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!

Dialing Back the Alarm On Climate Change

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the really-bad-not-really-really-bad dept.

Earth 490

An anonymous reader writes "A leaked copy of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has made the rounds and the good news is that the predicted temperature rise expected as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than predicted in 2007. From the article: 'Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet. Specifically, the draft report says that "equilibrium climate sensitivity" (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is "extremely likely" to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), "likely" to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and "very likely" to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was "likely" to be above 2 degrees Celsius and "very likely" to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.'"

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

In before (4, Funny)

Orp (6583) | about a year ago | (#44857717)

CLIMATEDERP!

Re:In before (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44857919)

Like a tin-teardrop!

My dear God in heaven! We can even predict Brownian motion and particle distribution in 20 cubic meters, with percentages and concentrations involved with this "modeling".

Yet, with the introduction of additional variables, let us say n variables, which include surface interaction with seas, the presence of ice-sheets and glaciers, solar activity, volcanism, etcetera, ad infinitum... Somehow, a reliable and predictable model of planetary atmospheric climate - without prejudice or bias - is expected to be produced within the statistical expectations required to make policy decisions?

I hate Koch Brother-sponsored "make me obscenely richer" propaganda, much as the next free-thinker does. But there is also a giant, Billionaire-fueled machine at setting the agenda for individual and collective behavior, based on making dramatic assertions about "Global Climate". If you don't believe it?

Well, then Albert Gore has a bridge to sell you, and you've already made the first couple of payments - at the low, introductory "teaser" rate.

This whole business is a war between old-school resource robber-barons, and new-global capital, which looks to establish cooperation on permanent rentier concessions. Both spend tens-of-millions shaping perception (insert standard Edward Bernays reference [prmuseum.com] ), in the form of "research science", think tanks and public policy forums. None of these players are charities...

Re:In before (-1)

rolfwind (528248) | about a year ago | (#44858027)

Goddamn I like Tray and Matt but I hated the man bear pig legacy they stuck on Gore (although there is enough wrong with that guy).

Look, the human body is a massively complex thing, but we can still say that calorines in > calories spent it = weight gain. So yes, something like the climate is complex, but the green house effect isn't... and climate change scientists are concerned about "forcings", that is, if everything else is equal, what is forcing the climate to change.

Also, the inconvenient truth was largely accurate:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm [skepticalscience.com]

Re:In before (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44858185)

QOTD on Slashfooter, at time you responded:

"You can fool all the people all of the time if the advertising is right and the budget is big enough."
-- Joseph E. Levine

So you declare the film, and Gore's powerpoint, "largely accurate" through the single citation of single "Expert Witness" - Dr Philip Stott - in a court case?
Stott gave evidence, for the distribution of a film, in which he appears.

"The producers would like to assure you the public, that no actual research funding was hurt in the making of this film."

In "Inconvenient Truth" Gore told lies - provably false - about "hockeysticks" and polar bears. Manipulation. The only "six metre rise" factually indicated, was the level of bullshit - and the rise of my gorge, at such. Oh. And Kilimanjaro isn't thawing. Lake Chad is safe. Katrina was a disaster made by hubris and broken infrastructure - not human impact to a weather event.

Who funded the effort? Who was going to underwrite the proposed 50,000 copies distributed to schools? Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama? ;-)

Re:In before (1, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44858189)

"Also, the inconvenient truth was largely accurate: http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm [skepticalscience.com] "

Skeptical Science is hardly an unbiased source. Lots of other sources have some rather scathing things to say about "Inconvenient Truth".

Skeptical Science is a propaganda machine. They adopted the "skeptical" monitor in order to try to infiltrate the actual skeptics.

Just sayin'... I'm not claiming they're wrong but like any other obviously biased source, any true skeptic is obligated to take their word with a large grain of salt.

Re:In before (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44858199)

s/monitor/moniker

Damn You, Autocorrect!

Re:In before (3)

rolfwind (528248) | about a year ago | (#44858311)

Skeptical Science is hardly an unbiased source.

If it's human, it's biased.

Skeptical Science is a propaganda machine. They adopted the "skeptical" monitor in order to try to infiltrate the actual skeptics.

Citation?

Re:In before (3, Informative)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#44858237)

Look, the human body is a massively complex thing, but we can still say that calorines in > calories spent it = weight gain.

The problem with that analogy is that is seems people forget about the fact that a human can start exercising, therefor burning more calories that previously, and lose weight while taking in an even larger amount of calories.

In other words, models are based on one scenario, and then not accurately corrected as reality shows them to be wrong.

