will only be raised fish and that will not cover the demand..
October 29th, 2009 at 12:07 am
"Follow the money." — late 20th century anonymous philosopher
And who gets to "redistribute the wealth".
October 29th, 2009 at 4:54 am
The oceans are collapsing, Fisheries are vanishing and coarl reefs are bleeching out and dying. Along with global warming has been an increase acidification, which will be devistating to coral reefs.
We could then proceed to consider forests. where in spite of the concern over rain forest destruction back in the 1980s the rate of deforestation has about doubled since then.
Some alarming articles have appearsed in the AAAS Science in the last couple of years on the alarming increase in H_2S producing bacteria on shorelines and estuaries. This can be considered with the evidence these bacilli appear to bloom during mass extinction periods. Yeah, is that another canary in the cage? Have we seen a number of canaries drop?
Global warming is just a planetary wide problem, and in some ways the flagship issue. We humans appear to be similar to the mold or bacteria that eats up the agar on the petrie dish — and then dies leaving behind a black crisp of waste. While we are at it you might want to check out Jerod Diamond's chilling essay "Easter's End."
LC
October 29th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Awesome. An article that basis its argument that 10 years is "cherry picking" and then proceeds to use 190 years to prove a point. How about these esteemed statisticians be asked to calculate the confidence of 10 and 190 in terms of millions.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Crowell wrote: "The oceans are collapsing, Fisheries are vanishing and coarl reefs are bleeching out and dying. Along with global warming has been an increase acidification, which will be devistating to coral reefs."
"The oceans are collapsing"
Whatever that broad-gauged term means?
"Fisheries are vanishing"
Not vanishing, some have been depleted by overfishing, but that's not AGW, now is it?
"coarl reefs are bleeching out and dying."
Some have been stressed, and some have died, but that goes in cycles and has been for a long time.
Actually, overall ocean health is pretty good and the problems that are present and Man related are not AGW related.
"Along with global warming has been an increase acidification, which will be devistating to coral reefs."
False, this alleged "acidification" is another boogeman that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
For Crowell and others, this is really about the credibility of a segment of scientists. If they reality soaks in (no AGW) a lot of these guys stand to loose credibility and perhaps funding.
So, this goes back to "follow the money" and who gets to redistribute the wealth.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
ice is growing… whee!
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:01 am
One of the main problems about this debate is that ANYONE even raising doubts about, or questioning the evidence for climate change is put on a par with Holocaust Deniers. There is a movement here in Britain that seriously proposes that once it has been proved beyond doubt the 'deniers' be put on trial for crimes against humanity! This attitude has I'm afraid started to colour the thinking of politicians too. Shame.