Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Koch Bros Study Finds Global Warming Is Real And Man-Made

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the sorry-about-that dept.

Earth 769

bledri writes "The results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature are in and Richard Muller, the study's director (formerly an AGW skeptic) declares, 'Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.' The study was funded by the Folger Fund, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates), the Bowes Foundation, the Koch Foundation, and the Getty Foundation."

cancel ×

769 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

welll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807335)

isnt that special

"I USED TO BE PAID TO PRODUCE RESULTS..." (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807753)

"...Skewed for the interests of one set of billionaires.

"I have now been flipped, and am rewarded for serving the competing interest of an entirely opposed set of different billionaires.

"Everything you read is true. Especially if it is funded by large foundations."

FNORD

But the real question is... (4, Interesting)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807337)

...is global warming good or bad.

For some it will be good. For some bad. The diversity of life has historically increased with warming. Coastal cities won't like a sea level rise though.

Re:But the real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807353)

...is global warming good or bad.

For some it will be good. For some bad. The diversity of life has historically increased with warming. Coastal cities won't like a sea level rise though.

That's not the real question, the real question is still if it exists and converting all the skeptics among the non-scientific population

Re:But the real question is... (5, Interesting)

MarkWegman (2553338) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807437)

Global warming is not just, it will be hotter in some cold place and a bit too hot for comfort in some hot place. It's perhaps better called Global Weirding. With more energy in the atmosphere more weird things will happen. Hurricanes, droughts, sea levels rising and the end of the Gulf Stream that warms much of Europe are most likely consequences. Some places that aren't used to it will get much more water and some that have gotten used to a lot of water will get less. If global warming happened over hundreds of years, our species and perhaps others could adapt or move to different locations. It's expensive to move population centers, e.g. Florida if low lying areas get flooded. The expected cost of accommodating changes on this scale dwarf the costs to the economy of drastically reducing our consumption of carbon. The US consumes a huge amount more carbon per person than the average country, but California has some very mild laws that have caused Californians to consume much less than the average American without making California a poorer state than the others.

Re:But the real question is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807707)

So what you are saying is the global warming is actually a government stimulus package?

Re:But the real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807725)

You might want to check again on that last bit, "...without making California a poorer state than the others," given the number of cities going bankrupt in the state and that a lot of jobs have fled the state for more business friendly environments. As to relocating population centers, we do that organically over time - the migration away from the rust belt for instance.

Re:But the real question is... (-1, Troll)

Teresita (982888) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807557)

Because once you do that, you can convert all the skeptics in the scientific population by defunding their grants and even putting them in camps if they persist. It's for a good cause. The ends (destruction of the capitalist system) justifies the means. Let the false emails and hockey sticks fly!

Re:But the real question is... (0, Flamebait)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807631)

putting them in camps if they persist.

And the forst Godwin goes to ....

Moron.

Re:But the real question is... (3, Funny)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807757)

Actually, you're the moron, as that wasn't a Godwin, you damn Nazi.

Re:But the real question is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807559)

> That's not the real question, the real question is still if it exists and converting all the skeptics among the non-scientific population

When someone is skeptic about an UFO, that's one thing; being skeptical about a vaccine can kill millions.

Being skeptical about climate science and thus hindering corrective action not only can kill billions, it's actually being against progress -- which is their primary reason for FUDding against global warming.

Talk about being jerks!

Re:But the real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807715)

"Progress" =/= "Progressives"

Re:But the real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807395)

Our civilisation is wedded inextricably to our infrastructure. We're adaptable, and there's almost no global warming scenario barring earth's atmosphere going towards runaway venus-scale warming, that humans will not survive, long-term.

Infrastructure is brittle, though. Our transport, homes, energy and food generation will be lucky to survive one change, let alone a constantly warming planet. They're all designed to work well economically and technically in the situation that they were built in; change that physical situation and it's all just so much plastic, metal and glass doing very little, without substantial effort to keep re-building.

And someone has to pay for it - it'll be us.

Re:But the real question is... (5, Interesting)

Jerry Atrick (2461566) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807643)

Brittle infrastructure is a problem for the developed world and our comfort but pretty minor.

The big issue is migration, the normal response to climate change. Migration causes conflict. That worked OKish before we filled the planet, today mass migration will be a catastrophe that could push half the planet to war.

Sure, the species will survive. The well armed ones.

Re:But the real question is... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807419)

Won't it kinda suck if you live in Florida and aren't a manatee?

Re:But the real question is... (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807467)

Won't it kinda suck if you live in Florida and aren't a manatee?

At the current guesstimates as to rate of sea level rise, the population of Florida will need to start worrying about it in two-three centuries.

Either that, or they can build a three foot high floodwall around their property right now.

Re:But the real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807421)

And will it spur a replacement of old nuclear reactors with newer safer ones?

Re:But the real question is... (1)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807751)

Only if there's big bucks in it for the Politically Connected.

Re:But the real question is... (4, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807465)

...is global warming good or bad.

For some it will be good. For some bad. The diversity of life has historically increased with warming. Coastal cities won't like a sea level rise though.

Darfur. The huge mess down there is being exasperated because traditional sources of water are drying up, forcing social and political change.

Personally, I'm less worried about the coastal cities getting submerged as I am about the majority of farmland becoming arid deserts. Combine this with peak oil also driving food prices up and we have quite the clusterfuck on our hands.

Re:But the real question is... (3, Funny)

Cylix (55374) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807483)

My stock broker is advising me to invest heavily in canned foods and shotguns.

Re:But the real question is... (1, Insightful)

mikes.song (830361) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807531)

I think they are playing people. [wikipedia.org] It's just part of the globalist march. Of course there is global warming. Clearly, the solution is to take away the property of those that complain about it.

