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!

NASA Scientist: Heat Waves Really Are From Global Warming

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the if-you-say-so dept.

Science 605

mdsolar writes with a tidbit from the New York Times on global warming: "The percentage of the earth's land surface covered by extreme heat in the summer has soared in recent decades, from less than 1 percent in the years before 1980 to as much as 13 percent in recent years, according to a new scientific paper. The change is so drastic, the paper says, that scientists can claim with near certainty that events like the Texas heat wave last year, the Russian heat wave of 2010 and the European heat wave of 2003 would not have happened without the planetary warming caused by the human release of greenhouse gases. Those claims, which go beyond the established scientific consensus about the role of climate change in causing weather extremes, were advanced by James E. Hansen, a prominent NASA climate scientist, and two co-authors in a scientific paper published online on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 'The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural,' Dr. Hansen said in an interview."

cancel ×

605 comments

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

Hansen again? (1, Flamebait)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903859)

Hansen is a "scientist" who likes headlines and attention. Nothing to see here, move along...

Re:Hansen again? (4, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903865)

Because, as always, peer-reviewed work is to be scoffed at while wild un-peer-reviewed claims by TV weathermen are to be taken at face value.

Re:Hansen again? (2, Insightful)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903879)

Calm down and stop throwing toys, both of you.

Re:Hansen again? (3, Funny)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904003)

Calm down and stop throwing toys, both of you.

One of my favourite things about slashdot is the good, solid, thoughtful and well reasoned arguments in the comments.

Re:Hansen again? (1, Insightful)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904009)

In addition to this parental and, yes, proper advice: Go read some books in stead of throwing toys.
There are good arguments for and against manmade global warming, and personally I think there is no such thing as MMGW.
Thing is; there is no way of telling just yet. It is just a way of predicting the future, and there is no such business. The models are only as good as the information (=pre-assumptions) one puts in there, and then there is a huge lag of possible parameters in all those models.

One thing one could say is: There was no global warming in the last 10 years.
  - But maybe that was just a temporary 'plateau', and it will continue to rise even further;
  - But maybe this is a 'top pattern' and things will cool down now;
  - But maybe the data was corrupted;
  - But maybe the models of tomorrow are much more accurate
In short; it is a bit to much:"*staring at handpalm, gipsy-accent* There will be a dark lady in your life! And great fortune as well!". We will know what the weather will be in 20 years after 20 years have gone by. The rest of all the people who (think they) can predict the future: GO BUY LOTTO TICKETS YOU IDIOT!!!

Re:Hansen again? (5, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904031)

The rest of all the people who (think they) can predict the future: GO BUY LOTTO TICKETS YOU IDIOT!!!"

I bet you that it will get dark tonight, and then brighten up again tomorrow. Care to take my bet, or want to modify your broad-based claim?

Re:Hansen again? (1, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904311)

Some things are easier to predict than others.

And in the minds of some religious fanatics, not even the ground you walk on is a safe bet.

Re:Hansen again? (5, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904133)

Do you realize that the underlying theory, the greenhouse effect, goes back 100 years? Global warming is not a new idea. 50 years ago there were people predicting that extra CO2 would cause temperature to rise. In the last 2 decades, we've seen the start of that, and it fits the theory quite well. Of course the earth is an incredibly complex thing, and there are millions of factors that also have some impact, but the foundation is pretty solid.

Considering that we know that CO2 traps heat, and we know that CO2 levels have gone up, and we know that global temperature has gone up, you need to come up with a really solid alternative explanation if you want to flat out deny a causal relationship between these facts.

Re:Hansen again? (1, Insightful)

smg5266 (2440940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904309)

I sort of agree with this. I think that the generalized idea of extra C02 is very hard to argue against. It seems pretty basic so I'm not surprised that the vast majority accepts global warming to be at least partially man made. I'm still somewhat skeptical of climate models though. As you'll often hear in computational science, shit in = shit out. CFD and other techniques used to make these predictions are still somewhat immature (although advancing pretty quickly). So as of right now when I hear very specific claims such as "this weather pattern was absolutely caused by global warming", I'm definitely going to be suspicious.

Re:Hansen again? (0, Troll)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903921)

No because it's just not true.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/21/worlds-worst-heatwave-the-marble-bar-heatwave-1923-24/ [wattsupwiththat.com]

So we're still cooler than the 1920s

Re:Hansen again? (2, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903967)

Wow, combining "un-peer-reviewed claims by TV weathermen" with "wikipedia" with "proof by ghost reference" [google.is] (worst heat wave != most days over 37.8C in a place which already has an average January high of over 41C), whose closest resemblance to saying what he claims it says is a reference to a non-peer-reviewed web page from before the heat waves in question discussed by this paper.

Wow, I'm totally sold now, thanks for linking that!

Re:Hansen again? (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903971)

In addition to being cooler than the 1920's, we're also hipper, awesomer and dress much better.

