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!

2012 Another Record-Setter For Weather, Fits Climate Forecasts

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the it-was-cold-today-therefore-global-warming-is-invalid dept.

Earth 336

Layzej writes "The Associated Press reports: 'In 2012 many of the warnings scientists have made about global warming went from dry studies in scientific journals to real-life video played before our eyes. As 2012 began, winter in the U.S. went AWOL. Spring and summer arrived early with wildfires, blistering heat and drought. And fall hit the eastern third of the country with the ferocity of Superstorm Sandy. Globally, five countries this year set heat records, but none set cold records. 2012 is on track to be the warmest year on record in the United States. Worldwide, the average through November suggests it will be the eighth warmest since global record-keeping began in 1880 and will likely beat 2011 as the hottest La Nina year on record. America's heartland lurched from one extreme to the other without stopping at "normal." Historic flooding in 2011 gave way to devastating drought in 2012. But the most troubling climate development this year was the melting at the top of the world. Summer sea ice in the Arctic shrank to 18 percent below the previous record low. These are "clearly not freak events," but "systemic changes," said climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute in Germany. "With all the extremes that, really, every year in the last 10 years have struck different parts of the globe, more and more people absolutely realize that climate change is here and already hitting us."'"

cancel ×

336 comments

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

-1 for linking to FOX news (1, Insightful)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | about 2 years ago | (#42361167)

there has to be a better source

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (5, Funny)

Andrio (2580551) | about 2 years ago | (#42361239)

Hey, if FOX is reporting on Climate change, then you *know* we're in trouble.

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (1)

jkrise (535370) | about 2 years ago | (#42361485)

you *know* we're in trouble.

Yes, we all got the memo... Just a few more hours for the whole World to end, anyways; so what if record temperatures were set? Or Fox news reported the truth?

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (-1, Troll)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#42361627)

Hey, if FOX is reporting on Climate change, then you *know* we're in trouble.

Still, my answer to all the "Global Warming" rants is:

"Meh".

What do I really care? I'll be long dead and gone by the time it is a real problem, so, I'll be enjoying my life now as I please thank you.

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42361899)

I don't thinks a sociopath like yourself to care. We'll be happy if you don't develop a taste for human flesh.

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361909)

You might as well go shoot up a school and then kill yourself, I mean, if that was how you wanted to live your life, then what would you care about the suffering of those left here to deal with the aftermath? You'll be dead.

Shitty misanthrope logic general.

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361921)

You are a pathetic human being and should escalate your "long dead and gone" date.

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361943)

It's already a real problem, and I have nephews and a niece that I would prefer not go through hell because we couldn't keep our mindless conservatives in check.

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (0)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 2 years ago | (#42362001)

What do I care if you're brutally raped, tortured & murded?

See, two or us can play the apathy game.

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361267)

I disagree. The fact that FOX is covering it is incredibly telling. When "head in the sand" individuals are tuning around in their admission to a problem, it is a good way to convince other "head in the sand" individuals.

-- MyLongNickName

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42361457)

I'm guessing the cheque from the denialists [wikipedia.org] was late this month. This is just a warning shot and normal service will be resumed fairly soon...

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (1)

sbjornda (199447) | about 2 years ago | (#42362023)

However, not to be a denier just a questioner, how can we tell if this is just part of the statistical variations to be expected over time rather than an actual real trend?

A part of the answer to your question can be found here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html [noaa.gov] . To get the full impact you need to watch the whole thing right to the very end, 3:15.

--
.nosig

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (5, Interesting)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#42362033)

But do most denialists deny that climate change is actually happening? Or just question how much man contributes to it and by what measures? Realize that in the past Siberia flash froze for some reason (probably not man) and that Iraq used to be the "fertile crescent". So the question is, are we the cause of these events or do they just happen despite us?

That said, one of the easiest changes to make is for governments to start giving incentives for telecommuting. Saves tons of gas and solves traffic issues. I don't think much would change if I went into the office 3 days a week instead of 5, except the amount of gas I purchase.

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42362009)

I'm sorry. We cannot allow general acceptance of any scientific theory that violates political and ideological tenets of conservatism and libertarianism. AGW requires solutions that violate Conservativr notions of free market principles, and therefore the theory is false. Even if the theory were true, it still violates libertarian free market notions, and thus nothing should be done to mitigate it, as government involvement in solutions is absolute tyranny.

None of this applies, of course, to fossil fuel extraction, where government cooperation. Is absolutely essential.

Drill, baby, drill!!!

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (4, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#42361279)

I would rather here about this from Fox News than most anyone else. Just like I would rather hear about Obama issues from MSNBC and the NFL being the best American sports league from the MLB & NBA.

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361339)

So a source that tells the facts of a matter that another might report is bad how?
 