Power Tits! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807339)

A dollar for your dick!

nothing to be excited about ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807357)

The warming trend is happening since the last mini- ice age (around 1750); this trend is nothing to get excited about. If you want to prove Man-Made Global Warming you have to specify which part of this warming trend is unusual and likely man-made. This study did not do that.

Re:nothing to be excited about ... (-1)

Teresita (982888) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807435)

Of course global warming is real. And a good thing too, the average temps of a body without CO2 at 1 AU (like, I don't know, the moon?) is -10F. But it the increase is man-made, then the increased temps on Mars must be from the emissions from all those NASA rovers there, eh? Hello! The sun is a mildly variable star.

Re:nothing to be excited about ... (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807603)

It's hard to believe there are still people stupid enough to spout these two talking points, a good decade or more after they've been debunked, soundly and repeatedly.

Clearly there are though, and they're proud of their extreme ignorance.

Re:nothing to be excited about ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807711)

"...and they're proud of their extreme ignorance."

Nah. They're paid well for it.

Re:nothing to be excited about ... (4, Informative)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807657)

That's not what the article says

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.

Re:nothing to be excited about ... (2)

grumling (94709) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807733)

They did exactly that.

It's not posted yet, but last week I attended a lecture at the Aspen Center for Physics about this very subject:
http://www.aspenphys.org/50th/events/july25.html [aspenphys.org]

It will be available sometime soon here:
http://vod.grassrootstv.org/cablecast/public/Search.aspx?ChannelID=1&SimpleSearch=physics [grassrootstv.org]

Not entirely. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807361)

But we have caused both a reduction and then an increase.

Reduction was killing off so many animals.
Increase was plastering the entire planet in dark material. AKA tars, roads, dark sidewalks, etc.
Also killing off far more oxygenators such as trees, and increasing CO2 production.
Our increase of CO2 is still far below any volcano or even mass-scale wildfires that happened before we manually burned forests to prevent them spreading so far. (we only screw up with that occasionally and fires grow out of control)

In fact, given how many animals we have killed off, especially the larger ones, we probably slowed down the process overall.
We should, going by core samples alone, be more-or-less in the beginnings of another ice age right at this moment. Nope, we are still in the climate warming stages. Sea-water currents are still very stable.
But whether or not we have damaged the planet, or helped it, by slowing down this process is another question.
We could well cause the core to slow down, causing all kinds of havoc. We could cause it to speed up, equally causing havoc.
We could cause a run-away greenhouse effect similar to Venus.
We could cause a permafrost that actually is a permafrost, not just some lying permafrost who wants to be all cool and stuff.

All we know is we were involved, but it isn't something we done. Climate change has happened several times before. It will happen again with or without us.

Re:Not entirely. (5, Informative)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807533)

Our increase of CO2 is still far below any volcano ...

Not surprised you cower behind anonymity when spouting utterly wrong claptrap like that. Hint: try actually finding things out before demonstrating your ignorance in public.

According to the USGS [usgs.gov] , man-made CO2 emissions are 35 billion tons per year, total volcanic output (from land and under the seas) ranges from 0.13 to 0.44 billion tons per year. Even in a year of abnormally great volcanic activity, volcanic output is tiny in comparison to that of human activity. There are only a few Mount St. Helens scale eruptions per year, but it would take 3500 of them every year to equal current man-made CO2 emissions.

From the same USGS page, in 1900, the annual anthropogenic CO2 output was about 18 times that of volcanism. In 2010 it had increased to about 135 times the annual volcanic output. These ratios are based on the maximum estimate of volcanic CO2 output. So the increase in annual anthropogenic CO2 output dwarfs the annual volcanic CO2 output.

Re:Not entirely. (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807599)

In addition, the warming could have a cascade effect with the permafrost on the ocen floor releasing Methane in greater amounts as well, which would also add to the heating cycle.

Although methane currently accounts for only 15% of warming (a far distant second to CO2's 75% contribution to warming), it is also a concern if you factor in the amounts they believe may be locked in the permafrost under the ocean floor.

Re:Not entirely. (2)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807677)

I believe you're referring to methane hydrate and it's not under the ocean floor but ON it.

Re:Not entirely. (1, Informative)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807647)

but the USGS didn't factor in the Methane releases and Methane is a more effective Green House Gas then CO2 ever was. Right now, the biggest contributors of Methane are all the damn cows being fed antibiotics in those massive dairy and feed lots so people can have beef on the Barbie. All you have to do is check out the various orbital colony scenarios and you soon realize that beef isn't that efficient in generating protein for consumption. Goats, sheep, chicken, rabbits and fish are far better at converting feed into protien and the reason I didn't include pork is they're number 2 in methane production.

The Koch Foundation (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807363)

AFAIK The Koch Foundation isn't the same as the Koch Brothers (the folks who donate to conservative political candidates.)

Re:Thanks (3, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807459)

I was confused. I am prepared to believe the Koch Foundation on this because I think Global Warming exists and we are the primary cause of it. We would be the solution but I don't think we can ever organize ourselves enough to solve the problem - politicians think too shortterm and only want to be reelected. Pushing policies that will be unpopular with their constituents and their supporters (Corporations) will not result in reelection.

I think that people who believe the Koch Brothers on anything are being suckered - i.e. they are "Koch Suckers" :)

Re:Thanks (1)

Barsteward (969998) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807703)

We are the primary cause of global warming, we are the primary cause of accelerating it

Re:The Koch Foundation (5, Insightful)

Denogh (2024280) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807517)

AFAIK The Koch Foundation isn't the same as the Koch Brothers (the folks who donate to conservative political candidates.)

