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!

'Half' of 2012's Extreme Weather Impacted By Climate Change

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the other-half-cause-by-rock-music-and-mini-skirts dept.

Earth 417

sciencehabit writes "2012 was a year of extreme weather: Superstorm Sandy, drought and heat waves in the United States; record rainfall in the United Kingdom; unusually heavy rains in Kenya, Somalia, Japan, and Australia; drought in Spain; floods in China. One of the first questions asked in the wake of such extreme weather is: 'Could this due to climate change?' In a report (huge PDF) published online today, NOAA scientists tackled this question head-on. The overall message of the report: It varies. 'About half of the events reveal compelling evidence that human-caused change was a [contributing] factor,' said NOAA National Climatic Data Center Director Thomas Karl. In addition, climate scientist Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office noted that these studies show that in many cases, human influence on climate has increased the risks associated with extreme events."

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

Only for Atheists. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776309)

Godfearing Christians are smitten by God and not by Climate Change.

Re:Only for Atheists. (-1, Flamebait)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44776419)

Godfearing Christians are smitten by God and not by Climate Change.

Atheists are smote by natural phenomenon, often heavily influenced by deists use of petrol burning vehicles on their way to their temple of choice on their holy observances.

and has nothing to do with how many side trips I make to electronics parts stores on Sundays

Re:Only for Atheists. (-1)

gameboyhippo (827141) | about a year ago | (#44776727)

Way to start this thread off with hate and ridicule. There are people of all walks of life, including Christians, who believe in climate change. Likewise, there are people of all walks of life who do not. I personally think that all people, regardless of religious affiliation or lack-of, should be concerned with keeping the planet healthy. Many do. Don't confuse the "I wanna win votes so I'm going to pretend to be a Christian" politician be confused with actual Christians.

Correlation is not causation, FFS. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776315)

What do you call a "climatologist"? A scientist who don't actually understand science.

Re:Correlation is not causation, FFS. (4, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year ago | (#44776365)

Didn't take long for the Anonymous "don't believe the scientists" comments to start filtering in, did it? How about, given the scientific consensus (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus), I'm pretty skeptical of the motivations and accuracy of a denier.

Re:Correlation is not causation, FFS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776481)

Hey if some guy in his backyard failing to melt metal with a wood fire was enough to prove 9/11 was an inside job, random conjecture and ignoring people who study this stuff for a living seems comparatively easy.

Re:Correlation is not causation, FFS. (5, Informative)

Matt Steelblade (1458189) | about a year ago | (#44776581)

I remember an article in which it discussed that Climate Change denying is an American problem. While there are as many conspiracies to Climate Change being a myth as there are of who is starting and promoting them, the reality as shown by poll after poll is that people are not 'buying into it.' For example, my EXTREMELY Catholic parents love and agree with the pope(s). The previous pope, Benedict, was known (by some) as the green pope. A quick search easily shows how he spoke openly on the need to do something. When I say to my dad, 97% of climatologists agree on this issue (and let's be honest, in how many scientific fields do you see that sort of majority consensus on "controversial" topics) and that does nothing to persuade him, I am continued to be amazed when the pope angle doesn't do diddly either. The opposition is so engrained, reason no longer works...

Re:Correlation is not causation, FFS. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776693)

" For example, my EXTREMELY Catholic parents love and agree with the pope(s). "

That instantly dequalifies them for any serious science discussion.
People with invisible friends need not apply.

Re:Correlation is not causation, FFS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776749)

People with invisible friends need not apply.

So the pope is invisible?

Re:Correlation is not causation, FFS. (5, Insightful)

sabri (584428) | about a year ago | (#44776865)

I remember an article in which it discussed that Climate Change denying is an American problem.

Climate change by itself is not under dispute. The question is: what causes climate change. And then there are three sides:

- It must be us, the human population, burning all those fossil fuels causing CO2 levels to rise;
- It can't be us, we are to insignificant. Climate change is caused by increased solar activity and oceans releasing vast amounts of CO2;
- It is a combination of both: we can slow it down but it is inevitable;

To be honest, I'm not a scientist and I don't give a rats ass who is correct. What I do care about is that we start taking the necessary measures to ensure that my daughter and her future children still have a place to live once I'm long gone..

Re:Correlation is not causation, FFS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777029)

I am continued to be amazed when the pope angle doesn't do diddly either. The opposition is so engrained [sic], reason no longer works

You just characterised your appeal to religious authority as "reason."