Re:Hansen again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40903987)

Oh oh.... so _one_ heatwave during a sunspot-cycle (which is known for abnormal solar activity, massive coronal injections and solar flares... when I say "abnormal" is just that, there's an above normal number of solar flares and coronal injections due to the magnetic activity that originates both phenomena) between 1923-1933 (did I mentioned only ONE heatwave?!), compared to several heatwaves for the past 15 years makes it ok... Hold on, I need to review the definition of "exception" and "abnormal conditions" to be able to reply to your bull argument. Oh, wait, not, I just did... you review your concept of "exception" and "abnormal conditions" and then research a bit about sun activity, sunspot-cycle (and the magnetic activity that generates said sunspots and that also amplifies the occurrence of solar flares and coronal injections), and so on. Cheers.

Re:Hansen again? (5, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903989)

Apparently in your (and his) worlds:
  * Global warming predicts that every location on Earth will increase in temperature at roughly the same rate and roughly the same time
  * A region cannot have statistically anomalous warmth driven by an external forcing unless *every* region on earth has statistically anomalous warmth driven by an external forcing.
  * Marble Bar, Australia = Earth
  * Heat wave = high temperatures in absolute numbers, instead of the standard definition, relative to an area's baseline average.

Re:Hansen again? (2, Informative)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903995)

I don't get it. What does a heat wave (consecutive days over 100F) in the 1920s in one corner of Australia, that lasted 160 days in an area that normally gets 154 days over 100F each year, have to do with it?

The basic claim Hansen made is that these recent heat waves are so far out of the ordinary that it would be virtually impossible* for them to have occurred without global warming. I'm not sure how "there was a heatwave in the 1920s in Australia" proves the claim is false.

* Less than 0.1% probability

Re:Hansen again? (1)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904093)

What does a heat wave (consecutive days over 100F)

Since when does "many consecutive days over 100F" qualify as a valid definition of "heat wave"? There are places on this planet where 100F means "fucking cold" during summer. According to the article about Marble Bar "heat wave", Marble Bar is one of them.

Re:Hansen again? (2, Funny)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904257)

Just to be clear, when you say:

100F means "fucking cold" during summer.

Are you trying to imply global warming is nothing to worry about?

Re:Hansen again? (1)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904323)

Are you trying to imply global warming is nothing to worry about?

No.

Re:Hansen again? (1)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904101)

He's saying the heatwaves are "out of the ordinary".
Clearly they are not.
And Clearly they have nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with solar activity.

Re:Hansen again? (1, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904149)

It's better than that. Take this chart [forgottenliberty.com] for example (This chart has been photoshopped! Simpsons did it!). This chart shows that we're coming out of a global cold period and haven't yet broken the global hot averages. Mind you the chart is inaccurate: back before the past 100 or so years, we only have 30 year averages. That means the ridiculously hot "medieval warm period" shows data points for averages over 30 years: we can at least take on faith that some years were that hot; more likely some years were hotter, perhaps drastically hotter (unlikely given the period of stability; I would say mildly hotter).

The basic claim Hansen made is that we're facing almost certain man-made global warming, and coming out of an ice age has nothing to do with it. That temperatures have been rising since 1700 and that it's been hotter before don't seem to have occurred to him.

It's a hilariously distant leap of logic. Real scientists will try to correlate power output, fuel burned, soot and CO2 and methane and water vapor in the atmosphere, etc with their heat-trapping and heat-reflecting effects, and show a model that then predicts weather pattern changes based on these things. If that model holds, global warming due to such factors; if it doesn't, then global warming is possibly real (look, it's getting hotter) but the idea of it being caused by human meddling with the atmospheric composition is a myth. That's how science works: we see these things, hypothesize these effects, then point at the changes and say this is what will happen... it happens, we're right; if not, we try again.

That in mind, global warming science is a lot of double-think bullshit. The scientists can't get the model to work quite right, and keep changing it. We're learning new things all the time, and refining our understanding of all this stuff... but while we don't understand it and are continuously wrong in our predictions, we swear that we see proof about some fuzzy concept in front of us. That's not science, it's religion. Cult of global warming.

Re:Hansen again? (4, Interesting)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904303)

It's a hilariously distant leap of logic. Real scientists will try to correlate power output, fuel burned, soot and CO2 and methane and water vapor in the atmosphere, etc with their heat-trapping and heat-reflecting effects, and show a model that then predicts weather pattern changes based on these things. If that model holds, global warming due to such factors; if it doesn't, then global warming is possibly real (look, it's getting hotter) but the idea of it being caused by human meddling with the atmospheric composition is a myth. That's how science works: we see these things, hypothesize these effects, then point at the changes and say this is what will happen... it happens, we're right; if not, we try again.

That in mind, global warming science is a lot of double-think bullshit. The scientists can't get the model to work quite right, and keep changing it. We're learning new things all the time, and refining our understanding of all this stuff... but while we don't understand it and are continuously wrong in our predictions, we swear that we see proof about some fuzzy concept in front of us. That's not science, it's religion. Cult of global warming.