There are two Koch foundations, one founded by each of the infamous Koch Brothers. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this Koch foundation was the same one that provides funding for Nova (or did at one time).

I'm a little curious as to why, in a list of 5 organizations that funded this study, the headline and OP singled out Koch. Hoping for additional impact that wouldn't be achieved by just saying "Climate Change Skeptic Changes Mind"?

Re:The Koch Foundation (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807729)

Because the Koch brothers have been the hugest anti-global-warming proponents since day one, as so much of their money comes from businesses that pollute heavily.

Those of us who live along coastal cities... (0, Troll)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807373)

Those of us who live along coastal cities are f*cked. If more evidence turns up to support man-made global climate change, and the ocean levels rise, then climate deniers in congress and the senate should have to pay to relocate everyone living in coastal cities. Fair is fair but, it won't work out that way. -- Without coastal cities, import/export trade and many industries the nation relies on will be crippled. It could very possibly crush the economy and destroy civilization as we know it.

Re:Those of us who live along coastal cities... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807455)

Or, you know we could... and this is a crazy idea... just adapt, that thing we've done since we were rats. Those people on the coast could move further in when their homes start to reach bad territory. The piers slowly move 'inland', not affecting the country on a whole at all. In fact, since the part of the pier furthest out is already built, it could increase loading capacity, leading to more trade.

And about congressional deniers paying to move everyone... If the people in coastal towns know the risk, then the houses on the very edge of water are a choice. They know that they will get flooded, they either pay for the view, or cheap out to get the cheapest house. Should Congress have to pay if your toy from China is covered in lead paint, but you bought it knowing that risk? Should congress have to pay if you get cancer from your expensive Cuban cigars? Congress's job isn't to pay everyone for everything that goes wrong in their lives, that is why we have such a huge debt now.

Re:Those of us who live along coastal cities... (2)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807463)

Not necessarily. It depends very much on the specific city, of course, but assuming that the harbour can manage any rise in sealevels through increasing quay heights, construction of berms, etc. then a sealevel rise could actually be beneficial to operations. Higher water levels would reduce the need for dredging and also reduce the impact of low tides on deeper hulled vessels' ability to come and go.

Of course, if you are actually on the beach, as it were, and can't simply retreat up the shoreline, then your options are going to be a good deal more limited. There are large areas are Bangladesh in particular that are going to be essentially rendered uninhabitable by any significant sealevel rises.

Everyone is fucked. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807493)

Global warming will also destroy crop yields - just look at the corn yield THIS YEAR.

which will affect beef production/

Global Warming will also affect fisheries. Between GW and over fishing around the World, we're going to see some real devastation there - and fisheries around the World are already in trouble. That's why you keep seeing new and different species of fish behind the counter - the other ones have been almost wiped out. (Farmed fish is an environmental and nutritional joke. But that's for another time.)

See, that's the thing that annoys me. Just about all of the "debate" in the popular media about global warming is about "lifestyle", taxes, nationalism, ... everything but food supply except when it comes to ethanol. (The corn lobby needs to be destroyed. Farm subsidies mostly enrich Cargil, Monsano, Tyson, and other huge corporate food processors. It lowers input their costs.)

So, while the general public is being distracted my non-issues about GW like losing control of our government to the UN, higher taxes and other non-sense, the folks who are profiting dearly from our current policies are getting away scott free.

And the above is just ONE facet of the true forces behind the issue.

Re:Those of us who live along coastal cities... (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807635)

by the time it gets to the point of really doing anything to require relocation, those yahoos in Congress denying it will be long gone from those positions and living on easy street someplace. And we will likely have to pay to have THEM moved before anyone on the coast gets a dime for relocation.

And nothing about rising seas means the coastal trade stopping. We will still have coastlines there will just be less land between the coasts. Look at the bright side, transporting goods from the coasts will require less distance to travel so less fuel will be needed.

LoB

Re:Those of us who live along coastal cities... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807691)

There will still be coasts. We'll just have to build new cities a little higher. It will only cost a few dozen trillion dollars.

a bit sensational headline (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807375)

The Koch Brothers were among several funders, some of whom actually had decent motives. For example, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab are not partisan conservatives. And FICER (the Gates-funded organization) actively depends on global warming existing, because their whole raison d'etre is pushing geoengineering as a solution, which would obviously be unnecessary if there were no problem for geoengineering to solve.

In fact that's probably why the outcome was actually scientifically legit: it was a study by actual scientists with a fairly broad set of backers, done at a university rather than in the private sector.

Re:a bit sensational headline (4, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807447)

The Koch Brothers were among several funders, some of whom actually had decent motives.

Absolutely true - But in the interest of trying to save the planet from ourselves, we should focus on near-legendary conservative sponsors such as the Koch Brothers.

The average climate change denier doesn't give a damn about the NSF or hippies from Lawrence Berkeley. But Bush-the-Elder's friends? Now that carries some weight!

Re:a bit sensational headline (4, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807527)

The average climate change denier doesn't give a damn about the NSF or hippies from Lawrence Berkeley. But Bush-the-Elder's friends? Now that carries some weight!

The Koch brothers are G.H.W. Bush's friends?

I didn't know that.

And, oddly enough, I didn't (and don't) really care.

Now, wake me up when the AGW loons decide that nuclear is better than coal, and I'll start taking them seriously.

Re:a bit sensational headline (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807653)

Now, wake me up when the AGW loons decide that nuclear is better than coal, and I'll start taking them seriously.

I'll never happen, the bogeymen of your imagination are quite set in their ways.