I can't believe that bigotry is modded up. Oh, wait... yes I can. This is Slashdot.

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (5, Informative)

Bartles (1198017) | about 2 years ago | (#42361357)

You guys do understand the difference between a Foxnews article, and an AP Wire article, right?

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#42361523)

You guys do understand the difference between a Foxnews article, and an AP Wire article, right?

If the Fox News article and the AP Wire story are the same, whose the bigot?

the bigot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361831)

is yours. you can have him.

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#42361605)

Let's be honest, neither one is known for accuracy.

Re:-1 for linking to FOX news (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about 2 years ago | (#42361529)

there has to be a better source

The "good" thing about FOX compared to CNN is that there is some level of chaos in FOX, and reports that are decidedly pro-science and sometimes liberal and even left-leaning somehow get through - I've seen a couple of very positive reports about the Occupy movement, on the FOX News website. I can only conclude that the censoring process on FOX is somewhat porous and random.

Not so with CNN: those guys are systematic to the core, and always, immutably and constantly right-leaning.

Hundred-year flood and other extremes... (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#42361689)

Fox has usually been on the side of the "climate change deniers", so this change where Fox is even reporting on the topic is news in a way. However, not to be a denier just a questioner, how can we tell if this is just part of the statistical variations to be expected over time rather than an actual real trend?
.
Sort of like the "hundred year flood", is there a "hundred year freeze" or a "hundred year overheat" which marks the extreme cold or hot temperatures one would expect to find once in one-hundred years just from normal statistical fluctuations and a normal distribution?
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-year_flood [wikipedia.org]

No one has posted yet!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361177)

Did the world actually end except in my office!?

in other news... (4, Funny)

schlachter (862210) | about 2 years ago | (#42361183)

on the bright side..."end of the world" forecasts were proven wrong when things seemed to go on as normal today...leading end of the world theorists to re-evaluate their models.

Re:in other news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361813)

.leading end of the world theorists to re-evaluate their models.

And here's the problem. The uneducated masses see,

1. scientific theory like Global Warming
2. end of the world theory

in the news and they think "theory this, theory that. One wrong means both likely wrong".

Most of the population doesn't even know how science works or what is the scientific method. Some may say "but they learn it in school" - they also learn how to complete the square and do long division and how many know how to do that *today*?

Re:in other news... (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 2 years ago | (#42362123)

The day is not over.

in 1975, when I was in High school (-1, Troll)

p51d007 (656414) | about 2 years ago | (#42361199)

Time magazine & researchers were telling us what to do about the upcoming ICE AGE, and how to survive it. Now, the same idiots are telling us about global warming (whoops...climate change). The earth goes through cycles....and it is billions of years old. 5-10 years of data is but a blink in cosmic time.

Re:in 1975, when I was in High school (2, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#42361235)

That ice age was the expected result of the "natural cycles" you idiots like to babble endlessly about. The fact that we're going the opposite direction should have you seriously concerned.

Re:in 1975, when I was in High school (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361367)

Really,

You think an ice age is preferable to a gradually warming climate?

How Gradual Is Your Gradual? (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42361511)

Really,

You think an ice age is preferable to a gradually warming climate?

I don't think you understand just how gradual a natural climate cycle has been for Earth. Look at this graph [wikipedia.org] of antarctic temperature changes. Notice how it is windowed to -6 to +4 degrees Celsius within today's temperature and how long those changes normally took. If we speed that same change that took 10,000 years up to 200 years and it only ever increases, what exactly do you think will happen to Earth?

Animals and humans aren't going to have time to adapt or evolve in predicted scenarios.

Re:How Gradual Is Your Gradual? (0)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#42361713)

Adapt or evolve? I own an AC thank you very much. It's the species and the ecosystems that would be in trouble... and well everybody who doesn't own an AC, which is most of the world's population.

Re:How Gradual Is Your Gradual? (5, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#42361877)

" I own an AC thank you very much."

Slavery is not legal anymore .you need to set that AC free. I don't care even if they were a troll, Owning an Anonymous Coward is just not right.

Re:How Gradual Is Your Gradual? (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#42361895)

Yeah! Screw food.. Ill live off the decaying corpses of the malnourished!

Oh wait...

Re:How Gradual Is Your Gradual? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361981)

You are an example of why I want humans to go extinct. The most self-serving species with the knowledge and appreciation of life that will wantonly destroy it as long as their homes are a constant 70 degrees year round.

Re:How Gradual Is Your Gradual? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#42362071)

It's never too late to start with yourself AC... or you can submit and serve quietly, thanks.

Re:How Gradual Is Your Gradual? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361795)

guess we finally found a use for all that nuclear waste

Re:in 1975, when I was in High school (1)

Sabriel (134364) | about 2 years ago | (#42361821)

Not what the GP said. Please visit http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ [yourlogicalfallacyis.com] (in this case, Strawman).