Re:In before (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about a year ago | (#44858001)

EOT [imgur.com]

Excellent! (5, Funny)

stoploss (2842505) | about a year ago | (#44857721)

I look forward to the calm, rational, and coherent discussion!

For once, there may be a thread on this site that avoids tangenting off into politics. It will be refreshing to witness a debate that does not invoke Nazis, gun control, or the results of previous US elections, because those are totally offtopic and everyone will realize that.

Re:Excellent! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857753)

Are you kidding? Climate change was out of control when Bush was president. Notice how now that Obama is president the climate change is not a big deal anymore? President Obama saved us! Thank goodness that all those people voted for Obama when I, as a very uneducated voter, voted for the other guy.

Re:Excellent! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857849)

Attention retarded moderators:

You know the above post is true. Obama will have everybody convinced that we overreacted to Hitler, Mussolini, Emperor Ming, Mao, and Stalin, that they really weren't such bad guys.

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858031)

>> Notice how now that Obama is president the climate change is not a big deal anymore?

No way! When Obama flies around nilly-willy on Air Force One he dumps tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Are you saying there's no climate change when he does that?

Re:Excellent! (4, Insightful)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#44858249)

He's saying it isn't front page news every week. He's implying that if a Republican was in the White House, the media would be preaching global warming at every turn, just like they used to.

Re:Excellent! (3, Funny)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year ago | (#44857763)

I look forward to the calm, rational, and coherent discussion!

For once, there may be a thread on this site that avoids tangenting off into politics. It will be refreshing to witness a debate that does not invoke Nazis, gun control, or the results of previous US elections, because those are totally offtopic and everyone will realize that.

Yeah, good luck with that.

OK, I'll Start (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857767)

It's no wonder an article like this showed up in the Wall Street Journal. They have one of the preeminent Anti Global Warming editorial boards on the planet. They specialize in global warming skepticism almost as much as finance. And why? The industries that sponsor them rely on oil and coal. So really this article is absolute rubbish. You don't even have to read it to know. Posting AC because that is the only honorable way to start off a thread like this.

No change in number, just different wording (5, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year ago | (#44857853)

I'm finding it hard to see what the change is here.

The old number was that the doubling sensitivity was most likely to be in the range 2 C-to-4.5 C. Specifically:
"we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2C to 4.5C, with a most likely value of about 3C."
(reference: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html#box-10-2 [www.ipcc.ch] )

This report-- if the leaked version is accurate-- is that it's "'likely' to be above 1.5 degrees C, 'very likely' to be below 6 degrees C".
That's not a "reduction" or a "retreat"-- it is, at best, a slightly higher range. But since, as the summary says, "Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.," I don't see that there's any clear change at all-- just different wording.

This is spin-- there isn't be anything new here.

Re:No change in number, just different wording (4, Insightful)

petsounds (593538) | about a year ago | (#44857953)

This is spin-- there isn't be anything new here.

Yup, exactly this. This report doesn't lead to any conclusion that we should "dial back the alarm" as the news title suggests. The approval of this submission by slashdot editors shows either bias towards climate change denial, or just a desire for more linkbait, button-pushing articles. Perhaps both.

Re:No change in number, just different wording (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857973)

The lower bound on "likely" moved from 2 to 1.5. What is difficult to parse about that?

Re:No change in number, just different wording (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year ago | (#44858069)

The lower bound on "likely" moved from 2 to 1.5. What is difficult to parse about that?

People just see what they're looking for. Nothing hard here, just basic cognitive dissonance.

Re:No change in number, just different wording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858121)

If that is the case it did not move at all 2 is the same as 1.5 since 2 can be anything from and including 1.5 to 2.5.

Re:No change in number, just different wording (4, Informative)

KeensMustard (655606) | about a year ago | (#44858175)

The change appears to be that after some analysis, they've determine the stability of the next equilibrium to be below 6 degrees. This means that there is low risk of the temperature increasing beyond 6 degrees. There was always an equilibrium, and six degrees or anything like six degree is well into the dangerous range, so the authors conclusion it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet seems to be dangling in the wind. How did he draw that conclusion?

A quick check of the authors credentials indicates he wrote a book some years ago expounding the view that climate change will be beneficial for humanity. The WSJ article is the author promoting his own ideas under the guise of interpreting the results of the next IPCC report for us (rather than letting us interpret the results for ourselves).

Re:No change in number, just different wording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858499)

Good detective work.

Certainly, the "very real possibility" seems to come out of nowhere (ie. ass), not at all supported by the previous statements.

Re:No change in number, just different wording (-1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44858539)

Thanks for that. It goes to show that if it's about climate change and it's in the WSJ, you'd be better served using it as shitpaper.