Re:a bit sensational headline (5, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807529)

I know that conceding the Koch brothers AREN'T modern-day Satans might spell the end of your whole worldview, but why then would they support in any way a study that they couldn't control/manipulate/predict?

I suppose one could claim that they stupidly didn't realize this, but considering that for the last 10 years they've been pilloried as the Gray Eminence behind all things dark and malign, suggesting that suddenly they're dopey doesn't quite fit with the script.

Re:a bit sensational headline (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807561)

I agree it's been overplayed, though they do also fund a bunch of quite partisan stuff. There is some difference between the brothers as well: David Koch's foundation does a lot of fairly apolitical philanthropy, funding various art and science organizations, whereas Charles Koch's funds mainly libertarian and pro-business organizations.

The complaints about the Kochs go back a lot more than 10 years, though. The term "Kochtopus", implying a tentacle-like network of organizations grasping control of things, was coined by a Rothbardian libertarian in the '70s, who was angry about what he saw as Charles Koch trying to strong-arm other libertarian factions out of the libertarian movement, e.g. by kicking Rothbard out of the Cato Institute. Liberals picked up the term a bit later.

Re:a bit sensational headline (5, Insightful)

Rakshasa-sensei (533725) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807573)

It seems quite likely that the Koch brothers actually don't / didn't think anthropogenic global warming was real, and thus funded the study with that assumption thinking it would support their position.

Re:a bit sensational headline (4, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807661)

It seems quite likely that the Koch brothers actually don't / didn't think anthropogenic global warming was real, and thus funded the study with that assumption thinking it would support their position.

Yeah, since they put a "skeptic" in charge of it. Bad luck for them he actually looked at the facts and changed his mind.

Missing the silver lining (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807377)

TFS obviously tries to throw the results of this study back in the Koch Foundation's face, by singling them out when the study was funded by numerous other groups. It's just another insufferable "I told you so", which we can all relate to as making people cling ever more tightly to their beliefs or just refuse to change their ways for spite.

So wouldn't it make more sense first to sit back and see if the Koch brothers become converted skeptics like Muller? Imagine having their billions behind efforts to advance alternative energy.

Re:Missing the silver lining (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807699)

and for some reason I heard a familiar voice, a very vocal GW denier(Ben Stein), saying "Bueller. Bueller. Bueller." when reading that last sentence. ie there would have to be lots of money to be made by making such an admittance so it's easier to just ignore.

LoB

Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (4, Insightful)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807389)

(Bjorn Lomborg) as two prominent if not THE most prominent AGW skeptics to change their minds. (I've heard of these guys and if I've heard of them, since I'm not a specialist, I figure they must be prominent).

So what's it going to take? Convincing every last person that this isn't real? That's going to be pretty damned impossible because as Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.". Substitute the word "salary" with "lifestyle" (or even "SUV") and you'll see how the average American thinks.

I've read that a ten percentage increase in electrical costs would be enough to sequester all the CO2 we're currently emitting. So the fact that a ten percentage increase in something that is not a big item in the average American budget is keeping us from potentially preventing great harm to our ecology, biosphere and a great number of species on this planet (including us!) makes me realize that we will deserve the hell on earth we get.

Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807449)

"I read".

I read your Mom's a fucking whore too.

Stupid teenages.

Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807469)

Americans don't care about SUVs. They don't like that every idea put forth to fix global warming involves making the american middle class pay through the nose while others either proffit from it or are largely unaffected.

Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807507)

I doesn't really matter a bit if every person on earth understands that AGW is real. People will still do what is cheapest, and without a carbon tax, eliminating fuel subsidies and some heavy investment in R&D, that will be fossil fuels for a while. This is ultimately not a moral issue, but an economic one.

Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807511)

Let us know when China, Russia, and India agree to make similar adjustments to their economies.

Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (5, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807523)

a ten percentage increase in something that is not a big item in the average American budget ...

The problem with this logic is that America is only 5% of the world. All rich countries combined are less than 20%. Unless something actually makes economic sense, it is not going to be accepted by the other 80% (and judging by current trends, it probably won't be accepted by the richest 20% either).

The solution to AGW is not convincing people that they need to sacrifice and suffer for the common good. That won't work. Instead we need to do the R&D to come up with cost effective solutions that make economic sense even on a stand-alone-basis. We have already done that with wind power, CFLs, etc., and we need to do it for solar, electric vehicles, etc.

If you focus on "suffer and sacrifice", you are being counter-productive, because you just push more people into the denier camp.

Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (2)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807609)

In terms of AGW its all about USA. USA is one of a very few select holdouts countries that refuse to do anything about AGW.

With USA on board the rest of the holdouts will be forced to join too.

USA is also the biggest contributor to AGW so if USA fix their pollution it will have a vary large impact on the world.

Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807775)

But the cheap and dirty solution is always going to be cheaper than the economically responsible and affordable solution.

Citation? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807569)

Sequestering carbon is dang expensive, not well understood, and we're decades from it scaling up to the 100s of GW of capacity necessary given our current generation infrastructure.

We could shut down lots of coal for a 10% increase in electricity rates, replacing it with natural gas, wind, and energy efficiency. That might reduce our carbon footprint from electrical by 10%. For another 10% increase in electricity rates, we could probably roll out GWs more storage [hydro or compressed air], roll out more wind and some solar and more energy efficiency, and cut another 10% from our electrical carbon footprint. Wind and solar prices continue to fall. The "easy" answer is to stop building coal plants, invest in energy efficiency and co-generation, improve building codes, and complement new wind and solar with storage and fast-ramping combustion turbines [which are inexpensive to build, but more expensive to operate], and useful for dealing with the intermittency of some renewables. It need not be done all at once, and some parts of the country can be done economically faster than others, but that's the way to do it at a cost which would be manageable.