Interesting. How do you explain stratospheric cooling which has been directly observed in the past few decades then? Note that stratospheric cooling is inconsistent with any natural cause of global warming.

Marble bar wasn't a heatwave (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904237)

Read the original link, it's not a 164 day heat wave, it's 164 days of temperature above 100F, which the article you linked to then claims is a heat wave. Which of course it isn't since Marble bar is damn hot normally:
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm

"The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100Fahrenheit (or 37.8 on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia. "

It's normal for Marble Bar:
"Temperatures above 100F are common in Marble Bar and indeed throughout a wide area of northwestern Australia. On average, Marble Bar experiences about 154 such days each year. "

So you're attempting to mislead. Which is why we have peer reviewed science. This is peer reviewed, Weatherman's claims aren't, indeed they were debunked many times in several different ways, and he simply repeats them to mislead.

Re:Hansen again? (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904071)

The summary is great though. "It's so drastic it HAS to be a man-made event! It's proof! Something that BIG wouldn't just HAPPEN, and this is the obvious cause!"

Re:Hansen again? (2)

darkharlequin (1923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904143)

Have you ever produced peer reviewed work? The massive amount of politics that goes into getting published turned me away from a career in academics. It literally has more to do with who you know and how your paper fits into their world view than the merits of your paper.

Re:Hansen again? (1, Interesting)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904305)

Or maybe because global warming is an uncomfortable truth that the powers that be deliberately bury in the name of corporate profits.

peer reviewed? (4, Insightful)

kenorland (2691677) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904341)

Hansen is a PNAS member, meaning he can either skip peer review entirely or pick his reviewers. Even if the review process had been rigorous, peer review guarantees nothing about the correctness of a paper. Peer review simply means that the paper passes basic quality standards and editorial policies for the publication in question. If you want to judge by external factors, none of the authors are statisticians, so their statements about statistical anomalies amount to little more than opinion.

I don't know whether the hot summers have been due to global warming; I tend to believe so. But to claim that as a fact, I'd certainly like a valid statistical analysis from someone qualified to make such an analysis, not from a climate hack like Hansen.

Re:Hansen again? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40903923)

Hansen is a "scientist" who likes headlines and attention. Nothing to see here, move along...

You tell'em bradley13!

Rush, Hannity and Boortz say (*say with sarcastic snear*) glooooooobal waaaarming is just a method to justify Big Government and Control by Liberals who TRUST that government is the only solution! And it's a method for the control and loss of sovereignty to the UN!

Hear ya! Brother!

Government control is EVIL and UnAmerican!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go to a meeting where we're going discuss methods of getting government to ban gay marriage, abortion, and to start teaching abstinence and the Bible in school!

Damn government control!

Re:Hansen again? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904343)

What's so terrible about wanting to ban abortion? It's such a barbaric and grisly practice.

Everyone knows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904045)

That global warming is caused by Liberal politicians, you elected Obama, then you get heat waves. A clear cause effect link.
God is sending you a warning! And the heatwave was sent to Texas! A clear sign that Texas Republican need to spend more money getting their guy elected.

All This From 1 Degree C (5, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903885)

All this drought, devastation and disaster from just under 1 degree C. Imagine what it will be like at 2 degrees! When you multiply the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of the oceans and air by 1 degree, it's a number that's off the charts. How did people think we could dump that much energy into any system and it would not make a difference?

Ah, love that straw! (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40903903)

Tell me, if these heatwaves were 1C cooler, would they be less of a severe heat wave or no different?

Re:Ah, love that straw! (2)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904293)

Do you know the difference between averages and extremes?

Re:All This From 1 Degree C (5, Insightful)

marjancek (1215230) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903993)

How did people think we could dump that much energy into any system and it would not make a difference?

Well, that's weird: people commenting without having an idea about the issue.
We dumping energy into the system?

We are not giving [so much] energy into the system; we are just pouring green-house gases into the atmosphere, which in turn stop the planet from loosing energy at the rate it has dissipated it before. That's called green-house effect, because it acts as the glasses in a green house, preventing the heat from leaving the system, and increasing the average temperature.

It is not about human turning their air conditioners on and heating the atmosphere; it's about burning gas/coal/petrol to generate energy for those air conditioners (and cars, airplanes, industry, etc.) and increasing the level of green-house gases.

Re:All This From 1 Degree C (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904139)

Well, that's weird: people commenting without having an idea about the issue.
We dumping energy into the system?

We are not giving [so much] energy into the system; we are just pouring green-house gases into the atmosphere...

Well that's weird, someone claiming to be an expert on the internet who isn't an expert and berating another person they don't know anything about all because they disagree with their viewpoint and instead rely on their pseudo-science.

I'm no expert, but here's real science I learned in chemistry, even though I didn't do well in it (full disclosure, try it sometime):

It requires ENERGY to raise TEMPERATURES. 1 calorie (unit of energy) is required to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.