And as it happens, a cooling climate *is* preferable to a warming climate, because it's much easier to counter. All you have to do is burn extra crap to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (or use methane, it's even more potent). But to counter warming, you've got to *reduce* atmospheric CO2/CH4/etcetera, which means you're working against the direction of entropy. Much harder task. Especially when everybody else is increasing their emissions instead.

Re:in 1975, when I was in High school (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361849)

Maybe if you had a clue.... Temps have been rising CINCE that ICE AGE... Oh wait, that truth gets in the way of your dilusionary comment.... sorry...

Re:in 1975, when I was in High school (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42361287)

Science is not a religion, it is not less valuable when it gets updated. Your belief not withstanding.

Re:in 1975, when I was in High school (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42361291)

Time magazine & researchers were telling us what to do about the upcoming ICE AGE, and how to survive it. Now, the same idiots

[citation needed that these are the same people]

are telling us about global warming (whoops...climate change).

Boy you sure are clever. And alone. Climate science and models have progressed extensively since 1975.

The earth goes through cycles....and it is billions of years old. 5-10 years of data is but a blink in cosmic time.

Those cycles you speak of normally take thousands of years to progress, giving larger life forms enough time to migrate and evolve and gradually change their patterns so that they can, you know, survive. When you start to see those averages change more quickly, you should be worried about the larger life forms (hell, bacteria and cockroaches will probably benefit). But, you know, I'm asking you to pull your head out of your ass and yet even when Fox News reports that things were pretty shitty this year, you dismiss it with parroted narrative.

You're a serious part of the problem when others are trying to discuss rational ways to curb this disturbing trend. But, hey, you read a TIME magazine article in 1975 and that makes you smarter than people who devote their lives to this.

Re:in 1975, when I was in High school (-1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 2 years ago | (#42361741)

You're a serious part of the problem when others are trying to discuss rational ways to curb this disturbing trend.

It's getting hotter, there's nothing we can do about it, and there is no way of "curbing" it, rational or otherwise. You need to "pull your head out of your ass" and start facing reality.

Troll much? (2)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#42362085)

If we are dumping shit everywhere and burning carbon because it's "cheap" we can do something about it. Stop burning carbon and move to renewable and nuclear energy is something right? Heavier regulation and requirements for recycling and fines for polluters is something right? Reducing the stripping forests is something right? Severely limiting strip mining is something right?

It's hard to say if you are trolling or just an idiot. Claiming there is nothing you can do about it is worse than claiming a problem does not exist in my opinion.

Re:in 1975, when I was in High school (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#42361745)

The problem in stopping this trend costs money, and the trend hasn't directly cost us any money yet, though the superstorms coming through these last few years have. The big question is will it be reversible when people finally do start throwing money at fixing the planet.

Re:in 1975, when I was in High school (5, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#42361827)

[citation needed that these are the same people]

I believe the problem here is that even it these had been the same people, when researchers proposed that Earth might be returning into a new ice age, their claims were refuted within two years or so and the whole thing - at least within the scientific community - was declared a failed idea. The newer suggestion that the temperatures are in fact rising too quickly has been found to be nearly impossible to falsify, and it's more than a quarter of a century now. So if the GP is trying to make us believe that the evidence is ambiguous and not pointing in any specific direction, he should think again.

Re:in 1975, when I was in High school (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42361381)

Time magazine & researchers were telling us what to do about the upcoming ICE AGE, and how to survive it.

Yes, but that was when they measured temperatures using a few dozen thermometers spread around the country and wrote the data in little log books using pencils. They also hadn't developed any decent methods for gathering historical temperature data.

Now we've got weather satellites providing real time, worldwide temperature data with a resolution of a few meters. We can measure polar ice coverage from the sky, polar ice thickness from underneath, Greenland's glacier flow rates, etc., etc. We also have millions of years of temperature/CO2 data from ice cores in the Antarctic, all cross referenced with other data sets like ancient tree ring data so we can make fairly accurate guesses about past temperatures.

Re:in 1975, when I was in High school (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361395)

Time magazine & researchers were telling us what to do about the upcoming ICE AGE, and how to survive it.

You were also listening to disco at the roller rink. Shows what you know.

Re:in 1975, when I was in High school (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42362013)

A longer-term climate pattern like glacial-interglacial cycles on the order of 10k to 100k years doesn't matter much if the next century is the problem. Even if an ice age began tomorrow it would take thousands of years for the ice to crawl its way to most inhabited areas. The possibility of another ice age still exists in the long-term, but there are more pressing problems.