Now, before I elicit the nuclear fanboys, I'll make two points: (1) nuclear power is more expensive than solar PV per kWh at a levalized cost without any subsidies for either, and (2) just as the sun doesn't shine at night, the nuclear power plants don't turn off at night. Nuclear is already more expensive than PV -- if you've got to build storage too to shift some of that unusable nighttime production to daytime, you might as well build storage and shift some of that extra PV to nighttime. Want to encourage small, identical reactors to lower cost? Sure -- but you're looking at 10-15 years before the first one is online. In the meantime, we've got to cut CO2 now, and it's far easier, cheaper, and politically possible to do it at point sources like electrical generation than it is at distributed sources like tailpipes and home furnaces.

Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (2)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807575)

People started buying SUVs en-masse when car companies, to keep up with CAFE standards, started downsizing their cars to the point that the average family couldn't fit in them anymore (2 adults + 2.5 kids) You used to be able to seat six comfortably in a large sedan. Such a vehicle doesn't exist anymore.

Trucks didn't count against CAFE, so that's what people could by if they didn't want to fold themselves into the artificially smaller cars.

The irony here is that the SUVs people were buying to replace their larger cars were less fuel efficient, so the whole point of CAFE was made moot.

The easy fix for all of this was simply to raise oil taxes, but the oil companies had better lobbyists than the car companies, so we end up with the ass-backwards CAFE standards.

Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (4, Interesting)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807607)

I don't think you're exactly right about Lomborg. Yes, his first book did try to debunk some of the old evidence that was used to support global warming, but he never defended the positive thesis that global warming isn't happening. OK, maybe that's just the difference between skepticism and denialism. At his worst, Lomborg was a skeptic, and he quit that pretty fast.

The reason why he's so controversial is that even after he declared that the science is in and we are causing real global warming, which will have significant consequences, Lomborg argued that preventing these consequences is economically unfeasible, and the best bang for our buck in planning the future is to concentrate on education, health, sanitation, disease eradication and climate change mitigation. Sadly, critics of Lomborg never seem to engage directly with his arguments. They never present a study that a $Million spent on forest restoration or sewage treatment or micronutrient supplementation will have fewer good consequences than a $Million spent on CO2 emissions reduction. For that reason I remain on the fence, though I do think that Lomborg deserves a more serious hearing.

Re:Now he joins "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807769)

I've read that a ten percentage increase in electrical costs would be enough to sequester all the CO2 we're currently emitting.

That would be nice if it were true, but it's not. For coal-fired power plants, it would consume about 25% of the plant's output. So figure on a 25% increase in the cost of electricity. And that's just electricity. How are you going to sequester the C02 coming out of your tailpipe and going up your furnace flue? What about the C02 produced when you make concrete?

N.America shifted South 400 miles in last 11yrs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807403)

Weather and climate related reports and articles are missing key informations.

Please do your own calculation, cross-references and double check, triple check of numbers and info.

Earth Magnetic Poles shifted 400 Miles in the last 11 years (some 800 miles in last 100 years): real cause for changing weather patterns, not Carbon Dioxide (CO2). North America shifting South. Northern Europe shifting North.

Here are some info:

---

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole [wikipedia.org]

      The North Magnetic Pole moves over time due to magnetic changes in the Earth's core.[1] In 2001, it was determined by the Geological Survey of Canada to lie near Ellesmere Island in northern Canada at 81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW. It was situated at 83.1ÂN 117.8ÂW in 2005. In 2009, while still situated within the Canadian Arctic territorial claim at 84.9ÂN 131.0ÂW,[2] it was moving toward Russia at between 34 and 37 mi (55-60 km) per year.[3] As of 2012, the pole is projected to have moved beyond the Canadian Arctic territorial claim to 85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW.

---

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1215_051215_north_pole.html [nationalgeographic.com]
      North Magnetic Pole Is Shifting Rapidly Toward Russia
      December 15, 2005

      New research shows the pole moving at rapid clipâ"25 miles (40 kilometers) a year.

      Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers) from Arctic Canada toward Siberia, says Joe Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University.

---

      http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ [nasa.gov]
      Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

      The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades.

---

      http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020818.html [nasa.gov]
      Astronomy Picture of the Day

      Indicated in the above picture is Ellef Ringnes Island, the location of Earth's North Magnetic Pole in 1999.

--- --- ---

Now the reasoning part...

Distance between 2001 and 2012 coordinates of the "Earth magnetic North pole":

      81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW (2001)
      85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW (2012)

is about 401.9 Miles, or 646.9 Km. That's an average of 36.5 miles per year for the last 11 years. 36.5 miles per year is about 1 mile for every 10 days. Imagine your house moves 1 mile every 10 days, that's quite a distance.

North America is shifted South, a rough estimate from a map, 400 miles is about distance between these cities:

      Quebec -- New York city.
      New York city -- Atlanta/Savanah.
      San Francisco -- San Diego/Tiejuana.

Again, back in 2005, "Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers)". Which means for 2012, over the past century the Magnetic North Pole would have moved away from Canda and the USA some 800 miles. Which is about the distance of:

      Washingon DC -- Fort Lauderdale

When people claim the weather has been the worst on record of the last 50 years, or 100 years, they don't even know that the comparison is invalid. The location they are now in North America is well over 800 miles South of where they were 100 years ago. Comparing such records with a city 800 miles away, that would be ridiculous comparison.

Of course for the Earth as a whole, some locations are going to be colder, some locations are going to be hotter. Sure, icebergs are going to melt in some places on both North and South poles, while new ice accumulation will take years to become huge "icebergs".