Re:Correlation is not causation, FFS. (5, Insightful)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44777147)

To be fair, some of those who started politicizing AGW early on didn't help. Nor did the over simplification of calling it global warming (even though that is what it is).

People should not have picked results, out of context, that were convenient at the time. For example, when the ice caps start melting, it was pointed out that it was due to global warming. But when someone finds evidence that more ice is being formed somewhere else it looks suspect, even when it's part of a climate model. It looks suspect to not point that part out in the first place. Same thing with temperatures rising consistently in an area. As soon as they drop for a year, or two, before continuing to climb again, it's easy to confuse the discussion. Some of the loudest proponents of AWG, have done the most damage to the cause. After trying to simplify the situation for the greater population and then having the over simplification shown to be questionable a couple of times; laymen have a heard time knowing what to think.

To make matters worse, people start calling each other names and ridiculing each other. When you start labeling non-believers: deniers, Luddites, planet-killers, etc. what do you think is going to happen. Hell, how would most people react?

When I was younger, my father used to paraphrase Socrates by saying, "The older I get, the dumber I get". I finally understand how he felt. We have people on two different sides of this issue. Neither of them want to destroy the planet. But instead of taking a deep breath and discussing it like rational people, it's devolved into name calling. But that seems to be the way of things in the US anymore. I'm pretty sure that both parties in congress want what's best for the country. But instead of compromising, they both are throwing tantrums because they can't have their way 100%. It's truly sad.

Let Me Get This Straight... (1)

sycodon (149926) | about a year ago | (#44777415)

...Now, Weather = Climate??

Re:Correlation is not causation, FFS. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776609)

Scientific consensus by itself doesn't actually mean a whole lot. After all, scientific consensus once said the universe was static in size. Even Einstein agreed...

And of course, the exact details of that "consensus" are a bit murky (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/). The consensus is strong when the question is "are humans *affecting* the climate?" and that consensus starts to shrink one the question moves to "are humans the *primary* cause of the climate's change?" or "is this a disaster?"...

Re:Correlation is not causation, FFS. (5, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year ago | (#44776771)

Argument from consensus alone is also a fallacy. I'm skeptical of the motivations and accuracy of promoters AND deniers in politically contaminated 'science.' For example, your link points to a government funded organization. That's as biased as a study funded by exxon. Even if they're right, they're not promoting this for the right reason (telling the truth).. They're promoting it to push a political agenda (justification of center left politics, which means more funding for them).

Something as large as climate change is going to require more strict adherence to the truth (whatever it is) than political cheerleading usually allows. I guarantee that it is more complicated than "man influences/does not influence."

Re:Correlation is not causation, FFS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777009)

Argument from consensus alone is also a fallacy.

I know, that is why it is so important to teach the controversy when it comes to evolution vs. intelligent design. For a quite similar scientific consensus (with uncertainties and major rewrites) is what supports the theory of evolution too.

But look at the alternative actions and outcomes:

1) All the scientists are proven wrong, and we have improved the climate and reduced pollution for no good reason at all...

2) The scientists are right, and we wreck the world because we didn't listen to them (instead we listened to the very powerful lobby forces seeding doubts about them)

Re:Correlation is not causation, FFS. (1)

Lendrick (314723) | about a year ago | (#44776827)

All this time I thought maybe people who have studied the climate for years and years might be on to something, but you have convinced me that I was wrong with your deep understanding of the topic and highly credible, well thought out refutation of their claims, random dude on the internet!

Same happens with politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776325)

Human-caused changes often cause extreme events...

Re:Same happens with politics (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44776797)

Human-caused changes often cause extreme events...

That's because we're such Extreme creatures. F'rinstance:

  • We follow (or participate in) Extreme Sports
  • We drink Extreme energy drinks
  • Watch Extreme news coverage
  • Drive Extreme vehicles
  • Participate in Extreme activities to avoid Extreme boredom.

Extreme weather is what we crave.

cause and effect (2, Insightful)

OffTheLip (636691) | about a year ago | (#44776331)

Of course humans affect the environment, how is that disputable? It's the degree and duration of the affect that is not clear. Whether, or is it weather, these human changes are a significant factor is the debate..

Re:cause and effect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776411)

I don't know whats a bigger lie, Obama about Syria or the Global warming scam?
Or who is dumber people who believe in global warming or a liberal democrat?
Who is a bigger hypocrite, John Mcshame or John Kerry?
Who is more likely to die in BO's war, brown skin men or white skin?
Does BO obey his white side or black side?
Such turmoil within.