Fits climate forcasts? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361209)

That's funny. I just read an article a week ago explaining that the forecasts were off: "Evidence points to a further rise of just 1C by 2100. The net effect on the planet may actually be beneficial. [wsj.com] "

Re:Fits climate forcasts? (0, Flamebait)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#42361273)

Way to cite an editorial that provides no sources for its data as if it were a valid point.

Re:Fits climate forcasts? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#42361991)

We may live interesting times. Things are going to change, labeling the change "good" or "bad" now could be still premature, but anyway, we are starting in a situation that we can deal with, and going to another that we could or not. And maybe more important, is a trend pretty hard to revert, if things keep changing we could hit in some point of the road a place that is definately bad.

and it all ends today (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361211)

HAHAHAHAH!

People don't view 2012 as a disaster (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#42361221)

A lot of people's expectations for the consequences of global warming is the sudden deaths of hundreds of thousands, not wide-ranging low-grade economic impacts that risk hundreds of millions in property damage and puts a strain on global food supply.

We're trained to notice disaster, not statistical drift. There will never be the "event" from global warming, which means denial will continue as the costs keep ramping up.

Re:People don't view 2012 as a disaster (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42361387)

A lot of people's expectations for the consequences of global warming is the sudden deaths of hundreds of thousands, not wide-ranging low-grade economic impacts that risk hundreds of millions in property damage and puts a strain on global food supply.

We're trained to notice disaster, not statistical drift. There will never be the "event" from global warming, which means denial will continue as the costs keep ramping up.

A second dust bowl would be an "event" and it's a possibility if we enter into a many year drought. Hell, Texas alone lost half a billion trees in the current drought [grist.org] and it's at $8 billion and counting [statesman.com] . If that drought rolls into next year and they have a dry winter followed by another drought ... well, the topsoil those half billion trees were holding down will be dry and loose. Bad condition worsens and you could be looking at an "event" as meat prices rise in the US.

You might not remember the dirty thirties [wikipedia.org] but my midwestern grandparents talk about it like it was death for everything.

Re:People don't view 2012 as a disaster (0, Troll)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#42361561)

"This is no worse than the dust bowl and that was almost 100 years ago! I suppose that was due to global warming too!?"

(Put in quotes in the hopes of avoiding Poe's Law taking effect)

This is no event that will convince the denialists because there is no event that hasn't be equaled at some point in the planets history. That the extreme events are coming faster and faster will be completely lost on them.

Re:People don't view 2012 as a disaster (0)

JWW (79176) | about 2 years ago | (#42362069)

This is no event that will convince the denialists because there is no event that hasn't be equaled at some point in the planets history. That the extreme events are coming faster and faster will be completely lost on them.

While this is true, it is also true that if we had conditions like the dust bowl, which was a truly terrifying climatic/ecological event, the AGW proponents would be telling us that it is truly the "End of the World".

As the dust bowl proved, it was not, in fact, the end of the world. Now, there were definitive ecological things that HAD to change to avoid having another dust bowl. Tilling methods changed, crop rotation methods were introduced, shelterbelts were encouraged and future dust bowls did not occur.

Climate change is much the same. I should note that the solutions to solving the dust bowl were almost exclusively technological advancements. I believe that technological advancement (not legislation) is the only way to solve the Climate Change issue too. And we are working hard on that. Everyone wants things to be fixed now, because that is the lifeblood of political change (i.e. "DO SOMETHING!"). But I really think the more powerful change, and in the end the more impactful ones are the technological changes. We already see, in the US at least, a move away from coal as an electricity source. We see a movement in the automotive industry from internal combustion through hybirds to electirc cars. I predict that within the next 20 years over half the cars will be electric or hybrid, and in 50 it will be well over 80%. Also, over that time advances in Nuclear (yeah, its gotta play a part), wind and (hopefully, man progress is slow on this) solar, will yield far cleaner electrical generation.

That sentiment isn't really helpful for the folks trying to use Climate Change to get into political office, but it is representative of what is really happening, and as it is, what needs to happen.

This denialsit/zealot dichotomy in the are of Climate Change is an intentionally created political football. I deal with Climate Scientists periodically through my job and they are much much less "the end is nigh" than the media or the politicians are. They are really thoughtfully dedicated to measuring the current climate and figuring out how it works, and also trying to project what future climate will look like. They also know the science can never really be "settled", that too is a political contrivance.

Re:People don't view 2012 as a disaster (4, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#42361949)

Unless there is some *serious* (like, freeking flooding!) Torrential downpouring here in the plains states before the next summers dry spell, it *will* blow.

Trenching crews reporting dry soil 4 ft down (over a meter), that can't cling to the trenching blade at all due to its dryness should be important to you, if you like to at food, and live in the US.

This whole winter, in my area it has: lightly drizzled once. Rained once with 2in precip, snowed once with 1in precip.

After a protracted summer drought season that killed corn and soy crops.