Combine atmospheric wind direction changes, along with geographical land mass (mountain ranges, valleys, water streams which have different ionization zones), the weather patterns and temperatures are going to be very different.

Northern European is getting closer to the new Magnetic North Pole. Think of England, some Northern European countries, which explains the harsh winters they have in the last few years.

Australia is probably shifted North, so they will probably get hotter than 100 years ago.

Also, if both North and South poles are not shifting at the same time (balanced through the center of the earth), the earth is going to wobble, get out of balance, and can easily cause numerous earth quakes when the earth outer crusts got too much stress.

Re:N.America shifted South 400 miles in last 11yrs (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807515)

You are aware that the earths spin is not centred on the magnetic poles. Our biggest heat source (the sun) is most effective above equatorial regions. These are defined by the earths rotation which has not moved that much in the entirety of human existence.

If some places have got hotter and others cooler because of climate change, that is in keeping with what has been expected. I just don't recall being told which areas will get hotter and which cooler - except by Hollywood...

Re:N.America shifted South 400 miles in last 11yrs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807637)

Here's a picture for you

      http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm [astronomynotes.com]

See the radiation belt? Could it be trapping various radiating heat energies with respect to the Magnetic Poles, not the rotational poles? The radiation belts could easily warm up locations further away from the Magnetic Poles.

Re:N.America shifted South 400 miles in last 11yrs (1)

joostje (126457) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807525)

And how are global temperatures influenced by the location of the magnetic pole? The sun rays aren't influenced by the earth magnetic field.

Re:N.America shifted South 400 miles in last 11yrs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807571)

N.America shifted South, closer to the new Equator, which would be closer to the Sun. Causing the warmer temperature. Imagine Quebec 11 years ago now sits where New York, or Boston, of course, Quebec is going to be warmer than it was 11 years ago.

Northern Europe is shifted North closer to the new North Magnetic Pole, so it will be colder there. If you notice the weather reports out of UK, they have had some of terrible Winters in the last few years.

Re:N.America shifted South 400 miles in last 11yrs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807639)

Think of England, some Northern European countries, which explains the harsh winters they have in the last few years.

As a Northern European I've got to ask - what harsh winters? I sure haven't noticed them... Some places not really used to/equipped for it (like the UK) got more snow than they're used to, but I certainly wouldn't call them 'harsh' temperature wise. But that, as well as increased rain falls is to be expected with more moisture being evaporated into the atmosphere.

April Fools again so soon? (3, Insightful)

j-b0y (449975) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807423)

Anyhoo - the more people on _both_ sides of the argument who actually look at the data rather than just attack the conclusions, the better for everybody concerned.

Global Warming: Emerging Science and Understanding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807439)

This DVD goes over the planet's natural warming and cooling cycles in great detail, says humans account for less than 2% of global CO2 emissions (most comes from nature), and exposes the political nature of the IPCC and how they cook their pseudo-science for the political outcome they are pushing.

http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/

Debate is healthy, and I think anyone who is absolutely convinced that man is responsible for global warming should at least watch this documentary to see if it changes their mind, and if not point out exact flaws. This DVD has me convinced that man is not responsible and we are experiencing natural planetary cycles.

Re:Global Warming: Emerging Science and Understand (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807489)

Thanks for that. One thing, though -- some massive melting we are seeing goes WAY beyond typical cycles and goes into melting ice formed long before the first animals walked the earth.

I don't care about the cause. I care more about the solution. We're looking at a global extinction event and I'd like man to be able to survive it.

Skeptic? (0, Troll)

cirby (2599) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807441)

Richard Muller is a lot of things (a fairly good scientist for one), and the press keeps insisting he's a "former skeptic," but nobody seems to be able to find anything he's ever said that put him in the "skeptic" camp...

Re:Skeptic? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807591)

"nobody seems to be able to find anything he's ever said that put him in the "skeptic" camp..."

Especially if they don't have 5 seconds with which to perform a google search.

Here's the latest. Scientific American has now published an interview with Richard Muller, in which Muller repeats the most popular climate denial talking points related to Mike Mann's famous and endlessly replicated hockey stick temperature graph, and throws in unsupportable slurs against Al Gore, the IPCC, and climate science in general. The magazine's editors did not see fit to fact check any of the statements.

Source [climatecrocks.com]

Re:Skeptic? (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807633)

He himself uses that term, in the quote that's right here in the Slashdot summary! It's not some kind of external appellation. He says:

Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

The 3-years-ago part I believe is referring to "Climategate" [wikipedia.org] , which Muller was very critical of. In addition, he's criticized the methodology of studies over the years, which has caused him to be viewed as something of a skeptic. In 2004, he wrote a now-famous editorial [technologyreview.com] attacking the "hockey stick graph" for being "poor mathematics".

Re:Skeptic? (1)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807641)

How about Muller's own words in the Times Op-Ed: "Call me a converted skeptic."

We are ALREADY past the point of no return (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807473)

Soon we will engage in apocalyptic greed, panic and defensiveness. Stock up on canned and dry foods... and ammo.

Re:We are ALREADY past the point of no return (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807593)

I'm locked and loaded mother fuckers.

First to die are all the AGW shits.

I hope you don't think this changes anything (5, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807481)

Step one was to deny it was real. Now we are on step two: admit it is real but that it is too expensive for us to fight it. Step three is to build another mansion on higher ground and put in larger A/C units.

Fracking best hope for reducing CO2 output (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807499)

Well, OK, but what are we going to do about it? Nuclear? Fracking gas?