Once again a global warming conspiracy theorist is wrong about REAL SCIENCE and further disproves weather changes are man-made.

Re:All This From 1 Degree C (5, Informative)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904199)

The point was that the energy to raise global temps doesn't come from human activities, it comes from the sun. The difference is now in the process by which the sun's energy is radiated back into space.

Re:All This From 1 Degree C (4, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904353)

It requires ENERGY to raise TEMPERATURES. 1 calorie (unit of energy) is required to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.

However to keep that water at 1 degree celcius above it's surroundings will require continuous energy input since any item hotter than it's surroundings will constantly lose heat to it's surroundings.

This means in the long term there are TWO ways to increase the temperature of an object. You can increase the rate at which heat is supplied to the object or you can make it harder for the object to lose heat to it's surroundings. The greenhouse affect does the latter.

Re:All This From 1 Degree C (5, Funny)

squizzar (1031726) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904209)

Fuck me sideways. Can we sort this shit out. To free something is to loose it. To not win is to lose. If you were practising archery you'd be loosing arrows. If you were walking around with coins falling from your pocket you would be losing money. If you open all the cages at the zoo the animals have been loosed. If you drop your keys down the drain they are lost. A sibling's death might mean you lose a brother. A tragedy might occur to someone you are loosely related to. If something is not tight it is loose. To make it less tight would be to make it looser. Not knowing the difference between loose and lose makes you sound like a loser.

If English is not your first language then I apologise: in that case you are a far more capable speaker than many who would call English their native tongue, and I can certainly make no claims to proficiency in any other language, but I see this mistake so very often, from people who should genuinely know better that I cannot keep the inner pedant at bay any more.

Prepare for the future of tomorrow (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904019)

The only thing we normal people can do on an individual basis is try to live our lives in the most sustainable way possible. Of primary consideration is the location of where to live, as forest fires, flooding, drought, heat waves, and hurricanes are all increasing in magnitude. Sustainabble energy is important, as is renewable energy. Possessing a generator and solar array is essential, not only do they lower electricity bills, but they ensure life wil not be disrupted by outages. Similarly, storage and conservation of drinking water is also useful. Planting a decent size garden now days can save a family hundreds or even thousands dog dollars a year in food costs.

If one lives in an urban environment (as a majority of humanity now do), live within your means and build up a saving account to deal with unforeseen incidences (disasters, outbreaks, ...anything goes these days!). It pays to be prepared, one cannot say they were not warned. No need to turn into a gun nut and go all survivalist stocking 10 years of food in ones basement, but we clearly need to reevaluate how we live on a daily basis.

Re:Prepare for the future of tomorrow (1, Interesting)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904103)

Sadly, the only sensible/rational thing to do is to maximize your own well-being. Since the world seems to be going to hell anyway, get what you can while you can. You won't be getting more of it when it is all gone.

Re:Prepare for the future of tomorrow (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904153)

Spoken like a true Republican.

Re:Prepare for the future of tomorrow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904167)

I'm not advocating being some kind of selfish ayn rand selfish bastard. On the contrary, the old expression, think globally, act locally is truer than ever. Knowledge is power, and Change is possible. We may not be able to stop the climate change we have directly caused this past hundred years, and the earth will soon have 10 billion of us humans, but we can still innovate solutions, and do our best to deal with an increasingly bad and deteriating situation.

Re:Prepare for the future of tomorrow (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904147)

That's _not_ the only thing we normal people can do. We can learn to reject propaganda. We can pay attention to who we elect, and judge them on the basis of what they do, not what they promise to do. And we can find fellow citizens who also want a better world, and debate with them. People will tell you that this can never happen, and this can never work, but it is the only way change ever happens in a society: from the bottom up. And it has happened many times before. Don't let the no-hopeniks convince you to give up.

This is not to say that any of what you have said above is wrong—just that it's not the only thing you can do.

REALITY VS. HOPE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904317)

im all for electing smart people who will do what is right (as opposed to what their corporate masters demand). However, China has 1.2 billion, as does India, and Africa growth will be well over a billion. The earths biospheres are almost dead. The oceans are fished out and becoming acidified. The great forests of the amazon, Congo, and SE Asia are quickly being deforested. Indeed, melting of the glaciers is accelerating. All these things are happening, well outside of the control and limited influence of the democracies of the world. A prudent thing to do is to recognize where things are heading to mitigate the consequences of periodic disaster.

Re:All This From 1 Degree C (4, Informative)

AlecC (512609) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904173)

/We/ are not dumping that energy into the system. The sun is. All we are doing is stopping a tiny fraction of the energy that the sun dumps on the earth from escaping.

Given that turning the sun "up" and "down" (the seasons) can make differences of many tens of degrees, the idea that changing the effective reflectivity can change the average temperature by a degree or two does not seem to me unreasonable. What we are doing is painting the earth blacker in the infra-red. And anybody knows how much more a black surface heats up compared to a white one in strong sunlight.