If this continues, planting will *NOT* be successful, soil cover will not recover, and seasonal wind changes will blow the top soil, 1930s style.

So yeah. Tell me about how you are prepared with your air conditioners some more here people. For real.

Re:People don't view 2012 as a disaster (0)

blind biker (1066130) | about 2 years ago | (#42361611)

We're trained to notice disaster, not statistical drift. There will never be the "event" from global warming, which means denial will continue as the costs keep ramping up.

On some level I agree with you. I know that you're mostly right but I still have hope in humankind. I think humanity will have its collective "Oh, shit!" moment when
- New York City subway is flooded half the time
- Tornadoes cause tens of billions in damages per season
- Tropical diseases start killing thousands in North America and Western Europe
- Northern Europe gets Siberian climate due to the disruption of the North Atlantic conveyor belt.
- and finally, once a few hundred million Bangladeshis are forced to move into India, triggering a nice nuclear conflict with Pakistan.

Re:People don't view 2012 as a disaster (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 2 years ago | (#42361781)

A lot of people's expectations for the consequences of global warming is the sudden deaths of hundreds of thousands, not wide-ranging low-grade economic impacts that risk hundreds of millions in property damage and puts a strain on global food supply.

You are absolutely right.

We're trained to notice disaster, not statistical drift. There will never be the "event" from global warming, which means denial will continue as the costs keep ramping up.

And you're absolutely right there as well. The only place where you err is that you ignore all the other statistical drifts that are going on all around you, some for the better some for the worse. Global warming is just one, and a fairly minor one at that.

Re:People don't view 2012 as a disaster (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#42362117)

By the time we get to this levels of mass hysteria [southparkstudios.com] will be already too late... ok, already is anyway.

Waiting.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361227)

Waiting for the (Republican) denialist hordes to show up, demanding Yet More Evidence.

Short-term forecasting (5, Insightful)

javelinco (652113) | about 2 years ago | (#42361245)

I thought none of the climate change models allowed for accurate short term forecasting? I've been told not to expect short term forecasting (as in, the next five years, the next year, and certainly not the next few months) to be accurately predictable from the models and predictions of climate change experts. Are we working off predictions made ten years ago? I guess I'm confused as to why 2012 was perfectly on track with predictions.

Re:Short-term forecasting (1)

Cassini2 (956052) | about 2 years ago | (#42361353)

If in the 1980's you were predicting that the world would get noticably hotter in the 2000's, and if almost every year in the 2000's had record global temperature highs, then you might conclude that your 20 to 30 year long-term climate models aren't doing too badly.

Yes, the models in the 1980's weren't all that accurate, and the modellers new it. However, they have had 30 years to refine those models. Ignore the science at your peril ...

Re:Short-term forecasting (2, Insightful)

kenboldt (1071456) | about 2 years ago | (#42361475)

Place more importance on model output than empirical evidence at your peril...

I present to you the temp anomaly from the recently leaked IPCC AR5 draft.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_with.png [wordpress.com]

please excuse the url source, it is where I happened to find the figure.

Re:Short-term forecasting (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#42361481)

I thought none of the climate change models allowed for accurate short term forecasting? I've been told not to expect short term forecasting (as in, the next five years, the next year, and certainly not the next few months) to be accurately predictable from the models and predictions of climate change experts. Are we working off predictions made ten years ago? I guess I'm confused as to why 2012 was perfectly on track with predictions.

They don't. What they allow is overall statistical predictions. They cannot predict that a year will be warm or cold, only that on average these years will be colder than that (with a certain degree of probability).

However, certain years will fit better into that statistical model than others. If you predict a .1C rise over 10 years, and next year is .01C warmer, it fits exactly with the prediction. That year is nearly meaningless, of course, next year could be a .05 rise followed by a .03 decline and the model could still be accurate over time. The only thing that you can predict with any accuracy using such models is the averages over an extended period of time, which is why when either side points at events in a single year to show evidence for or against global warming they are acting unscientifically (mind you, that may be the best way to convince people, but it's not science). You can still estimate if a year is going to be warm or cold using short-term models, but those aren't particularly relevant to the subject at hand (being by definition short-term).

Re:Short-term forecasting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361503)

For the same reason broken clock is right twice a day.

Mississippi River and empire (4, Informative)

revscat (35618) | about 2 years ago | (#42361257)

One of the largest threats to global warming (for America at least) is the continued lowering of water levels [google.com] for the Mississippi River. Historians can correct or amend me here, but empires rise and fall on the strength of their rivers. The US is no different [stratfor.com] , and should the Mississippi fail then there will be serious strategic and economic threats to the security and health of the nation.

Not good.

Re:Mississippi River and empire (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about 2 years ago | (#42361345)

Is that Stratfor link the Anonymous version? [guardian.co.uk]

Re:Mississippi River and empire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361685)

Historians can correct or amend me here, but empires rise and fall on the strength of their rivers.

