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!

BEST Study Finds Temperature Changes Explained by GHG Emissions and Volcanoes

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Earth 355

riverat1 writes "The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature studies latest release finds that land surface temperature changes since 1750 are nearly completely explained by increases in greenhouse gases and large volcanic eruptions. They also said that including solar forcing did not significantly improve the fit. Unlike the other major temperature records BEST used nearly all available temperature records instead of just a representative sample. Yet to come is an analysis that includes ocean temperatures."

cancel ×

355 comments

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

Human Nature and Avocados (-1, Flamebait)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644783)

Greetings Slashdort readers,

I've been thinking about some deep subjects, and now I think I'll share some of my thoughts with you. Please give me your constructive criticism, but if you don't like this, you can just fuck off, OK?

The question is: what is "human nature"? I think any time someone talks about "human nature" to back up their argument, they are full of crap. For them, "human nature" is just a mystified name for a particular set of social relations. It's a secular form of political argument to the divine rights and authority of kings. Fuck all that.

We don't know what human nature is because what confronts us is the historically determined nature of our society which clearly limits and deforms human development.

Only under COMMUNISM will human nature become evident. "Human nature" today, under capitalism, is like a flower trying to grow in a basement.

Anyway, I know some of you syncophants for CAPITALISM will make all sorts of stupid arguments against me or call me a "troll" or whatever but YOU are the real trolls, because you're just jealous of my LAURA and the awesorme sexy love that we have for each other!

Re:Human Nature and Avocados (4, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644811)

The question is: what is "human nature"?

Your post, and you, just demonstrated this true answer [globalnerdy.com] .

Your comment is invalid (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644833)

Your comment is invalid and you are a goatfucker, because you could not handle the great, concentrated amounts of TRUTH in my first poste! Concentrated, odorous, potent hot steaming Marxist Leninist TRUTH! That's how LAURA likes it!

Re:Your comment is invalid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644993)

obvious troll is obvious.

Re:Your comment is invalid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645123)

Marxism Leninism is not communism. Bolchevics destructed the real communist society in 1917/1918, keeping only the label.

Re:Human Nature and Avocados (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644919)

Well, what about the avocados?

Re:Human Nature and Avocados (0)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644989)

Well, what about the avocados?

I highlighted the passage relevant to your question:

because you're just jealous of my LAURA and the awesorme sexy love that we have for each other!

Re:Human Nature and Avocados (1)

Endovior (2450520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644987)

Better to grow a flower in a basement, than to grow it in a sewer.

Re:Human Nature and Avocados (2)

Palamos (1379347) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645349)

There is no single answer to this question because it will depend upon local circumstance. Human nature in times of plenty may well tend towards communism, in times of mild to medium stress it may tend towards capitalism and in times of extreme stress it may be mixed with some giving up personal hope and going for the greater good and others going for a more selfish agenda. There is also no single human nature as we're all different and we change throughout our lifetime. It would be possible to construct an average human nature but this may not apply to anyone, just as on average people have less than two arms but has anyone got exactly the average, probably not. In terms of avocados, I prefer Hass, more flavour.

Re:Human Nature and Avocados (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645455)

Only under COMMUNISM will human nature become evident. "Human nature" today, under capitalism, is like a flower trying to grow in a basement.

So human nature is genocide? Makes sense.

Well that proves it (5, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644799)

If we just plug up the volcanos, everything will be fine!

Re:Well that proves it (0, Troll)

macraig (621737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644809)

Does that work when you eat beans and shove the can up your ass as a plug?

Re:Well that proves it (4, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644819)

Does that work when you eat beans and shove the can up your ass as a plug?

No, but it's cheaper than a potato gun and just as exciting when it goes off!

Re:Well that proves it (1)

macraig (621737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644835)

The recoil would sure be "exciting". Just face *towards* me when you do it, okay?

Re:Well that proves it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645051)

Why would you want to be in his company when he shoves a can of beans up his ass in the first place?

Re:Well that proves it (3, Funny)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645115)

This story doesn't end with a monkey desperately trying to put the can back... does it?

Re:Well that proves it (5, Informative)

Moses48 (1849872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644879)

The article shows a correlation between volcanoes and dips in climate. Also they attribute all climate rise to mostly CO2 and say that solar/urbanization/etc has not caused noticeable climate change. They attribute CO2 increase to both humans and volcanoes.

See correlation here: http://berkeleyearth.org/volcanoes/ [berkeleyearth.org] The theory is that the recent (1956+) rise is mostly AGW.

Re:Well that proves it (-1, Offtopic)

safrinanoor (2793167) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644901)

I think if we plug up volcanos then we can save our earth surface few percent because there many other activities are involved like.... http://is.gd/BJhxxh [is.gd]

Re:Well that proves it (5, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644909)

If we just plug up the volcanos, everything will be fine!

Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. The ash clouds of volcanoes typically cause a temporary cooling.

Re:Well that proves it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644935)

If we just plug up the volcanos, everything will be fine!

Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. The ash clouds of volcanoes typically cause a temporary cooling.

Wrong smacktard

Re:Well that proves it (4, Informative)

meglon (1001833) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645223)

It's all about the sulfur. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-volcanoes-affect-w&page=2 [scientificamerican.com]

Ok, maybe not all.. there's those large parasols women were using in the 1880's that did a little.

Re:Well that proves it (5, Informative)

Tom Womack (8005) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645307)

And human industry also emits significantly more SO2 than volcanoes; you don't get a Pinatubo every decade, and China alone emits two Pinatubos of SO2 annually.

Re:Well that proves it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644931)

Do you "bronies" realize that you are a disgrace to humanity? Your mere existence is worse than Hitler, the Soviets, Native American Genocide, and all suffering and death to come combined. Know why? Because your predecessors survived through it, and you spend your days wishing that you could have sex with a horse. How would your medieval ancestors, breaking their backs in fields just to have their towns pillaged and raped feel about you slobbering over this shit? You are literally the lowest of the low, the scum of the earth.

Re:Well that proves it (0)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645031)

Replied to the wrong post?

Re:Well that proves it (4, Funny)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645155)

Replied to the wrong post?

No, I think he's blaming Climate Change on the followers of "My Little Pony." Perhaps he knows something about magical Pony farts that we should all learn???

Re:Well that proves it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645179)

Naturally. [twitter.com]

Re:Well that proves it (1)

Endovior (2450520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645071)

Off the top of my head... given the lack of entertainment in medieval times, I'd imagine that the ancestors in question were too busy fucking horses to care what their far future descendants might eventually get up to.

Re:Well that proves it (1)

runeghost (2509522) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645145)

Queue the military-industrial complex lobbying for money for volcano-nuking projects.

Re:Well that proves it (1, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645593)

"Queue the military-industrial complex lobbying for money for volcano-nuking projects."

The study is funded by the Koch brothers and the Charles Koch foundation.
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#funding [berkeleyearth.org]

I rest my case.

Re:Well that proves it (1)

jandersen (462034) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645545)

If we just plug up the volcanos, everything will be fine!

Actually, that's a brilliant idea! Because, what would we use to plug them with? Lots of concrete which would have to be manufactured - so that way we could solve the climate problems AND start the global economy again.

Koch Brothers? (-1, Troll)

marcushnk (90744) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644825)

Isnt this the group that was funded by the Koch brothers and hand picked with denialist?

Re:Koch Brothers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644865)

No.

Re:Koch Brothers? (2, Interesting)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644891)

The BEST study failed peer review at JGR Atmospheres but flew peer review at the inaugural issue of "Geoinformatics and Geostatistics" by an Indian publisher. The funding is irrelevant to the study except to people in denial of the massive fossil fuel funding of climate alarmism.

Re:Koch Brothers? (-1, Flamebait)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645129)

Spot on Geezer. But regardless, it's all bollocks anyway, as it's the Sun; CO2 is a minor player.

Re:Koch Brothers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645403)

As I'm sure there are several studies proving your point right?

I love when no matter the evidence many still go with their gut and ignore everything else.

[citation needed] (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645533)

Seriously, this study is saying exactly the opposite - the sun has no effect, it's all CO2, and that CO2 comes from human activity and volcanic activity.

Re:Koch Brothers? (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644967)

Berkeley. Maybe you've never heard of Berkeley before. You should google them. They are not anarchists, but they have a good deal in common with anarchists. They are not democrats, but they have some things in common with democrats. They're not libertarians, but they share some libertarian ideas. What Berkeley is NOT - most definitely NOT - is conservative and/or republican. Berkeley. This is about the last place the Cock Brothers would go in search of "scientific" support for their views. Ooops, I misspelled Koch? My bad! LMAO

Re:Koch Brothers? (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645069)

Actually, it would be the first place they would go. If they belived their views were correct and the science showed it, you couldn't reject it easily.

Re:Koch Brothers? (5, Informative)

gargleblast (683147) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644991)

Isnt this the group that was funded by the Koch brothers and hand picked with denialist?

Muller was rather more of a skeptic than a denialist.

I'm not aware of David and Charle's Koch specific opinions on the BEST results, but in the denialist blogosphere, Muller and BEST went from white knights to treacherous scum overnight. Compare Anthony Watt's comments before the announcements [wattsupwiththat.com] :

I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing ... I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.

and after [wattsupwiththat.com] :

And still, he hasn’t published anything and his papers have not passed peer review, but the political apparatchik wants to showcase the incomplete and rushed, non quality controlled, error riddled BEST science as if it were factual enough to kill off “denialism” worldwide. That’s political desperation in my opinion.