Re:cause and effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776643)

Whoops! I need to remember to preview first... It looks like I forgot chem trails... oh yeah, and the truth about 9/11... and I didn't actually reference the conspiracy against the 2nd amendment... and though I brought up race, I didn't actually directly blame illegal immigrants for anything... and I need to add some stuff about vaccines being evil... that's us too, right? Or is that the hippy conspiracy theorists? It really is a lot of work to keep the political alignment of my conspiracies straight.

I know they might seem bizarre to you sheeple, but I don't need real, testable science when I can use the formidable power of my reason to get to the 'real' truth, which I know for a fact(ish) that we are extremely close to blowing the lids off of, because I purchased and read the books of the people that originally uncovered the conspiracies, showing the profit motive of the big corporations, or government figures, or religious organizations, or race groups that control the conspiracies. They're committed to the *truth*, and not stringing us along, squeezing everything out of us that they can, like the conspirators. When will you sheeple learn.

Re:cause and effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776775)

I don't know whats a bigger lie, Obama about Syria or the Global warming scam?

Obama about Syria is a single item which is either a bald-faced lie or the truth -- pretty small.
The global warming scam (as opposed to scientific evidence for global warming) is HUGE -- you've got people scamming left right and center. This is definitely bigger; of global proportions in fact.

Or who is dumber people who believe in global warming or a liberal democrat?

Is this collectively, or as a sum of intelligence of the individuals? I'd say liberal democrat, as this is a "herd mentality" group that has to believe a lot of contradictory stuff, whereas to believe in global warming is kind of like believing in gravity.

Who is a bigger hypocrite, John Mcshame or John Kerry?

Never heard of McShame, so it's likely Kerry. No idea how big a hypocrite he is, though; possibly less than you or I. That was easy.

Who is more likely to die in BO's war, brown skin men or white skin?

That's Barrack Obama, not Body Odor, right? Which war has he laid claim to? Are we talking War on Leaking, War on Syria, War on Americans, War on Obesity/malnutrition or War on Terror (which he inherited)?
In any case, the answer's probably the same: men with brown skin. After all; most men with white skin tan pretty quickly when exposed to the sun for any period. Probably more brown skinned women and children will die than white skinned women and children too. This is unless you're talking about the War on Obesity/malnutrition, which tends to result in more skin, much of it pale from not being exposed to the sun much.

Does BO obey his white side or black side?

I think he obeys his handlers, his wife and his conscience, in that order... doesn't he? From all I've seen, his conscience definitely doesn't see things as black or white.

Such turmoil within.

Thank you for letting some of it out; hopefully that eases the pressure.

Re:cause and effect (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776459)

The studies detailed how much climate change may have impacted specific events.

There are plenty of *other* studies that examine human impact on climate change.

Re:cause and effect (2, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44776697)

It's important also, if you want to properly understand the study, to realize that it only looks at the negative effects. To get a good understanding of AGW, you need to look at both the positive AND the negative effects.

For an example, this recent study published in PNAS [nationalgeographic.com] suggests that Hurricane Sandy type storms would become less likely as a result of global warming.

Anyone who only shows you the negative of something is trying to manipulate you. That's a heuristic.

Re:cause and effect (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about a year ago | (#44776791)

Anyone who only shows you the negative of something is trying to manipulate you. That's a heuristic.

And the fact that you're only pointing out the negative side of this report would mean...? :-)

Re:cause and effect (2, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44776837)

And the fact that you're only pointing out the negative side of this report would mean...? :-)

That I'm a genius. Anytime things get too confusing, that's the conclusion I draw. Works wonders for my self-esteem.

Re:cause and effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776873)

The studies are to examine what, if any, effect (positive or negative) climate change may have had on a set of extreme climate events, THAT IS ALL.

On top of that the VERY STUDY LINKED IN THE ARTICLE points out in its conclusion that only one of the events studied was a cold event, and that global warming "might theoretically be expected to decrease in frequency or intensity".

In other words, you either didn't actually read much, or any, of the studies, or you're a liar.

Re:cause and effect (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776773)

It's the degree and duration of the affect that is not clear. Whether, or is it weather, these human changes are a significant factor is the debate..

You of course say this in an article saying that 50% of 2010s extreme weather had a human contribution. First it was there is no climate change, now it's "but we don't know how much". We're going to keep moving those goalposts all the way in to an artic methane emission at this rate.