Re:All This From 1 Degree C (3, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904219)

1 degree temperature difference doesn't cause drought. Drought is caused by it raining in the wrong place. It's always gonna rain ... in the desert it rains on the other side of the mountain. If the wind blows all the rain clouds north, or jetstreams take them west and over your farmland FOR A YEAR, it doesn't rain on you. Changing weather patterns can change the way the wind moves, changing where water vapor concentrates and preventing it from raining in an area; if it didn't rain the planet would turn into Venus (high humidity everywhere), but of course it'll just rain somewhere else. Over the ocean is a good, useless place for rain to go.

Re:All This From 1 Degree C (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904289)

Some of the biggest changes we have caused are:

we killed off so many animals and fish.
we cut down and replaced many trees, but the tree count is still far lower than it should be.
we paved masses of the world with tar and similar dark substances that can absorb lots of heat. Equally lots of light colors as well.
Some gasses in the air. But these are actually nowhere near as changing as the above 3. CFCs were the real bad one, which we stopped more or less.

Where we are in terms of what would happen if we never existed and nature led its course just like it typically would is another question. We just simply don't have the numbers for that.

And what would happen if we tried to stop a cycle that has happened before our race even existed and has happened several times before in Earths history is something I wouldn't want to think about.
It could only be bad. I'm thinking Mars-like death in a million years if done.

What we can do is demolish the whole of modern society and rebuild it from the ground up. Literally at that.
We survived this once in the tribal ages. We are more than capable of surviving it again, now.

Capitalism is to blame. (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903891)

Workers revolution or imperialist barbarism. Get with the program people.

Hello Slashdort, I just wanted to say that these days, I have taken to eating muffins with my coffee in the morning, while I write voluminous love letters to my many distant girlfriends, Laura most of all. Good day!

Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (3, Funny)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903895)

In the U.S. the conservative political party (the ones opposed to doing anything about this) is called the Republicans.

By and large they live in the center and southern parts of the country, the parts most affected by the heat.

So, in a sense, they are burning in the Hell they themselves have created. Unfortunately the rest of the world is also suffering.

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40903915)

Right, because the Democrats are doing so much to help.

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40903925)

So, in a sense, they are burning in the Hell they themselves have created.

Yes, because the Democrats have had _no_ influence over any environmental, industrial or war policies of the USA for the last 200 years... AND it's all America's fault... *sigh*

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (4, Funny)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903963)

Your self control is amazing, how were you able to resist writing Rethuglicans? What's your secret?

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (3, Insightful)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903979)

Really? And what are the Republicans in China and India doing? How about Europe? It's *Global* Warming, and unless you don't use energy derived from burning fossil fuels, you're just as responsible. And I don't see a slow down or reverse of the trend without a massive change in technology over a very short time.

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (3, Interesting)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904359)

Absolutely. Everybody who doesn't cut backs much as possible on his fossil energy use carries blame for this.

That said, Europe also definitely has its share of conservatives who are not so eager to do anything about this. They're generally not denying the facts as loudly as US Republicans do, but they also don't consider it something that they need to worry about. As if they're hoping it'll go away if they just focus on other problems.

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (4, Informative)

JWW (79176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904017)

The conservatives need to change their stance on global warming. The reason they are always "against" it is that all the political solutions to global warming that are proffered by the left represent the left's statist wet dream. But as I have come to realize, the only real way to solve global warming is through advancements in science and engineering to give us cheap reliable sources of green energy.

The left may say that their statist utopia and an all powerful communal government would solve this, but they'd be just as wrong as they were every other time they've gotten that chance in the past.

We need to find the next Einstein or Tesla to think up solutions to global warming, not the next Mao or Lenin.

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (5, Funny)

Pumpkin Tuna (1033058) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904087)

Think you could shove any more Libertarian catchphrases into that? Of course you do get extra points for using "statist" twice.

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (2)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904151)

The universe doesn't care about your ideology and operates the same way whether you like it or not. Not liking regulation for ideological reasons shouldn't impact whether or not regulation will accomplish a specific set of goals. If you are always convinced that your ideology and how the laws of physics work always align, then something is wrong with your evaluation of how reality functions.

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (3, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904195)

My favorite solution to global warming is to tax carbon use and redistribute the proceeds evenly, creating a market incentive for people to stop using carbon. This neatly addresses the externality of carbon use, requires no special bureaucracy, and obsoletes itself as carbon use declines, while at the same time not unfairly penalizing people who are stuck using carbon fuels now.

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (2)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904271)

Not coincidentally, this is exactly the "wet statist dream" proposed by James Hansen (who voted for Reagan, by the way).

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904241)

Statist wet dream? Sir are you implying that politicians are interested in their own political agendas and not purely in the well-being of everyone on this shiny blue planet?

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (1)

Pumpkin Tuna (1033058) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904059)

Not to mention us poor outnumbered liberals sweating alongside them in the South.