Re:Koch Brothers? (3, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645001)

Nice one, screaming "denialist!" based on a misleading summary of an an article that's gung ho in favour of anthropogenic climate change (or whatever we're calling global warming this week). A better example of greenwashed "thinking" I could not hope to find.

Re:Koch Brothers? (0)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645565)

He asked a question, a legitimate one at that. You jumped to the conclusion he was "greenwashed", whatever that means. One of you demonstrates clear thinking.

Re:Koch Brothers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645007)

No idea, but ... just look at their website, as well as the website of their sponsor (Novim), and it should be pretty easy to judge the credibility of the study.

Funded by Koch brothers and Getty family ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42644841)

Do we really want to believe what Richard Mueller has to say about climate change. First he denied climate change, now he says it is all man made. Oh, he is funded by the Koch Brothers and the Getty family. No bias there. I heard him interviewed last year about becoming a believer in man made climate change. But he believes that the proposed solutions to climate change are all wrong.He prefers natural gas over renewable energy sources like wind and solar. The Koch brothers finally realized that they can't continue to deny climate change and haven't figured out how to make money from wind and solar, so they will promote natural gas still produces large amounts of carbon. http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/technology/article/1065919/richard-muller-converted-climate-change-sceptic-still-maverick http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.dailycal.org/2012/08/01/berkeley-researcher-publishes-findings-in-new-york-times-before-journals-sparks-controversy/ http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/2/climate_skeptic_koch_funded_scientist_richard

Re:Funded by Koch brothers and Getty family ... (4, Insightful)

Endovior (2450520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645057)

So... what do you think we should do about it? We need some form of energy to keep running society. The default option is coal. You can try playing around with wind and solar, sure. I say 'play around' because the fact that you can't make money on them is an indicator of the deeper issue: they aren't efficient enough to actually run society. As such, attempts to use them wind up eating up a bunch of money and resources, and not meeting the actual needs of society, and so we fall back on the default option, coal. Geography permitting, you can use hydroelectric and geothermal, but it doesn't always permit. Also, even when it does, some people get pissy about dams 'destroying natural habitats' and similar bull; result being that the plants don't get built, and so we fall back on the default option, coal. Nuclear would be the best option; we know how to build efficient Thorium reactors, and we can put them anywhere, and we know how to keep them safe, and we know how to properly dispose of the spent fuel... but it's like there's some switch inside people's heads that makes them turn into frothing idiots when nuclear power gets mentioned, and so we can't actually build nuclear plants, nor places to safely store the spent fuel, and so we fall back on the default option, coal. When enough people fall back on coal, price fluctuations get it competing with natural gas and such, but it's basically the same thing; more burnt hydrocarbons, more CO2 in the atmosphere. If that was actually something you cared about minimizing, you'd get behind energy sources that actually produce the way we need them to produce, instead of producing the way you'd like them to produce.

Re:Funded by Koch brothers and Getty family ... (4, Interesting)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645255)

Actually I seem to recall that gas produces far less CO2 for energy produced that coal or oil. The thing is though, that we should take this as an opportunity to move to clean energy because it is better all round. No pollution, no digging dirty great holes in the ground (and I am in Australia, we are famous for the size of our holes in the ground). Sure it will be more expensive in the short term, but maybe that reflects the TRUE cost of energy, and you can bet your bottom dollar that it will plummet in price if the world made a commitment to full conversion. As a side benefit there would be huge investment into energy storage which should finally give us flying cars.

There was a recent study on how green energy could provide all of our energy needs in Green:tech http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-about-99.9-percent-renewables [greentechmedia.com] .

Incidentally I was in Saudi Arabia in December and while I was there the king announced a US$25 billion program of investment in solar PV. He must know something we don't...

Re:Funded by Koch brothers and Getty family ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645377)

Incidentally I was in Saudi Arabia in December and while I was there the king announced a US$25 billion program of investment in solar PV. He must know something we don't...

Did he say the timespan? If it is a two year project then Germany pushes more money into their PV program.
Perhaps he knows that PV won't take off this decade and decided to fund it just enough to be able to keep up with rest of the world?

Re:Funded by Koch brothers and Getty family ... (4, Informative)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645607)

Actually I seem to recall that gas produces far less CO2 for energy produced that coal or oil.

It does, but there's still a huge problem with natural gas. The reason it hasn't passed yet, is the expansion of what was previously called unconventional gas - natural gas extracted by fracking. While the groundwater issues related to fracking has gained much attention, and are serious enough, what's worse in the long run is that a lot of the gas from such operations escapes directly into the atmosphere. Since methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and fracking is itself energy-intensive (we spend a lot of natural gas to get at a little more natural gas), some studies have estimated it as on level with coal for the climate.