Re:cause and effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777003)

You do realize this was the argument all along don't you? It got spun out into all the opponents being idiots who don't believe we are doing anything harmful, when all the time they've been asking for conclusive evidence of severity and duration. This is why we can't have a constructive political discussion on anything.

Re:cause and effect (1)

Bigby (659157) | about a year ago | (#44776783)

This summary is like saying "half of all people who watch Honey Boo Boo are stupider for it". While it may be true, how much stupider are they? How much did "climate change" affect the weather? Did it make the 200 mph win 201 mph?

A Hurricane In Hurricane Season, Heat in Summer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776337)

Wow, is that really a shock to anybody? That is your evidence of extreme weather???
This is ridiculous.

Superstorm Sandy? (3, Insightful)

dirtaddshp (1188189) | about a year ago | (#44776341)

I have noticed only people in NY call it a superstorm, anyone else would call it a cat 1 hurricane or TS. I feel this planet goes through cycles of extremes, pointing at humans without proof is just another way to tax people.

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (4, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44776435)

Categories only measure wind speed. What made it a "superstorm" was an improbable set of coincidences, such as being at high tide when the moon was in perigee, and another storm intersecting Sandy. What made it a superstorm was the amount of damage it caused, not its wind.

And it isn't just New Yorkers, it's the entire news media that always calls it a superstorm.

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (4, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about a year ago | (#44776585)

I can agree with your other points but "the amount of damage it caused" is really more a function of unwise building techniques. The fact that a hurricane was going to hit New York and cause damage and at least 10' of flooding was certain- it was just a question of when.

It's sort of like the Tsunami in Japan. There were stones saying "Tsunami water gets this high". And they were ignored.

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (2)

Bigby (659157) | about a year ago | (#44776945)

I agree. Although I wouldn't classify it as "unwise building techniques". The damage done directly by wind was probably a very very small fraction of what wind damage does in Florida and NC. A lot of buildings are brick, steel, and concrete. I was in one of them...it was like nothing was happening. There were a couple things at were vastly different than most storms:

1. The significant damage, and it wasn't even close, was flooding. The storm surge coinciding with a super high tide basically dump the ocean into several low lying areas.

2. The wind tunnel effect of tall buildings in proximity turned a category 1 hurricane into category 3/4 winds between buildings.

3. The hurricane collided with a nor'easter. Batshit crazy stuff. How many hurricanes are followed by 6 in of snow within a week?

But to the point, it is OK to build in a 100 yr or 500 yr flood zone. Just don't ask for help from anyone but the flood insurance company. You don't even need to look at stones. For instance, the Delaware River has a park on either side where General Washington crossed the river. Either side also has an old ferry house. It is beneficial to have a ferry house as close to the water as possible. These ferry houses are a solid 100 ft from the river. There is a reason why they built them that far away. These people weren't stupid. So then when the Delaware continuously floods, despite the help of a dam upstream, people act shocked. If people 300 years ago were smart enough, why aren't we today?

However: build there. Just don't ask anyone else for help.

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777017)

How many hurricanes are followed by 6 in of snow within a week?

6 inches of snow that's so adorable [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777081)

"If people 300 years ago were smart enough, why aren't we today? However: build there. Just don't ask anyone else for help." I really don't think you understand how communities worked 300 years ago. People actually volunteered to help you when you lost your home.

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44776667)

yep, and we know the high tide and full moon is caused by global warming

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777351)

yep, and we know the high tide and full moon is caused by global warming

Aha! This Global Warming thing has been happening for even longer than we thought! After all, we've had tides and the moon since before recorded history!

Re: Superstorm Sandy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777359)

Well, half of them are.

I'm not sure which half though.

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (5, Insightful)

Salgak1 (20136) | about a year ago | (#44776447)

Indeed. In fact, the one really critical lesson of the last 2 or so years, from both Fukushima and NYC/SuperStorm Sandy, is do ***NOT*** build critical or fragile structures near, at, or below sea-level in a near-ocean-shore environment.

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44776803)

Indeed. In fact, the one really critical lesson of the last 2 or so years, from both Fukushima and NYC/SuperStorm Sandy, is do ***NOT*** build critical or fragile structures near, at, or below sea-level in a near-ocean-shore environment.

...and yet New Orleans is rebuilding and NYC seems to have recovered just fine. Fukushima provides a few other lessons we're still learning.