That's a new one.

Drawing conclusions and basing predictions on one variable will usually lead one to error.

Pointing a finger at one cause makes good TV and talk radio, but reality and history are much more complicated than that.

Re:Mississippi River and empire (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#42361965)

Where the statement's logic is bit broken, is that we no longer have dependencies on rivers for moving people and goods. While rivers are still economically cheaper than other modes of transport for "some" items, items can travel by other means (often much faster, sometimes much cheaper).

A secondary part of your statement would have to do with agriculture. This of course is impacted differently and harder by rivers drying up. That is why we have a Government that pays people not to farm, yet maintain their farms (not the only reason for subsidies mind you, just one.) Assuming all of the rivers don't have issues at the same time, the US can maintain agriculture.

Long winded answers aside, the statement is not completely true any more. Early last century, it would have had much more merit.

Re:Mississippi River and empire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42362029)

Maybe talk to whomever is selling the Great Lakes water to China to halt their drainage of those lakes and rivers downstream.

I want global warming!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361281)

I live in the North and I want global warming!

It is snow and slightly above 0F right now...

I WANT F>>NG GLOBAL WARMING!!! PLEASE!!!

Re:I want global warming!!! (1)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#42361651)

I live near Maine, and I definitely NOT want any warming. I want to enjoy ice fishing more than a few weekends a winter and for one is glad to see tourist coming up north for winter sports. GW hurts my local economy.

"Hottest La Nina Year" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361295)

Nice qualifier there.

Of course climate change is happening (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361297)

If there's one thing that is predictable, it is that the climate will change.

If someone says they predicted climate change, big whoop. They had a 50% chance that the climate would get warmer over a certain period.

The globe hasn't gotten warmer in the last 16 years. The recently leaked IPCC report shows that the climate has warmed at a rate much slower than any of their previous predictions.

We will still have alarmists but the wind is going out of their sails. Mother nature just isn't cooperating with the dire predictions they made 20 years ago.

Re:Of course climate change is happening (4, Insightful)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#42361487)

Global temperatures have not risen - they have risen more slowly than predicted. Well, that's me convinced!

Re:Of course climate change is happening (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361587)

agree...the story is bogus. how can temperatures be rising as predicted when all of the predictions are way above where we are. when will the doomsayers get it through their heads that easily falsified statements like that don't help 'the cause'.

of course climate changes...of course CO2 has an impact...of course the oceans are rising...none of this leads the the outrageous predictions that have been made. Sea levels rising on the order of meters? Temperatures going up 7C? We're just left scratching our heads.

Full Planet, Empty Plate (-1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about 2 years ago | (#42361319)

I highly recommend reading this:
http://www.slideshare.net/earthpolicy/full-planet-empty-plates-slideshow-presentation [slideshare.net]

A shift will need to take place in the priorities of those in the "First World" regarding water usage, diet, food and crop priorities, etc;.
The overly consumptive lifestyle we have been used to will need to become a thing of the past.

Coal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361333)

Long ago, during the carboniferous era, so named because that's where all the coal comes from, primitive trees grew and died for 60 million years. These dead trees, over millions more years, turned into coal deposits. When a tree falls in the forest, who eats it? In the carboniferous era, nobody. The carboniferous era ended when fungi evolved that could eat dead trees. After that, and continuously to this day, dead trees are decomposed by fungi, and there is NO MORE coal. Meanwhile, in the last 150 years, humanity has burned 50% of the coal that was deposited by all those dead trees. The CO2 that these trees took 60 million years to form into coal is being returned to the atmosphere in a few hundred years. OK, got it? When those trees were alive, CO2 levels were much higher than they are today. The trees sucked the CO2 out of the air over 60 million years. Now we are burning the coal and returning all that 60 million years of CO2 back into the atmosphere in less than 200 years.

I don't have anything to contribute to this thread. Just pointing out the facts. There isn't any point in the governments of the world deciding to stop emitting CO2. It's already too late.

*sigh* here goes: (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361441)

Climate change doesn't really bother me. What bothers me are people that willfully choose to live in higher risk geographical locations. I have a short list of populated areas I feel are acceptable loss zones:

Coastal areas - prone to flooding and destructive wind
Seismic areas - prone to destructive ground shaking
Desert areas - prone to being uninhabitable
Flood zones - prone to destructive wetness
Tornado zones - prone to destructive wind

I am forced by the homeowner cartel to pay a higher premium for their supposed right to live in these statistically disastrous zones. I think New Orleans should have been quarantined by the US military and condemned. All the money spent to rebuild a coastal town below sea-level would be better spent burning in a big pile to stay warm.

I might be the only person that gets the popcorn ready at disaster hour.