Re:Funded by Koch brothers and Getty family ... (1)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645261)

Things are changing so fast, building hydroelectric plants in places like the bay of Fundy make huge sense (use amplified ocean tides and you can theoretically circumvent a significant amount of the problems associated with hydropower. OTECs could generate both electricity and fresh water simultaneously while bringing up mineral rich deep ocean water for aquaculture. Recent breakthroughs in hydrothermal suggest that the same technology that brought us fracking could give us abundant new geothermal. Solar has just passed the break even point with oil (less than $0.80 watt.) and new technologies are pushing solar to well over 30% efficiency and we may have a variety of solar technologies available to us at less that $0.30 a watt over the next 2 yeas (we will certainly break the %0.50 per watt barrier this year.) Work is being done to develop kites, because the real wind is up high, and if we could harvest it, wind alone could supply more than enough energy for our foreseeable needs (high altitude winds generate hundreds of times more energy than wind at ground level.) Obviously, and healthy nuclear industry needs to be developed. However, instead of big reactors, small safe, completely sealed reactors designed to power neighborhoods, towns, and small communities could be made both economically and environmentally feasible.

If Germany can go to Solar and France nuclear, there is no reason we can't get this done immediately. Ultimately huge bioreactors could convert algae to biodiesel and gasoline. its not carbon free, but at least carbon neutral. Simply increasing the efficiency of our infrastructure would ultimate be the same as a 155-20% increase of available power while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gases and reducing the cost of operating and maintaining our infrastructure. The short take is that leading tech will make a wide variety of alternatives viable, economic and environmentally sound. Its up to us to reduce the atmospheric carbon and the carbon in our oceans as well. These changes will serve us all.

Re:Funded by Koch brothers and Getty family ... (-1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645149)

What do you mean "deny climate change"? People don't general deny it; people deny the attribution. I read above it can be explained by CO2 and volcanoes. Yes. It can also be explained by aubergines and the Fairies at the Bottom of your Garden. That doesn't mean either of those explanations are correct. Strange coincidence I know, but 20th century solar activity has peaked. The Sun is the most reasonable explanation.

Re:Funded by Koch brothers and Getty family ... (4, Insightful)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645291)

I fail to see how a crappy Murdoch rag could be responsible for global warming.

Despite what you say, many people DO deny global warming, and just like the creationists they change their arguments when they are on a loser. Perhaps you would care to postulate as to why thousands of experts in their field are wrong, and posit an alternative theory as to why the CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere is not following the laws of thermodynamics and heating us up like a frog on a barbie.

What I don't get is how a fair proportion of posters on this site, who must be mostly tech savvy, can leave their thinking shoes in the cupboard. Maybe it is because it is a predominately US site and you seem to be more right wing than Hitler over there. I don't think many of you get that Obama is actually right of centre compared with the free world, and your country is run as a corpocracy with your politicians doing the bidding of their sponsors rather than their electorates.

Re:Funded by Koch brothers and Getty family ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645401)

While I usually consider myself to be a skeptic when it comes to global warming I also work in a field where I have to solve problems with incomplete data.
One way to solve those kind of problems is to find a solution that works regardless of how things actually are. In this case that would be to replace coal power plants with nuclear.

What I see is people screaming that we have to do something about global warming and then the very same people refusing nuclear, this makes me think that most of them don't actually believe that global warming is a problem and just tries to push a political agenda.

Re:Funded by Koch brothers and Getty family ... (4, Insightful)

Stephan Schulz (948) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645341)

What do you mean "deny climate change"? People don't general deny it; people deny the attribution.

Actually, the progression is "there is no warming", "there is some warming, but it's natural", "there is some warming, its anthropogenic, but it's good", "there is some warming, its anthropogenic, it's bad, but there is nothing we can do", "there is some warming, its anthropogenic, it's bad, but it's to expensive to do something", and then back to "there was some warming, but it has stopped". Different deniers are not always in sync - some cling to "there is no warming" when others have already reached the "its to expensive" stage.

Re:Funded by Koch brothers and Getty family ... (1)

Goaway (82658) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645731)

It can also be explained by aubergines and the Fairies at the Bottom of your Garden.

You have no idea what the words "can explain" mean in a scientific context. What you just said is just plain wrong.

The Sun is the most reasonable explanation.

Except that this very study, which was done with actual data by people who actually know things, clearly says it isn't.

You just believe that because you want to, not because there is any evidence for it.

Typical bad summary (5, Informative)

PostPhil (739179) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644861)

The summary makes it sound like volcanoes are the explanation for greenhouse gases, which is completely false. It doesn't say that at all. Actually, it's the opposite.

RTFA and you learn (as quoted from the .PDF supplied by the article): "According to a new Berkely Earth study released today, the average temperature of Earth's land has risen by 1.5 C over the past 250 years. The good match between the new temperature record and historical carbon dioxide records suggests that the most straightforward explanation for this warming is human greenhouse gas emissions." (Emphasis mine.)