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (0)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#44777073)

It must be nice to live in your world where there the option to place such structures in a 'safe' location is always available. (Either that, or you're just an asshat who mistakenly thinks that making such statements as you did makes you like intelligent.*)

Here in the real world - that option is rarely if ever available. We have to make do with the situation that faces us. We have to make trade-offs between building infrastructure where it's at some degree of risk, or not building it at all.

* It doesn't, at least not among those who are actually intelligent.

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (1)

molesdad (1003858) | about a year ago | (#44777353)

Really we have fucking building regulations that determine where you can build. Its not a trade off its a flood plane or not a flood plane; some fucker is making out like a bandit.

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (0)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year ago | (#44776635)

I have noticed only people in NY call it a superstorm, anyone else would call it a cat 1 hurricane or TS. I feel this planet goes through cycles of extremes, pointing at humans without proof is just another way to tax people.

How is this modded flamebait?
It's entirely accurate. Sandy was not a hurricane, it was just a tropical storm. There was nothing "super" about it was the reaction by New Yorkers and the media.

Our planet has gone through intense weather and drastic climate change long before we were here and will do so long after were gone. The most significant effect humans have is blaming it on shit (carbon, pagans, magnets, aliens, too much violence, not enough violence, foreskin, etc.) and then hocking horseshit to morons to fix it (carbon credits, regulations that don't affect the gross emitters of the world, divining rods, sacrifices, crusades, circumcision, rain dances, etc.) without any actual evidence that the problem is due to their claimed cause, that the problem is fixable by us, or that their proposed solution will fix the problem.

Science doesn't work that way. Politicans and snakeoil do, though.

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776723)

I feel this planet goes through cycles of extremes

Yes, but that's not what this is about.

pointing at humans without proof

TFA is a 26mb, 84-page report with the proof. So I'm not sure why you're saying "without proof." It's right here. Read the PDF.

is just another way to tax people.

Who said anything about taxes?

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777031)

I feel this planet goes through cycles of extremes, pointing at humans without proof is just another way to tax people.

I feel you are retarded and lack ability for rational thought. Because I feel that, I must be right.

The earth is big (4, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#44776377)

The earth is large and has a dynamic, varied climate, subject to large changes and 'anomalies'. That said, to show that half the more extreme events seen show evidence of human induced change puts into perspective just how much (uncontrolled, and lacking knowledge) input we have on this planet and its climate. Humankind is a force to be reckoned with.

The question should not be is warming/climate change aided by manmade endeavors. It should be, now that we realize we have the power to alter the climate, what do we want to do? Let it go as is? Change it for the better? Try to change it back?

Now I will go get my popcorn.. I need to have snacks for the ensuing battle.

It's old, too. . . (1, Troll)

Salgak1 (20136) | about a year ago | (#44776539)

I rather giggle at "Man-Made Global Warming". Primarily, because the planet has been in an Ice Age for the past 2-3 million years: we are merely between continental glacial advances.

The HISTORIC climate for most of the US was hot and swampy for the past several hundred million years. Since genus homo has only been around for the last 2 million years or so, you can't even blame us for human-induced global COOLING. . .

Re:It's old, too. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776711)

What, common sense, reason and honestly here on Slashdot, unbelievable!

    But its wasted on this bunch, they are too busy extrapolating data to make it fit. I will giggle with you and the reality as evidenced here, there are some very smart people who are just too fucking stupid simultaneously and the worst of the bunch suck on the govt teet and are therefore free to pursue whatever agenda their masters direct them towards.

AWG is simply about sucking more money into govt troughs in order to perpetuate the mega patronage system that science now serves

Re:It's old, too. . . (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44776951)

I rather giggle at "Man-Made Global Warming". Primarily, because the planet has been in an Ice Age for the past 2-3 million years: we are merely between continental glacial advances.

The HISTORIC climate for most of the US was hot and swampy for the past several hundred million years. Since genus homo has only been around for the last 2 million years or so, you can't even blame us for human-induced global COOLING. . .

I rather boggle at you giggling at observed effects of human activity on our climate, while at the same time taking as fact that our planet has been in an Ice Age for the past 2-3 million years, despite not having observed this yourself.

The other boggling thing is to see that you don't seem to understand the difference between natural global climate changes and temporally localized man-made climate change, and that both can happen *at the same time* and influence each other. When you want warm water from a tap, do you pour cold water and wait for it to warm up, hot water and wait for it to cool down, or just adjust the two to get what you want?