Blame AL Gore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361445)

Any chance of having climate change accepted was lost when crazy Al Gore invented the internet and the time machine. He presented outrageous claims based on fautly data as the gospel truth. So now he's the poster child of the deniers, and rightly so. He just needs to shut up and live in his 350 mega-watt mansion in seclusion while the rest of us sort out the mess he's created.

Re:Blame AL Gore (1)

fredrated (639554) | about 2 years ago | (#42361545)

Thanks for proving that the mentally ill still have access to the internet. However, you haven't proved that it is a good thing.

Sure, let's panic... (2, Insightful)

bradley13 (1118935) | about 2 years ago | (#42361461)

That would be the same 2012 that continues the trend in the IPCC AR5 report [wordpress.com] , which shows temperatures lower than predicted by any of the models. That ought to make people happy,, don't you think?

That would the the same 2012 with a drought that joins many others from the past 80 years. [weather.com] Guess what, droughts happen periodically, and this one was very much a local phenomenon within central North America.

We just survived the end of the Mayan calendar cycle. Whew. Quick, let's panic about something else!

Re:Sure, let's panic... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#42361659)

That ought to make people happy,, don't you think?

No, some people would be upset if AGW didn't cause mass upheaval, giant floods, starvation, and general destruction of civilization (as scientists have predicted).

Science is dead (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361499)

I see science never made it into the 21st century. Everything is now based upon surmise and anedoctes

I don't see a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361531)

From my point of view I get to do away with winter, grow tropical crops, and possibly get beach front property. I really don't see a problem here.

"Real-life video"? Jesus... (5, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#42361555)

'In 2012 many of the warnings scientists have made about global warming went from dry studies in scientific journals to real-life video played before our eyes

Or "reality," as us old geezers prefer to call it.

Hottest years on record (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 2 years ago | (#42361601)

For how many years in a row, now, has each year been the hottest year on record?

Clearly (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361617)

These are "clearly not freak events," but "systemic changes,"

Even thought the "record keeping" started in 1880...

Hmm. 132 years of records vs. 4.5 billion years of weather...

Pretty convincing changes.

Not.

Global HAARP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361647)

Without even one mention of these ionospheric heaters that ARE in use all over the world by every capable government in the first 38 comments available to this article leads one to believe that slashdot itself has been usurped and the comments posted (readable) are a continued effort to smokescreen the absolute truth of this global warming man-made disaster. If this confrontational comment is correct, no one in the general public reading slashdot will be able to view it, remarkably. WAY TO GO (here's to your form of censorship) SLASHDOT

"eighth warmest"? (0)

rseuhs (322520) | about 2 years ago | (#42361655)

If the "hockey-stick" curve were real, we should have the warmest year every year. The "eight warmest" year pretty much proves that while it is probably a little warmer than usual, we have reached a plateau and not some alarmist temperature explosion scenario.

Re:"eighth warmest"? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#42361857)

If the "hockey-stick" curve were real, we should have the warmest year every year.

It's not a curve. It's a set of points on a graph which, when you smooth out the yearly fluctuations, shows a long-term trend (the clue is in the words) of increasing temperature.

By your logic I could declare that winter's over and we're in for an early spring if it's a degree warmer tomorrow than today.

Should we be fixing the cause? (4, Interesting)

Kwyj1b0 (2757125) | about 2 years ago | (#42361703)

Disclaimer: I am honestly not trolling here. I really wonder about this.

TL/DR version: Can we really change our behavior, or just start planning for a worst-case scenario?

Should we be trying to combat climate change in the sense that is it really possible? I think that, as a species, we would rather let people in the future (even if they are future versions of ourselves) deal with the problems rather than take hit in the near term for long term benefits.

Coupled with the fact that the most populated countries have a majority of their population relatively poor, I think it is impractical to expect them to stop burning fossil fuels and force clean energy solutions that might be more expensive/impractical (I believe that the industrialized nations consume most of the energy now, but with India and China becoming more economically important and successful, they will also start consuming more energy).

I saw the article about Thorium reactors a few days ago, but I doubt that we can stop burning things for energy in a short term. With all the infrastructure and interests of powerful groups to keep us on fossil fuels (In the words of comedian John Oliver: BP going green? Only in their logo), I don't expect major change in the near future.

Maybe I am too cynical and need to have hope for the future, but I wonder if we shouldn't start planning backup mechanisms to permanently help people when changes happen - right now, we seem to be doing short-term "deal with this disaster now" fixes.

Re:Should we be fixing the cause? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42362111)

I'm not trolling either .... Only the willfully blind deny that the world climate is changing, I think the real question is is it anthropogenic? Your question supposes that "the cause" is entirely anthropogenic. I personally think the AGW doom-sayers are suffering from all too human hubris. I think we're on a natural climate change trend that has been slightly accelerated by the growth in human populations (1Bn 200 years ago and headed for 8Bn this century) inevitable contributions to green house gas emissions.