The .PDF article explains that human CO2 contribution, volcanic activity, and ocean activity (e.g. Gulf Stream and El Nino) are the biggest contributors that are needed to match the graph of temperatures over time. But volcanoes follow the drops in temperature on the graph, not the rises in temperature. Contributions from solar activity exist but were determined to be negligible. They explain that CO2 doesn't prove to be responsible for the warming, but is by far the best contender. As stated by the scientific director, "To be considered seriously, any alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide." So denialists can't simply supply "common sense" alternatives: the alternatives must match the data at least as well (or better) than CO2.

Re:Typical bad summary (0)

mrbene (1380531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644997)

The title of the Slashdot article uses the acronym "GHG", which stands in for "anthropogenic carbon emissions", which means "human emitted".

That was an even worse summary. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645537)

GHG means greenhouse gas.

Your assinine assertion was more extremely full of bollocks than a porn star slapper.

Re:Typical bad summary (5, Informative)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645003)

I pretty sure no serious (by which I mean logically sound) skeptical arguments deny that CO2 contributes to warming.
The actual controversy is over how we can expect the warming to be exacerbated or alleviated by feedback loops.
"Alarmists" tend to claim runaway positive feedback loops will cause a dramatic rise in temperature in the near future, while "denialists" tend to argue that these positive feedback loops are counteracted by negative feedback loops that tend to keep the temperature within a reasonable range.

Re:Typical bad summary (-1, Flamebait)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645151)

I pretty sure no serious (by which I mean logically sound) skeptical arguments deny that CO2 contributes to warming.

Your mistake is in assuming that "logically sound" applies to the "skeptical" arguments in question.

Re:Typical bad summary (5, Interesting)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645353)

Measurements on the great barrier reef have shown a temperature increase of 2 degrees since the 60's, and they are expecting another 2 by 2050, which is largely regarded as the temperature needed to kill it off. Already outside a reasonable range for the fauna that live in the area, which are migrating down the coast. If this were to happen over millennia the reef would probably migrate south, but at this rate of change it can't propagate quickly enough.

See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-18/warming-to-put-oceans-and-reefs-in-hot-water/4470104 [abc.net.au]

"Alarmists" are often climate scientists. "Denialists" seem frequently to be corporate funded loons with no expertise in the area. But even if both sides were equally populated by people of the same calibre I would still think it was worth trying to switch to alternatives ASAP to avoid the risk.

Think about it - if someone said "do this, or there is a 50% chance your house will burn down" you would do 'this', even if 'this' was quite expensive. After all, most people do exactly 'this' when they buy home insurance, and the chance is way lower than 50%.

Re:Typical bad summary (3, Insightful)

KeensMustard (655606) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645617)

But responses to this very topic belie this statement:

Here is a guy claiming that Global Warming doesn't exist: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3395415&cid=42645177 [slashdot.org]

Here is a guy claiming that it is real but probably a good thing, he can't wait for more of it: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3395415&cid=42645015 [slashdot.org]

Read any denialist website and you'll soon see that they hold several contradictory assertions to be simultaneously true. Why then, would we accept that any of these assertions are true?

So what is your definition of "logically sound"? It sounds like it's equivalent to "the most plausible at any given time that doesn't involve admitting that we must take action to mitigate climate change" Qualifying what is allowed to be real doesn't sound like accepting reality - reality is not negotiating with us for a mutually acceptable outcome.

Oh, and one final thing. If you want to know whether or not feedbacks are negative, neutral or positive, read just about any denialist website. They'll tell you that in the climate record, there are instances where CO2 has lagged a climate change. What does this mean? What it really means is that climate sensitivity is positive. These people are disproving themselves and they don't even realise it. Ironic, no?

Re:Typical bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645015)

"According to a new Berkely Earth study released today, the average temperature of Earth's land has risen by 1.5 C over the past 250 years.

Good now if we can just keep carbon emissions up for few hundred more years winters will be noticeably warmer. Won't someone think of our great great great great great great great great great grandchildren!!!!!!

Re:Typical bad summary (1)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645303)

And we are spot on for a 6.0C rise by end of century, but that's average, the actual rise in places like the extreme latitudes will be significantly greater, releasing profound amounts of methane from the decomposition of melting permafrost and the heating of cold bogs. The problem is that perturbed weather could actually lead to colder wetter winters in most high latitudes and massive burn off of forest from the tropics to the mid temperate zones... adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. So most of the feedback loops we are seen now are additive, not subtractive.

Where winters are cooler we'll have to off set that for cities that go up like roman candles in the summer./p

Rather than fuck everyone else (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645551)

Why not move south for warmer winters?