The fact that the planet is perfectly capable of getting really hot and cold on its own cycle is of no comfort to HSS when we realize that through our own efforts, we can quickly (geologically speaking) make this rock uninhabitable for HSS in a way that would take MUCH longer if left to itself. Of course, the opposite is also true: we can also make this rock MORE habitable for HSS for much longer - hopefully long enough for us to learn how to adapt/escape and continue on as a species.

Re:The earth is big (2)

internerdj (1319281) | about a year ago | (#44777261)

I'm not on the denier side, but risk is likelihood and severity. They showed likelihood but neither the summary nor the article spoke to severity. What is this statistical significance or practical significance?

You are fucking kidding mr right? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776379)

Climate Change?

Fuck off. I want GW back, I'm sick of the cold.

Burn more shit.

Socialist dickwads.

Superstorm Sandy? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776385)

Wasn't it a category 1 when it hit? The damage being from landing durning high-tide.

So AWG is responsible when tiny hurricanes hit during high-tide? THIS is why people don't listen to AWG people, they just make stuff up.

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776465)

THAT'S your rebuke? A single event? Overextend much?

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776645)

A tiny hurricane???? I guess a 1150 mile wide storm with 130kph winds throughout most of the storm(including 109kpoh winds in Cleveland Ohio), 3 feet of snow in West Virginia and 7 inches of rain in day in Delaware is a tiny storm,

Re:Superstorm Sandy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776683)

130kph winds

That's tiny for a hurricane. A Cat5 has wind speeds greater than 252kph or 157mph in real units.

Enough is enough. (-1, Flamebait)

J Story (30227) | about a year ago | (#44776449)

Can we agree in future not to post news items having to do with climate "science" unless we are at the same time including links to debunkers of said news?

It's obvious to everyone that the wheels have come off this particular scam. Obvious to everyone, that is, except to those whose livelihood depends on them continuing to find new ways of makinjg hockey sticks.

Re:Enough is enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776525)

Oh yes, those damn climate scientists and their big bucks research grants. I see them riding around in their Ferraris and snorting high grade coke off of models' chests and it's clear that they're in for it for the money!

Re:Enough is enough. (5, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year ago | (#44776587)

"Debunkers"? You mean, like, frauds?

Sorry, but I don't believe any half respectable news organization should link to something just to show "two sides" of a debate. Science is science. The people actually practicing science seem to be largely in agreement about AGW. Asking Slashdot to link to oil-industry funded shills and kooks doesn't help advance knowledge in any way.

Re:Enough is enough. (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about a year ago | (#44776639)

Large groups of scientists have believed very wrong and goofy things for long periods of time.

I'm not saying that's the case this time. Just saying that using the argument form that 9 out of 10 doctors agree "Brand X Cigarettes are good for your health" isn't the best argument.

I suspect the climate is going to cool down (as it did after 1945) and then it will go on to new highs. That cool down is going to be seized on when it's really just natural variability around the generally rising temperature.

Re:Enough is enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776777)

Equivocation is one of the big failures of the modern news organizations that attempt to present unbiased information, giving an air of legitimacy to views that have none. Unfortunately, the news orgs that aren't concerned with being unbiased (e.g., Fox News) usually side with views that eschew science.

Re:Enough is enough. (3, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44777011)

Can we agree in future not to post news items having to do with climate "science" unless we are at the same time including links to debunkers of said news?

It's obvious to everyone that the wheels have come off this particular scam. Obvious to everyone, that is, except to those whose livelihood depends on them continuing to find new ways of makinjg hockey sticks.

Are you saying that it's not obvious to Canadians here? Probably not obvious to Alaskans either, or the Danish -- the three groups that can look outside and see the immediate effects of the climate "science" "scam".

Personally though, I'm more concerned with the dead zones in the pacific ocean (caused by human pollution); these are likely affecting climate (and ecology) way more than our GHG emissions.

NOAA == Political Mouthpiece (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776463)

NOAA is not a science organization. It is a political mouthpiece of the administration.

Can you say... (0)

Andover Chick (1859494) | about a year ago | (#44776479)

Can you say s-c-i-e-n-t-i-f-i-c m-i-s-c-o-n-d-u-c-t.

Re:Can you say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776575)

Please enlighten us as to the follies of their research, oh Great One! For we are too weak minded to see the complexities of your sweeping rebuttal to their efforts!

We always have had extreme weather events! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776495)

Was our weather this year worse than last years weather, or the year before? We have always had extreme weather events every single year around the world and just because they can point out some events this year doesn't mean its all human caused.

Also worth noting, worldwide average temperature has remained the same for the last decade.