But even supposing that the AGW doom sayers are dead right. What they are forgetting is that it the population that's the chief contributing factor not the burning of fossil fuels, that's just a drop in the bucket. 7.2 billion people breathing out CO2, farting out methane, clear-cutting forests for various reasons, poisoning the oceans plankton and algae .... sorry folks we're screwed unless we embark on mass genocide and return to a pre-industrial agrarian culture world wide. Somehow i don't see that happening ... so maybe it's time to stop playing the blame-game and start looking for a technological solution to the problem, instead of suggesting that reducing fossil fuel carbon emissions would work anyway.

Oh jee-wiz (0)

m1ndcrash (2158084) | about 2 years ago | (#42361711)

Does every year have to set a record breaking temperature? It goes up and down and it will continue doing so for at least another 4.5bn years [guardian.co.uk] , according to Mr. Putin, and we know we can trust KGB. This retarded panic over global warming, sorry I used the legacy term, climate change, started with Al Gore trying to impose taxes "on air". He was pretty fucking successful at that. So worried about ecology, fossil fuels, etc? Hire hippies, plat some fucking trees - problem solved.

Data not conforming to predictions (1, Informative)

PerMolestiasEruditio (1118269) | about 2 years ago | (#42361761)

Leaked figure from IPCC AR5 report shows just how far off even updated IPCC model predictions are:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_with.png [wordpress.com]
note that the grey bands are nothing more than an attempt at IPCC arse covering in light of failed predictions, the temps are consistently riding the low side and even outside of the coloured prediction bands, and most importantly the temperature trend is much much lower than predicted.

The IPCC's models are massively over estimating the impact of increased CO2 - unsurprising when they assume large positive water vapour feedback that don't appear to operate as they assume in practice, and temperature suppressing aerosol impacts that appear to have been overestimated too. They also don't have the capacity to model other dominating effects (like PDO and AMO oceanic cycles, solar variations etc), and have shown no ability to model or explain historical variation covering a 3 C band during the current interglacial - including eras like the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm period and the little ice age.

An honest question: how many years of no temperature rise would it take for the catastrophic CAGW thesis to be rejected? We've had about 15 years of near stasis, and recent results show that the heat isn't 'hiding' in the ocean - it simply doesn't exist, though CO2 continues to rise. So just how many more years are needed for the IPCC to let go of the millenialist thermageddon fantasy and bring the temperature rise predictions back to a more realistic level (seems likely to be about 1-2C rise for a CO2 doubling).

This just in.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361767)

The earth's climate is not static, more news at 11.

I blame Qatar (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361791)

Inconsiderate bastards. [wikipedia.org]

Yay Humans! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361847)

I personally prefer being a few degrees warmer rather than buried under a huge glacier.

The earth is not and never was constant. 2x10^2 years of climate records is a very small sample size compared to 4.5x10^9 years.

We really don't understand why there were ice ages and warmer periods in the past - we obviously didn't cause them with rush hour traffic 100,000 years ago. I'm very tired of hearing people claim to understand it all, yet fail to present any evidence as to why.

Chaos, turbulence, fluid dynamics... these are hard things to describe mathematically. When a professor I had from the environmental science department declared that the energy output of the sun is constant, I lost all respect for him and all other "scientists" that refuse to accept that they are not given the right to make up whatever they want and call it a fact until somebody disproves it. It is supposed to be the other way around - you are probably wrong until you are proven to be right. Sunspot cycles? Coronal mass ejections? Nope, the math is easier if we call it a constant, so let's just ignore that variable...

You don't know everything. Get over it. Or believe whatever hype you choose.

NO SKIING! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42361871)

Nobody talk about all the skiing they're going to do on record levels of fresh snow over the Xmas weekend. 8 feet, with fresh on top, anyone? Only Deniers go skiing on climate change denying snow. We should just close the mountain passes so nobody can look at it and have doubt about AGW strike their hearts.

The math nerd in me says (1)

Frontier Owner (2616587) | about 2 years ago | (#42361983)

Lets take the derivative of today's temperature cycle and make a forecast for next week. 130 years of data may make a predition for the next year or so, but without having gone thru a full cycle, how can we know where we are in the ice age cycle? Are we at the top of the temperature range? obviously, we aren't at the bottom. Are we extending this peak? Statistically, no one has answered that. All I have seen is, on average we are .1C hotter than we were 10 years ago and I should buy another $100 worth of carbon credits with my next flight because if the temperature rises another .1C, a polar bear will be inconvenienced hunting for seals. Like my old draftsman says. "Figures don't lie, but liar's can figure."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?