Re:Typical bad summary (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645181)

Maybe you're right. I should have made it more clear that volcanic eruptions were responsible for temporary dips in temperatures in their findings and they said nothing about volcanoes having anything to do with the increase in GHGs.

Science works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645213)

denialists can't simply supply "common sense" alternatives: the alternatives must match the data

That's why science works, bitches!

Predictions? (4, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644955)

Uh-huh, big whoop. We've had heaps of models that fit the historical data - that's the easy part. It's all there, you can tweak your model as you like until it fits the historicals just right. The value of a model isn't in how well it fits the historical data, but how well it predicts future data.

So crank a prediction or two out of this puppy and get back to us in a decade.

Re:Predictions? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645037)

Indeed. IIRC, one can derive an n degree polynomial which computes the closing value of the Dow or NASDAQ for the past n periods with complete accuracy -- but likely has absolutely no predictive value. So, a 365*30 degree polynomial would accurately map the closing price of any index/stock each day for the past 30 years, but be useless in predicting the closing price tomorrow.

Global Climate Change (which I believe in) proponents should publish a model, with a margin of error, and STOP CHANGING IT and agree that they will go away and start over if they are wrong, Instead, as each new bit of data comes in, they modify the "model" to better match the new data on a regular basis. Come on -- predict, and cast in concrete, the average tropospheric temperature from 2013 to 2018, with a low margin of error, and "lock it in". Cancel most "global climate change" funding, conferences, papers etc. for the next five years. If the prediction holds five years from now, then it has creds, else it's back to starting over.

So you're complaining about the science part? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645107)

Global Climate Change (which I believe in) proponents should publish a model, with a margin of error, and STOP CHANGING IT and agree that they will go away and start over if they are wrong, Instead, as each new bit of data comes in, they modify the "model" to better match the new data on a regular basis. Come on -- predict, and cast in concrete, the average tropospheric temperature from 2013 to 2018, with a low margin of error, and "lock it in". Cancel most "global climate change" funding, conferences, papers etc. for the next five years. If the prediction holds five years from now, then it has creds, else it's back to starting over.

Faith is cast in concrete and chiseled in stone. Science is more of a wiki page.

Re:So you're complaining about the science part? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645609)

Faith may be cast in concrete, but outcomes aren't. The religious tend to "shift the goalposts" so that their deity can be thanked/man's sinfulness blamed regardless of the original prediction. What AC up there is saying is make the prediction from the model and wait. That's all, just wait. If the outcome doesn't match the prediction, then re-examine the model. et cetera.

Re:Predictions? (4, Informative)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645201)

Come on -- predict, and cast in concrete, the average tropospheric temperature from 2013 to 2018, with a low margin of error, and "lock it in".

The problem with that is that climate scientists don't even try to predict temperatures on such a short time scale since natural variability can completely override any long term climate signal over less than around 20 years.

Re:Predictions? (5, Insightful)

yndrd1984 (730475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645471)

Instead, as each new bit of data comes in, they modify the "model" to better match the new data on a regular basis.

But changing one's models to fit empirical data is the basic philosophy underpinning ... um ... that thing they're doing.

Re:Predictions? (4, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645519)

Except you have no theory to back your polynomial theoretically. Unlike you, the people who make climate models have a rather convincing theoretical backing for their polynomials.

Re:Predictions? (5, Informative)

amck (34780) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645665)

We already do something like this: IPCC projections [thinkprogress.org] . We do investigate previous projections to see how they worked / what they got wrong. Its a large part of what we do as scientists.

And you can do it too: the early models are still available (eg I think the EdGCM model is based on the early GISS model); these days you can run what used to take a supercomputer on your PC and repeat the runs.

But as climate scientists we're not in the business of playing "I told you so" with denialists. The 64 billion dollar question is : what will happen? we need to adapt and react to climate change, and knowing exactly whats happening is important: shrinking the error bars on those model runs translates to billions of dolllars of taxpayers money that needs / doesn't need to be spent : e.g. knowing the lengths of droughts, how much water needs to be stored. the scale of sea level rise, etc. This is why the climate models are important.

Re:Predictions? (4, Informative)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645041)

The point of this was that it wouldn't use complex models where they tweak to fit expectations. Instead it plots atmospheric CO2 against global temperature, specifically accounting for denier favorites like urban heat islands, volcanoes, poor station condition, data selection bias, and transparency. All the data is available at the site so anyone can run the numbers themselves. According to them, and by the looks of their graphs, it's a shockingly close match.

The conclusion is that the temperature rise is from human greenhouse emissions. As always, everyone is free to try to come up with more convincing evidence to the contrary.

Re:Predictions? (5, Informative)

jcupitt65 (68879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645693)

Exactly. Look at global temperature for the last 250 years plotted with CO2+volcanos and a simple fit:

http://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-with-forcing-small.png [berkeleyearth.org]

There's almost no modelling there, it's just plotting two sets of measurements together.