Re:Republicans are burning in the Hell they made (1)

kayditty (641006) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904079)

in the US, the conservative politica party is called the Libertarians. republicans aren't opposed to big government nonsense at all. you're confused. but, yes, of course true conservatives don't want to politicize the environment and take taxpayer money by theft to spend on their pet projects, under the guise of "progress."

Mitt Romney is not from the southern Hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904089)

Isn't Mitt Romney from the midwest Hell?

Before the trolls start (5, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903899)

Look at the abstract. This isn't arguing about the accuracy of fractional degree measurements at individual weather stations: it is about > 3 sigma events over >10% of the Earth's surface, quite large changes and exactly the kind of thing that would be expected if more energy was being added to the atmosphere. For years the climatologists have been trying to explain that adding energy doesn't simply make everything slightly warmer, but will have effects larger in one place and smaller in another. This study tends to bear that out and emphasises that the extremes are over large land masses - again as would be expected. I am rather glad I live close enough to the Atlantic to be affected by Atlantic weather patterns, but far enough that we rarely get the worst of the storms, even though I am going to have to put in extra soil drainage in October.

Re:Before the trolls start (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903959)

it argues that there were heatwaves in the past decade, which is easy to argue for. then it argues those heatwaves wouldn't have happened without human made greenhouse gases which is a bit harder to argue for as it's a "why" question and not just showing data from weather stations in excel.

what I'm asking, where the fuck is this summers heatwaves? there hasn't been a single good heatwave in Finland all summer now.(just couple of days every now and then).

Re:Before the trolls start (3, Interesting)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904001)

Strange your weather's not been warm. I live in Iceland and our summer has been crazy-warm and sunny, like 5C over average most days and almost no rain.

Not that I'm complaining, mind you ;)

Re:Before the trolls start (4, Informative)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904127)

what I'm asking, where the fuck is this summers heatwaves? there hasn't been a single good heatwave in Finland all summer now.(just couple of days every now and then).

Well, unless the Arctic ice starts to recover, there's a pretty good chance that you won't be seeing many hot summers in Finland in the near future. The warming of the Arctic has weakened the air currents and made "blocking patterns" far more likely, those blocking patterns are keeping warm air over most of North America and preventing it from flowing east to Europe like it used to. The net result may be that some of Europe (particular the northern parts like Norway and Finland) will experience temperatures that are significantly below your previous normal temperatures while the southern parts experience temperatures significantly above normal.

Oh, and it's so unlikely that the Arctic ice will recover, that the posters at Watts Up With That (WUWT), one of the big climate denial blogs, seems to have finally stopped predicting that the Arctic ice will recover "next year". It looks like seeing how very, very wrong they were in previous years has tempered their predictions a bit.

Re:Before the trolls start (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904201)

it argues that there were heatwaves in the past decade, which is easy to argue for. then it argues those heatwaves wouldn't have happened without human made greenhouse gases which is a bit harder to argue for as it's a "why" question and not just showing data from weather stations in excel.

That's not what the argument is. The argument is that there have always been heatwaves. In the last 10 years, they have been bigger. It's like if you look at a calm lake. The waves are very flat for a long time. Then in the last 10 minutes, you see rippling big waves. That's when you know something has changed. Its obvious.

We know something has changed in climate since the 1980s. It's obvious.

what I'm asking, where the fuck is this summers heatwaves?

Follow the news, then you know where they are, and you can take your holidays there.

Re:Before the trolls start (5, Informative)

mellon (7048) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904235)

(1) global warming isn't uniform
(2) read the paper again—that's not what it says. It compares what was normal in the past to what is normal now, and shows that the statistical probability of such a change occurring due to random variation is too small to take seriously. It's actually a really good argument, unless you are determined that its conclusion is unacceptable.

Re:Before the trolls start (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904227)

But your food and fuel costs will still increase. No man is an island.

"Not natural" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40903913)

'The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural,' Dr. Hansen said in an interview./quote?

Right, so "not natural". Maybe that's true. But why assume that man caused it? Man is natural, unlike magical creatures such as pixies. Have any of these so-called "scientists" considered that some sort of global warming pixie might be behind it? Probbaly not, because they depend on massive grants from organisations with a pro-AGW bias. Give me proof that it wasn't pixies and we might have something to talk about.

OK, so it's naturally man made. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904247)

Feel better?

Have you ever considered that maybe the scientists are really scientists and that they are really right?

Give me some proof it is not made made and we might have something to talk about.

Heat waves really are from global warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40903929)

Either that or arsenic based life forms.

Personal attacks (2, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903933)

Wait for the dirty tricks and personal attacks to begin.

The fossil fuel lobby won't take such a show of flagrant anti-rich, anti-1% dissent lying down.

Like the poor fool who dares to step between the pigs and their swill, this fellow is gonna get mauled.