Or will we keep throwing money at Democrat fundraisers while blocking productive solutions?

Re:Fracking best hope for reducing CO2 output (3, Insightful)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807687)

I'm a Democrat, and I love nuclear! (And I conditionally love fracking gas, though I think it needs better - though not onerous - regulations. I certainly love it more than coal, even in its present badly-regulated state.) The leader of my party, President Obama, defends exactly these policies, as far as I can tell. I really don't think that Democrats are the problem. I think that giant energy companies like Exxon-Mobil (the funding arm of the Republican party) are the problem. I think the (Republican) coal lobby is a problem. NIMBYism (which cuts across party lines) is a problem. And science denialism is a problem (on which Republicans have a near monopoly). In all this, it's weird to blame the Democrats.

I'm sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807503)

I just don't care, either way. AGW or not, there are much more important things in my life to worry about.

The Key Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807509)

"How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. "

Which has pretty much been my position for a long time now. Correlation != Causation, and while therefore we have enough to go on to start taking action, we can't treat AGW like a religion. Universities can't defund people who question the status quo. We do need to keep validating this further and explaining the causality better.

Do some real research, GW sdare mongers!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807513)

Weather and climate related reports and articles are missing key informations.

Please do your own calculation, cross-references and double check, triple check of numbers and info.

Earth Magnetic Poles shifted 400 Miles in the last 11 years (some 800 miles in last 100 years): real cause for changing weather patterns, not Carbon Dioxide (CO2). North America shifting South. Northern Europe shifting North.

Here are some info:

---

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole [wikipedia.org]

      The North Magnetic Pole moves over time due to magnetic changes in the Earth's core.[1] In 2001, it was determined by the Geological Survey of Canada to lie near Ellesmere Island in northern Canada at 81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW. It was situated at 83.1ÂN 117.8ÂW in 2005. In 2009, while still situated within the Canadian Arctic territorial claim at 84.9ÂN 131.0ÂW,[2] it was moving toward Russia at between 34 and 37 mi (55-60 km) per year.[3] As of 2012, the pole is projected to have moved beyond the Canadian Arctic territorial claim to 85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW.

---

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1215_051215_north_pole.html [nationalgeographic.com]
      North Magnetic Pole Is Shifting Rapidly Toward Russia
      December 15, 2005

      New research shows the pole moving at rapid clipâ"25 miles (40 kilometers) a year.

      Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers) from Arctic Canada toward Siberia, says Joe Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University.

---

      http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ [nasa.gov]
      Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

      The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades.

---

      http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020818.html [nasa.gov]
      Astronomy Picture of the Day

      Indicated in the above picture is Ellef Ringnes Island, the location of Earth's North Magnetic Pole in 1999.

--- --- ---

Now the reasoning part...

Distance between 2001 and 2012 coordinates of the "Earth magnetic North pole":

      81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW (2001)
      85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW (2012)

is about 401.9 Miles, or 646.9 Km. That's an average of 36.5 miles per year for the last 11 years. 36.5 miles per year is about 1 mile for every 10 days. Imagine your house moves 1 mile every 10 days, that's quite a distance.

North America is shifted South, a rough estimate from a map, 400 miles is about distance between these cities:

      Quebec -- New York city.
      New York city -- Atlanta/Savanah.
      San Francisco -- San Diego/Tiejuana.

Again, back in 2005, "Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers)". Which means for 2012, over the past century the Magnetic North Pole would have moved away from Canda and the USA some 800 miles. Which is about the distance of:

      Washingon DC -- Fort Lauderdale

When people claim the weather has been the worst on record of the last 50 years, or 100 years, they don't even know that the comparison is invalid. The location they are now in North America is well over 800 miles South of where they were 100 years ago. Comparing such records with a city 800 miles away, that would be ridiculous comparison.

Of course for the Earth as a whole, some locations are going to be colder, some locations are going to be hotter. Sure, icebergs are going to melt in some places on both North and South poles, while new ice accumulation will take years to become huge "icebergs".

Combine atmospheric wind direction changes, along with geographical land mass (mountain ranges, valleys, water streams which have different ionization zones), the weather patterns and temperatures are going to be very different.

Northern European is getting closer to the new Magnetic North Pole. Think of England, some Northern European countries, which explains the harsh winters they have in the last few years.

Australia is probably shifted North, so they will probably get hotter than 100 years ago.

Also, if both North and South poles are not shifting at the same time (balanced through the center of the earth), the earth is going to wobble, get out of balance, and can easily cause numerous earth quakes when the earth outer crusts got too much stress.

cognitive dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807537)

Some people will cope with irrefutable evidence that conflicts with their world view, i.e., cognitive dissonance, by going insane.

Does this explain the current behavior of the (far) Right? Or will things get even worse in our politics?

Koch Bros Study? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807547)

How is this a Koch Bros Study? Did they have a hand in choosing to do it or were they opposed to it? Did they set ground rules?

Well.... (0)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807565)

Let's quote from the OP:
"...I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. Iâ(TM)ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasnâ(TM)t changed.

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears arenâ(TM)t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers arenâ(TM)t going to melt by 2035. And itâ(TM)s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the âoeMedieval Warm Periodâ or âoeMedieval Optimum,â an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to âoeglobalâ warming is weaker than tenuous...."

I find his methodology and approach persuasive.

The only question I have is that historically, we've seen 'pulses' of temperature/CO2 spiking about (roughly) every 100,000 yrs for about the last million years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg) The last one was about 120,000 yrs ago, and we're in a similar climbing spike right now.
I haven't heard anything about what causes these spikes, nor what mechanism offsets them. It stands to reason that this pattern would continue, which would suggest that today's warming is systemic and cyclical WITHOUT human input.