Heywood JaBlowme (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776503)

Obama:

Let me be clear. I'm not gonna sit idly by while Iran talks shit about all you white trash, trailer park, redneck, inbred, gun-freak retards. So I'm gonna bomb Syria. You're welcome, you vile, disgusting peasants.

Still cooling. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776507)

"2012 was a year of extreme weather..."

Despite humans outputting more carbon than ever, nasa data shows the earth has been cooling for the past decade. Humans being a small part of the climate change equation is an understatement.

When I was a Kid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776509)

All I can say about global warming is that when I was a kidd these same people where saying we where headed to and Ice Age. You have alot of people who belive it and don't belive it. As to the scientist, well they follow the money, even a cursory look would tell you that.

Re:When I was a Kid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776809)

when I was a kidd these same people where saying we where headed to and Ice Age

No, they weren't.

Re:When I was a Kid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776817)

Actually, no they weren't; that's a myth, and you misremember.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

Re:When I was a Kid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777325)

Actually I'm not misremembering, I ended up marrying my science teacher from the time and she is sitting right here and her recollection is that it was in the course work she taught from. No I am not saying changes aren't occurring, cause they are just that I take it all with a grain of salt like someone else said, attacking someone and calling them names seems to be the way progressives operate across the board they should stick to facts even when inconvenient. In their zeal for the various causes they believe in they alienate people and harden opposition instead of gaining converts by the vitriol they use. Take me for example I am not a republican nor a democrat there are positions on both sides I like and ones I don't. The republicans at least will talk logically with me even if we don't agree more often than not, but progressives drop to name calling and personal attacks much more often.

Re:When I was a Kid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777331)

Go fuck yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

No ice age [Re:When I was a Kid] (3, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year ago | (#44776899)

All I can say about global warming is that when I was a kidd these same people where saying we where headed to and Ice Age.

No, they weren't. Nobody was ever seriously predicting we were heading into an ice age. That "next ice age" played well in the media-- it made Time and Newsweek--but it was never a scientific consensus. Check out "The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus [ametsoc.org] " in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, or the discussion and links here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/18/now-out-in-bams-the-myth-of-th/ [scienceblogs.com]

Re:When I was a Kid (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44777095)

All I can say about global warming is that when I was a kidd these same people where saying we where headed to and Ice Age. You have alot of people who belive it and don't belive it. As to the scientist, well they follow the money, even a cursory look would tell you that.

Interestingly, I think they're likely correct on both fronts: we're in an InterGlacial period if the trends are to be believed, and we're messing with our environment enough to affect global temperatures during this period.

The question now is: will we be wiped out by global warming before the next ice age hits? Or, will our mucking about prevent the next ice age, and cause Earth to look like Mars when the "ice age" was supposed to end and climate warms further?

But you're right; scientists go where there's grant money. To a scientist, there's nothing wrong with attempting to prove the opposite of what you've already proved; if it withstands scrutiny, it advances knowledge just that much further. The problem comes when the scrutineers don't know enough to draw the appropriate conclusions from the actual findings -- and this dumbed down stuff is what the public gets to see. Usually the actual data collected is actually useful and interesting (unless politics gets involved and massages the historical data, as has happened in the US with climate measurements).

Pish posh... (0)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about a year ago | (#44776563)

...human influence is *always* a contributing factor to weather. Heck, the influence of butterflies is *always* a contributing factor.

The question is, "how big is that factor"?

The answer? So small as to be immeasurable.

http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428 [nature.com]

"Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming."

Re:Pish posh... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776685)

The very set of studies this article is about exists to examine the impact (presence and magnitude) of global climate change on specific events.

That the line you quote doesn't say it's immeasurably small (hell 'small' isn't even in the article), it says that the models need to be improved, and you probably shouldn't say a new expansive set of studies is irrelevant because one *editorial* in Nature published a year ago says the models need to be improved.

Then again, denial seems to revolve around completely missing the point or endless deflection rather than addressing the facts and method of data collection, so you weren't out of the norm there.

Compelling evidence (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44776601)

With those hard numbers the remaining thing to see in this discussion is how many people is paid for Koch industries and similar ones [greenpeace.org] , and how many got fooled by them into denying that human activity are causing changes in global climate strong enough to be responsible for the consequences of some of the extreme weather we suffered in recent years.

Re:Compelling evidence (0)

simonbp (412489) | about a year ago | (#44777175)

'Cause y'know [b]Greenpeace[/b] are *totally* unbiased and *totally* free of preconceived political options.