But... (2)

Elminster Aumar (2668365) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903935)

...heaven forbid we actually do anything about it that's worth more than some blog post. It's like everything is in a bad dream anymore where you're watching yourself trying to run away from something but can't because for some reason, your legs just don't move as fast as they can.

Eh. (4, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903939)

The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural

Don't underestimate nature, it has a habit of killing those that do.

Re:Eh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40903997)

The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural

Don't underestimate nature, it has a habit of killing those that do.

Like those pandas, man we really underestimated them. And I'll bet those people on Easter Island really underestimated nature. Or maybe they underestimated their ability to deforest a large island? Actually underestimating nature makes no sense here as the concern is that we're all going to be fucked by climate change.

What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?

You got one thing right.

Re:Eh. (5, Funny)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904013)

Don't anthropomorphize nature, it hates it when you do that.

Re:Eh. (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904163)

The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural

Don't underestimate nature, it has a habit of killing those that do.

Err - Are you seriously trying to tell us that the recent warming we have seen is natural?

What is causing the warming?

And what happened to the warming we should have seen from the measurably increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Re:Eh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904213)

natural ....er cows and people..... lot of people ducking the role of agriculture as a major source of CO2

I'm not bothered... (2)

Jawju (614159) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903947)

In the end the planet will be a dry wasteland, but by the time I'm an old man, we'll be able to launch a probe that sends information about humanity amongst the stars - just at the same time I reawaken safe and well to find myself captain of a starship again. Plus I'll have learned how to play the flute - bonus!

Hansen is delusional (0, Troll)

Sara Chan (138144) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903953)

Yet more scaremongering from the statistically-incompetent Jim Hansen. Regarding the heat wave in Russia, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a press release entitled "Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands [noaa.gov] "; the press release is based on a paper that was published in Geophysical Research Letters. Another paper [doi.org] , published in the same journal, concluded that "the heat wave falls within the realm of natural variability ... [and] appears not to be the product of long-term climate changes". Also, some researchers in Germany analyzed the data and published a paper, entitled "Large scale flow and the long-lasting blocking high over Russia [ametsoc.org] ", which says that the heat wave "appears as a result of natural atmospheric variability".

In short, the claim about Russia is false. The claim about the European summer of 2003 is also debunked. (I am not familiar with Texas.) And why does Hansen not mention extreme cold recently in Alaska?—is that also due to global warming? Bad weather has always existed.

Re:Hansen is delusional (5, Informative)

Coriolis (110923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904041)

I'm not assuming Hansen is correct, but your analysis is flawed. You are comparing studies of local conditions with a study of global conditions. Just because a single heat wave is not anomalous locally, it does not mean that a series of distributed heat waves is not anomalous globally. In case that's not clear, consider an extreme example : A hurricane in Florida in a year is not anomalous. Each major coastal city in the world being hit by a hurricane in the same year would be.

Re:Hansen is delusional (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904225)

I'll be happy to drop $20 on the table, that this will also be a "local anomaly" and will be pointed out as such in about 2-3 years time. As much as the "spring anomaly" here in the NE Canada and US earlier in the year, where it was unseasonably warm, but it was frigid as hell everywhere else.

Re:Hansen is delusional (5, Informative)

docmordin (2654319) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904229)

Another paper [doi.org] , published in the same journal, concluded that "the heat wave falls within the realm of natural variability ... [and] appears not to be the product of long-term climate changes"

That quote neither appears in the paper you reference (M. Matsueda, "Predictability of Euro-Russian blocking in summer of 2010", Geophys. Res. Lett. 38: L06801, 2011) nor the NOAA press release.

Also, some researchers in Germany analyzed the data and published a paper, entitled "Large scale flow and the long-lasting blocking high over Russia [ametsoc.org] ", which says that the heat wave "appears as a result of natural atmospheric variability".

The quote taken from (the abstract of) that paper, by Schneidereit et al., was in reference to R. Dole, et al. ("Was there a basis for anticipating the 2010 Russian heat wave", Geophys. Res. Lett. 38: L06702, 2011). Schneidereit et al. also mentioned, citing a study by Schar et al. ("The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves", Nature 427: 332-336, 2004), that a long-lasting blocking high could occur more often with climate change and the expected change in the year-to-year variability.

Re:Hansen is delusional (5, Interesting)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904321)

I don't think you either read or understood Hansen's paper. The argument isn't that these events are individually impossible to occur. They all fall within the bounds of possibility for the baseline climate of 1951-1980. The argument put forward in the paper is that together they are each "once in a century" events, which means we should not get 3 of them in less than a single decade. The reason we do get them is because global warming is "weighting the dice", changing the probability distribution so that once in a century hot events occur once a decade on average, and once in century cold events occur once in a millennia. That's a rough description of the paper, you really should read the original.

In short, the claim about Russia is false. The claim about the European summer of 2003 is also debunked. (I am not familiar with Texas.)