If you think CO2 is not the cause, you need to find two things: another warming effect that fits the data at least as well as CO2 (and it has to be a huge warming effect that no one's noticed before), plus an equally large cooling effect to cancel out all the heat that we know the CO2 will have added to the atmosphere. This is possible, of course, but not very likely.

Re:Predictions? (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645193)

Models that have been in use for more than a decade were actually conservative about the level of warming we've seen so far, but got it pretty much right.

Please pull your head out of your ass and look at the facts. Or just shut the fuck up and quit interfering with adult conversations.

Re:Predictions? (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645227)

BEST doesn't do a climate model or try to predict the future, they're just reporting on historical data.

Re:Predictions? (2)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645361)

Hey, you have a model that says we are cycling towards a cliff, and are already gaining momentum. Prove to me that there is a cliff there before I think about putting on the breaks.

How did you ever make it to adulthood.

Re:Predictions? (5, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645407)

Uh-huh, big whoop. We've had heaps of models that fit the historical data - that's the easy part. It's all there, you can tweak your model as you like until it fits the historicals just right. The value of a model isn't in how well it fits the historical data, but how well it predicts future data.

So crank a prediction or two out of this puppy and get back to us in a decade.

They don't have to wait for a decade, they can just crop out the last decade of data and ask the model minus 10 years of data to predict it. Since they already have the answer, they'll know if it fits.

The is routinely done with large timescale models like the atmosphere and the ocean.

Re:Predictions? (1)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645619)

It's all there, you can tweak your model as you like until it fits the historicals just right.

The parameters of a climate model - a good climate model, that is - is constrained by physics. All parameters have experimental, physical estimates - the question isn't how well the model can be fitted to the past, but how well it can remain nicely in the middle of these estimates.

Not credible (4, Interesting)

bradley13 (1118935) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644959)

Yep, "peer reviewed". This is apparently volume 1, issue 1 of a new series of journals started by an Indian publisher that decided to simultaneously launch 53 new journals [scholarlyoa.com] . In order to fill them, they took pretty much anything that anyone wanted to publish.

Taking a larger set of stations would seem to mean that this study includes stations that other studies eliminated as poor-quality. For example, stations with siting issues, stations that have moved over time between rural/urban locations, stations suffering UHI in unknown amounts.

Given the need to work in corrections for all of these quality issues, and given a pre-stated conclusion, it is very easy to make the corrections in a way that supports your desired conclusion.

In short: not credible.

Re:Not credible (2)

Namarrgon (105036) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645029)

So, you have no specific critiques of their methods? I see only a vague assumption that a larger set of data in one aspect of the study "would seem to mean" the whole study is worthless. You've clearly decided to ignore their conclusions without even bothering to read the paper, let alone understanding their methods.

I find even SciTechnol's peer review to be more credible than yours.

Re:Not credible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645345)

No one would publish his results there if he could publish it somewhere else. So this probably would not get through any peer review.

Re:Not credible (5, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645035)

They're planning on submitting it to a journal, but haven't yet. From the link:

The Berkeley Earth team is making these preliminary results public, together with the analysis programs and data set in order to invite additional scrutiny as part of the peer review process.

Re:Not credible (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645187)

Phew. For a moment I thought global warming was my fault.

Re:Not credible (4, Insightful)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645237)

Scientists use a subset of temperature stations to exclude bad ones, denialists cry: "They ignored the other stations because it didn't fit their desired outcome".

Scientists use all available data. Denialists cry: "They didn't exclude the bad ones, so the results are unreliable".

Science cannot win against politics and that is all denial is - politics, it has no scientific basis or support, no evidence whatsoever in it's favour, all it has is a very large, well-funded and heavily-subsidized incumbent industry that is quite desperate to prevent the rise of any competition - especially competition that is far more efficient and cheaper to consumers over the medium term.

Re:Not credible (1)

FPhlyer (14433) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645379)

Sir,
I would like to inquire about renting your signature space. Of key issue here is whether or not the soul in payment must be my own or if I can pay with surplus souls from another source. In particular I am considering farming Congress for the souls required as it does not appear the proprietors of said souls are currently using them.
With regards,
Fphlyer

Re:Not credible (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645475)

*ad, short for advertisement

Spark notes (5, Informative)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644971)

1. Temperarature rise for the last 250 years of 1.5 degree C is entirely because of increased CO2 emissions.
2. Vulcanic activity can seriously lower the earths temperature and affects the curve with downward spikes.

No other activity shows any significant colleration towards earth temperature. They have checked against solar flares and other activites and all they compared against has had no impact. CO2 rise looks to be the major cause behind it all.

Basically they are saying: Critics of AGW are wrong.