There was a time when environmental organisations actually cared about science. Nowadays, they just blindly campaign against fossil fuels (and nuclear) and ignore any connections between their claims and actual science. Especially when there are things caused by human impacts other than greenhouse gases, like an area flooding because half of it is covered in parking lots, but knee-jerk "environmental activists" claiming it is due to climate change, despite have not actaul rigous scientific evidence.

Science is hard. Conspiracy theories and political defamation is easy. Thus Greenpeace and their ilk tend to favor that later...

Oh noes. (0)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about a year ago | (#44776653)

OMFG! Al Gore was right! The sky is falling.!!!!!!!!!

Re:Oh noes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776787)

If we would all just turn over control of our lives and our wallets to government all these weather events would suddenly go back to being of "natural" origin.

The trick (3, Funny)

oliverk (82803) | about a year ago | (#44776679)

The trick is knowing WHICH half

Climate Correlation is not Causation (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | about a year ago | (#44776715)

Show me the detailed worldwide climate model including the future cycles of the Sun before I will consider believing 1 year worth of change is due to any particular cause.

Come on now. Rational, scientific work doesn't confuse Correlation with Causation!

Re:Climate Correlation is not Causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777035)

Hey look, it's this tired old easily rejected argument. Obviously not one of the many climate scientists out there has ever thought to look at that! Especially not the ones who do some of the most significant solar and climate research in the US....and if such a study exists it would be impossible to find, as it would be clearly hidden and not at all available in a simple Google search...

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/673

Re:Climate Correlation is not Causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777191)

Did you read the report? Does it (as you say) confuse correlation with causation? Or does it find correlation and then dig to see if, in fact, a causal relationship can be defined to allow a connection? Or are you simply tossing out a very tired catchphrase without determining applicability and assume that no climatologist in the world is aware of the statistics and probability of causality between variables?

The original author of the "correlation vs causality" issue was Karl Pearson, and thus we have the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. He address this issue at length in several papers.

In other words (1)

sunking2 (521698) | about a year ago | (#44776767)

We have no idea, but picking the number int he middle hedges our bets the most.

Extreme Weather != Extreme Climate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776779)

that is all

And this year's extreme lack of extreme weatther?? (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | about a year ago | (#44776801)

How does that figure? And don't say instability... I could believe Extreme Reporting on weather rather than extreme weather....global warning is real, but it connection to last year's storms seem tenuous....

LA,LA,LA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776855)

The science still doesn't convince me because I think weather is complicated, and change over time anyway!

And these scientists are money grabbing barons, we should listen to the oil industry. They know what they are doing.

Pure, unmitigated, fear mongering bullshit (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776891)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/noaa-goes-full-alarmist-with-new-publication-seeing-agw-in-extreme-weather-events/

Idiots. (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year ago | (#44777153)

100 percent of weather is effected by all changes in the climate.

Wild speculation... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#44777281)

That report is as accurate as an old tymey Alminac that says that the last 4 years it did not rain today, so it wont rain today.

I want to see the raw data and all the peer reviews of the same study. Too many of you people JUMP on the OMG sky is falling / OMG Sky is not falling bandwagons too fast.

US scientists want to see the real meat and what a LOT of others scientists think.

Offer a solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777317)

I wish the "scientists" would stop crying about it and offer a real solution like cheap solar energy I can put on my house or car. Offer me something that is cheaper than my gas engine so I can replace it and have a clean emissions vehicle.

What what if it is...then what? (1, Insightful)

Danathar (267989) | about a year ago | (#44777355)

Let's just say it's all true.

Then what? In order to have ANY appreciable effect GLOBAL GDP would have to be rolled back.

that simply aint going to happen.

Turn Around Time (1)

wrackspurt (3028771) | about a year ago | (#44777373)

Around 1972 some geologists wrote Nixon a letter warning him of the impending ice age. No one then was warning about human induced climate change and global warming. I think we've done a good job on picking up on the evidence and considering it. We might be implementing more drastic responses but the effects don't yet warrant we go on a war footing and implement draconian measures.

Part of the problem may be that our overall population of plus 6 billion and rising is bringing change that our political processes are built to deal with in a timely manner. Change is happening faster than our political processes have been shaped to consider and react. Yet our turn around time on embracing the evidence is pretty good. If you consider how long it took for the theory of Evolution to be widely embraced, or, even more recently the theory of Plate Tectonics our research and reaction to the findings on climate change has been fast in historical terms.

Superstorm Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777391)

is on its way to Syria right now...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?