Sorry, but the evidence you cited doesn't actually conflict with Hansen's paper. Each of the papers claim the events were "low predictability" events. Additionally, there's new research [wunderground.com] which contradicts the papers you cited that you cited, and points towards Arctic sea ice loss (driven by global warming) as the reason for the "low predictability" of those events.

And why does Hansen not mention extreme cold recently in Alaska?—is that also due to global warming?

Actually, it is. The same block pattern that's been keeping warm air (and record high temperatures) over much of the U.S. is keeping cold air (and cold temperatures) over Alaska. The ice loss appears to have weakened the air currents that would normally break up the blocking patterns.

Bad weather has always existed.

Indeed it has, however, Hansen's paper says the bad weather is biased hot now. It's like taking a 6 sided die, and changing the 1 to a 7. You won't get the same results you used to get.

got damn faggots wasting tax money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40903965)

NASA = Nerds And Socialist Assholes

could there possibly be a bigger load of bullshit? (-1)

kayditty (641006) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903981)

The change is so drastic, the paper says, that scientists can claim with near certainty that events like the Texas heat wave last year, the Russian heat wave of 2010 and the European heat wave of 2003 would not have happened without the planetary warming caused by the human release of greenhouse gases.

yeah, ok. thanks for isolating those 1.0 * 10^23 variables for me and forming a conveniently packaged political conclusion. what's next? this kind of "science" is a joke.

Re:could there possibly be a bigger load of bullsh (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904099)

Thanks for analyzing that paper's scientific value for me without actually reading it.

Re:could there possibly be a bigger load of bullsh (1)

kayditty (641006) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904123)

I didn't do anything for you. read it if you want to? it has no "scientific" value, because it's not science. I don't need to read something like that. I don't read Harry Potter, either.

Underestimate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904039)

The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural...

I think you underestimate the denier's capacity to ignore science.

Personal attacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904069)

Wait for the dirty tricks and personal attacks to begin.

The one world goverment and alternative energy industry lobby won't take such a show of flagrant anti-rich, anti-1% dissent lying down.

Like the poor fool who dares to step between the pigs and their swill, this fellow is gonna get mauled.

Here's a heatwave graphic that includes the 1930's (1)

BobK65 (2541842) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904073)

You'll notice Hansen carefully avoids talking about the 1930's. The EPA has a heatwave graphic which goes back to the turn of the last century. If Hansen wants to claim it is due to co2 then there must have been one hell of a co2 bubble sitting stationary over the US for most of the 1930's. http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/heat-waves.html [epa.gov]

Re:Here's a heatwave graphic that includes the 193 (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904171)

Did he skip the one in 1988 too? Yep looks like he did.

So why are most US temp records from the 1930s? (-1)

PerMolestiasEruditio (1118269) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904125)

The instrument record of the last 150 years most definitely does not back CAGW driven heat waves. Hansen is (as usual) full of it. Check out the below graph of record US temperatures by decade:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01761679905d970c-pi [typepad.com]
intersting how the 1930's dominates temperature records, and yet on average is a bit cooler than today.

Re:So why are most US temp records from the 1930s? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904339)

And of course, Hansen did not study the 1930s. He compared 30 years when there was cooling after the 1940s to the 30 years of warming which followed. Yes, when you have a cool spell then things do warm up when the cool spell ends.

Scientific method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40904129)

Warm weather is caused by something.
AGW is something.
Therefore, warm weather is caused by AGW.

QED.

Look at the data - US temp records by state: (0)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904169)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes [wikipedia.org]

All-time temperature records of 24 out of 51 US states (including DC) were made in the 1930ies and still stand. Colorado reached its all time high this year, but didn't surpass it.

Another 8 states have all-time temperature records dating back before the 1930ies. Oregons record dates back all the way to the 19th century - 1898.

That's 32 temperature records older than 70 years.

No record high temperatures were recorded for the 1940ies. For another 4 states record dates are in the 1950ies one more in 1961. Another 2 states set records in the 1970ies, another 2 states in the 1980ies. Out of 5 states in the table with record temperatures set in the 1990ies there were 3 states that merely repeated their old records, without setting a new one. The same is true for all 4 states listed in this table for merely repeating their old records within the last 12 years.

My suggested headline: NASA scientists turn a blind eye to reality.

Moderation (4, Insightful)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904203)

Someone needs to take a long, hard look at the moderation of climate threads on /. Quoting from the moderation guidelines:

Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down.

I'm not taking sides either way in the climate debate; I'm saying that sceptics are moderated down because the moderators disagree with their point of view. At least one comment here already has the score '0 Flamebait' when I'm pretty sure the author of that comment posted what he posted because he honestly believes it, not because he's trying to stir up a flame war. Another comment is titled, 'Before the trolls start...', immediately branding anyone who disagrees with the author as a troll. They're not, they just disagree with you. Build a bridge and get over it.

1980 (1)

BinBoy (164798) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904273)

What happened in 1980 to cause the climate to change?

Re:1980 (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 2 years ago | (#40904373)

Reagan.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?