The data will be fully available on their webplacce form 30 july with abilities for visitors to test the data themselves and to toy with how the temperature rise has affected their local temperature.

Re:Spark notes (3, Interesting)

SteveAstro (209000) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645011)

This same research has been rejected by every other climate and atmospheric research journal, by the peer review process.
Key researchers are omitted from the paper - like Judith Curry, who I suspect will have something to say, since she was a key member of the BEST project.
Go figure.

[citation needed] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645143)

This same research has been rejected by every other climate and atmospheric research journal, by the peer review process.
Key researchers are omitted from the paper - like Judith Curry, who I suspect will have something to say, since she was a key member of the BEST project.

Sources?

Deforestation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645643)

Cutting down the Amazon and SE Asia Logging - Nah can't be that
Growing Deserts - creates heated steam of air to burn & not slowed down, - ignore that
Rainfall moving away from mega cities where a gazillion tons of road tar and cement divert clouds from their natural path - nah.
Extra water vapor (1 Barrel of oil, burnt = 0.5 unit of water H2O and 0.5 unit of Carbon.) - Nah
A good plate earthquake like Japan probably released a lot.

No one does anything for nothing (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645083)

Every major industrial force on the planet will continue as they are so long as their quartlerly reports show 'growth.' It's a system we can't change or undo. The major industrial forces will not allow it to change. They can't see or don't believe in a future that exists beyond the next year. When was the last time you heard "5 year plan"? And they are playing chicken with the future of humanity whether they realize it or not. Whoever hesitates or turns back will 'lose' as market forces will crush anyone into insignificance who isn't pushing forward.

They don't "lead" the markets let alone control them. With such short vision, how can they? The market is still in the hands of the consumer... sheeple consumers mostly. If anyone has been paying attention to the increase in guns and ammo and especially the market effect the government's billions in ammunition purchases, then it should be pretty clear. This gun control talk and scarcity of supply isn't only causing a rise in prices, it's causing a rise in interest. People who had no interest in buying guns and ammo are now interested.

Consumers can shape the next quarter. And the quarters to follow. Keep buying green. Keep buying things that do as little harm as possible. *I* don't make a difference. *You* don't make a difference. But *we* do. Talk to people, but don't argue or preach. Short, simple statements and move on. They won't think you're a crazy person if you don't come off that way.

If you're thinking about moving, I would consider moving away from major weather areas... you know, like the coasts, or places where mountains have significant impact. That's what all this climate change is about anyway--the weather, the redistribution of water, the content of the air and what it does with the sun's energy. Take up a hobby like gardening. It could be useful. (Just don't grow things indoors too much... UV lamps attact cops.)

No such thing as 'man made global warming' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42645177)

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Easy Solution of Global Warming (1)

FPhlyer (14433) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645347)

Comets are made out of ice.
Ice is cold.
Bombard Earth with comets.
QED

Deny all you want... (2, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645387)

Australia still burned down in December. We've had more fires, worse droughts, bigger storms, worse heat waves, more floods and unheard of winter storms all predicted by climate change models. At what point do you finally concede? When the planet is the twin of Venus? Physical reality first, ideology second. You can nit pick all day long, but y'all are picking nits. You're complaining about issues that impact the 5th or 6th places after the decimal point in the analysis results, while ignoring the whole numbers. That would indicate y'all are less deniers and more in denial. Sorry that climate change is messing with your "Atlas Shrugged" world view but we need to come up with smarter answers. By the way, if the Germans make solar work, then from this day forward, we all get to call bull shit on those folks who've been stone walling renewables, just because Chevron can't figure out a way to create an artificial sun shortage to jack up prices.

Re:Deny all you want... (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645669)

Australia burns down every December. We always have fires, droughts, storms, heatwaves and floods, and most of them caused far less damage than comparable events in the past. Sorry to disappoint your shrill alarmism, but every storm, flood, tsunami or volcanic eruption (yes, I've seen tectonic events blamed on climate change) isn't a point in favour of AGW - not unless you can show how they significantly differ in degree or quantity from previous events. Climate change science has predicted everything from a heat-scorched planet where the dams will never be full again (Hi Flannery!), to another ice age, and everything in between. It's easy to fulfil a single prophecy when you can pull it out of a basket of a thousand false ones. Sorry that that messes with your liberal guilt, humanity-is-the-scourge-of-the-earth self-flagellating philosophy, but the world isn't ending today, Chicken Little.

Editors, please correct the title (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#42645543)

It currently reads "GHG Emissions and volcanoes".

However, the Slashdot Groupthink has clearly decided that what they meant to say was "GHG Emissions from volcanoes", because obviously anything published about climate must be assumed to be denialist propaganda from filthy big oil shills.

It's far easier simply 'correct' reality than to turn aside an ecowarrior in full battle frenzy, is what I'm saying. Why fight it?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>