Converted skeptic my arse... (3, Insightful)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807579)

Firstly, let us be clear on what we're talking about: current temperature appears as a statistical blip in the historical record. [wordpress.com]

Secondly, Richard Muller is not and never was a skeptic. Way back in 2003 he was saying things like, "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." and even more incredibly, "If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants."(2008).

Thirdly, even William Connolley, the guy banned from editing Wikipedia for 6 months due to his attempts to rubbish skeptics, thinks Muller is a wazzock for making the claims he has [scienceblogs.com] . So, slashdot, the excitement you are experiencing here is really quite misplaced.

I remember something about this study (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807625)

Didn't one of the researchers claim he made things up? I remember one of the researchers in his study left and said he leapt to the conclusion.

NOTE I AM NOT saying is or is not real. I don't know. I'm not a climate scientist. Flip a coin and that will be as good as my guess.

That said, there was drama with this study months ago.

Also... did they release the Berkeley earth data yet? Because last time I checked they didn't disclose everything yet. Maybe they did and I just don't know how to look. Not sure. But that's sort of a key issue here.

Anyway, I'm glad it's being researched. Either way this is something that needs to be researched comprehensively.

wow (4, Informative)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807629)

What a misleading summary. What Muller claims to have shown is:

1. Warming is happening; criticisms of statistical methods can either be worked around or are shown to not be valid.
2. Solar activity and/or other proposed non-CO2 warming drivers are not responsible for the observed increase.
3. Atmospheric CO2 is by far the best correlate with global surface temperatures.

However, he then adds, "These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism," and goes on to reject a number of "alarmist" (his word) consequences of warming (more frequent hurricanes, the U.S. drought, polar bears dying, etc.)

Re:wow (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807689)

So it sounds like he's basically replicated the circa-2007 IPCC results and conclusions?

Re:wow (2)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807747)

Read the Op-Ed, but he seems to be saying his results are stronger than the IPCC's in that they address some of the usual skeptic complaints about the methods used to estimate temperature. He also claims to have rejected solar activity as a potential driver; supposedly the IPCC concluded that solar activity might be a non-insignificant driver alongside atmospheric CO2.

Pretentious Nonsense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807679)

THIS explains the whole thing, was settled physics long before the UN did its absurd IPCC thing (and all for trying to institute global taxation.).

From a major physics textbook when men where men and idiots weren't in charge screaming every inane flavor of FUD.

***
Celestial Mechanics is the crowning glory of Newtonian mechanics. It has
revolutionized man’s concept of the Cosmos and his place within it. Its
spectacular successes in the 18th and 19th centuries established the unique
power of mathematical theory for precise explanation and prediction. In the
20th century it has been overshadowed by exciting developments in other
branches of physics. But the last three decades have seen a resurgence of
interest in celestial mechanics, because it is a basic conceptual tool for the
emerging Space Age.
The main concern of celestial mechanics (CM) is to account for the motion of
celestial bodies (stars, planets, satellites, etc.). The same theory applies to the
motion of artificial satellites and spacecraft, so the emerging science of space
flight, astromechanics, can be regarded as an offspring of celestial mechanics.
Space Age capabilities for precise measurements and management of vast
amounts of data has made CM more relevant than ever. Celestial mechanics
is used by observational astronomers for the prediction and explanation of
occultation and eclipse phenomena, by astrophysicists to model the evolution
of binary star systems, by cosmogonists to reconstruct the history of the Solar
System, and by geophysicists to refine models of the Earth and explain
geological data about the past. To cite one specific example, it has recently
been established that major Ice Ages on Earth during the last million years
have occurred regularly with a period of 100,000 years, and this can be
explained with celestial mechanics as forced by oscillations in the Earth’s
eccentricity due to perturbations by other planets. Moreover, periodicities of
minor Ice Ages can be explained as forced by precession and nutation of the
Earth’s axis due to perturbation by the Sun and Moon.

This is not a yes or no question (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807739)

That global temperature have risen during the past 100-150 years is a fact, and that greenhouse gas emissions are at least partly responsible for it was also likely. The real question is the rate of it. A 0.1C warming is harmles, a 10C warming is apocalyptic. In the past 150 years we have burned about 10% of the fossil fuels in the ground, which amounts to about 50% of the reserves we can actually extract. This resulted in a 40% increase in CO2 concentration and about 1C of warming. So if we burn the second half, it won't even rise the temperature with another degree. On the other hand, if technological advances will allow us to exploit more than that, it would result in a bigger warming, which could melt the permafrost releasing all the methane stored there in the athmosphere resulting in an unstoppable warming. Now these numbers are horribly imprecise, and to be able to plan ahead climate research should focus on getting much more accurate data.

Just read the article (0)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807773)

In my first post I assumed that the paper was correct, but now after reading the article I'm much more sceptical. They have measured the warming during the past 250 years, that is, their reference point was right in the middle of the Little Ice Age [wikipedia.org] ! This may not discredit everything they claim but it sure raises some serious doubts about the professionalism of the researchers involved.

Bah humbug (4, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807759)

This is all just liberal propaganda paid for by... ...oh wait...

So the Right has its validation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807765)

It's pretty clear that a huge part of this study was driven by intense distrust of the academic world by the right. But, by the same token, they were a bit worried that the hippy scientists might be onto something. After all, while we might notice, that, it seems warmer in New Jersey during the winter than in our childhoods, they, by the virtue of their wealth, have to be noticing the same things for themselves worldwide. So, they found a scientist that they could trust, and have a look so that they could get the truth. One wonders if this will be the beginning of a sea change in policy making.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?