Ignore the evidence (4, Interesting)

huckamania (533052) | about a year ago | (#44858501)

Ignore the pause, ignore the missing heat, ignore the solar cycles, ignore the lack of sea level rise, ignore an arctic that is not ice free, ignore ENSO effects, ignore weather stations next to tarmacs, ignore urban heating, because they don't match the models.

Ignore the money being made, ignore the cost to society, ignore the lack of true peer review, ignore the missing data, ignore academic misconduct, ignore the denied FOI requests, ignore the emails, because that is just human nature.

When you are blind, everything is 'Nothing to see here, move along'...

Re:No change in number, just different wording (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44858531)

Once again, the psuedo-skeptics will play a clever etymological and semantics game to try to make it sound as if science is saying one thing, when it's actually saying something else. It's so typical of the pseudo-skeptic movement to simultaneously declare climatologists morally bankrupt communists out to destroy poor whttle oil companies while they take every word uttered by climatologists out of context to try to declare that climatology now rejects AGW.

Re:Excellent! (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44857887)

I look forward to the calm, rational, and coherent discussion!

Yeah, exactly the sorts of discussions they NAZIS led before the confiscated all the GUNS, Obama-style!

640K ought to be enough for anybody!

Re:Excellent! (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#44858267)

I look forward to the calm, rational, and coherent discussion!

640K ought to be enough for anybody!

Hey, when you take the initiative to invent the internets, you can make that claim. Not until. ;^)

Re:Excellent! (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#44858341)

Nobody ever made that claim about 640k by the way. Not Bill Gates, or anybody else.

Re:Excellent! (-1, Troll)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#44857981)

The errors are all due to anti-business anti-employer politicis: officials rewriting research reports to make "climate change" more dramatic than it seemed, to justify irrationally extreme measures.

This was all insired by the Nazis' programs, and perpetuated by the fraudulent voting on the last two presidential elections facilitated by advocates for various parties; encouraging various non-eligible people to get votes in and counted, and in and counted again, and a third time, and a fourth time ---- four votes per person: as long as their vote was the right one.

In the absence of overzealous gun control regulation; the fully armed well-regulated militia would have clearly put a stop to all this craziness.

Re:Excellent! (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44858553)

Translation: I'm a whiny little bitch boy who doesn't want to face up to what we're all doing to the planet, so I'll use words like "Nazi" and "anti-business", because I lack honor, adult coping skills and jeezus christ basic intellectual capacity,.

Look, you fucking moron, do you think that the universe gives one flying fuck about your fucking ideology? Do you think AGW hinges on whether it feeds into your notion of ccapitalism, you fucking halfwitted toad excrement?

Oh goody (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857729)

A climate change article on Slashdot, how unusual and they always leads to such reasoned debate and respect amongst commenters.

No advert impression-pumping here.

Re:Oh goody (1)

conner_bw (120497) | about a year ago | (#44857825)

> No advert impression-pumping here.

I think we can all agree that this sentence is the most plausible conspiracy in this thread.

Cheers to my old teacher (2, Interesting)

stkris (1843186) | about a year ago | (#44857731)

I remember in second grade ca 1974 my teacher explaining that the Earth were slowly heading into a new ice age.

If I ever meet him again I'll buy him a beer!

Re:Cheers to my old teacher (4, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44857761)

I remember in second grade ca 1974 my teacher explaining that the Earth were slowly heading into a new ice age. If I ever meet him again I'll buy him a beer!

Except that was a fringe idea that was obliterated in peer review fairly quickly. But people for some reason tend to fixate the weirdest shit in their memories, instead of the actually useful stuff.

Because Peer review is so useful when it's wrong.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858331)

Abstract computer simulations are not a substitute for experimentation.
You cannot independently validate empirical claims without access to the claimant's data, setup and methodology.
Peer review is not a substitute for independent experimentation.
Scrubbing data of inconvenient outliers is ignoring evidence that a claim is not repeatable and therefore invalid.

The pseudo science behind AGW suffered from all four. So how were bad peer reviews of bad science an example of 'actually useful stuff', again?

Re:Because Peer review is so useful when it's wron (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44858427)

Abstract computer simulations are not a substitute for experimentation.

Which is why the US military is in no terms relying on supercomputer simulations to maintain the enduring stockpile of nuclear weapons.

You cannot independently validate empirical claims without access to the claimant's data, setup and methodology.

Well, that's the whole idea behind the reproducible research method movement, isn't it?

Re:Cheers to my old teacher (2)

rolfwind (528248) | about a year ago | (#44857817)

Oh, is that based on the Time news cover back then? That's cute. I also get all my knowledge of those devious "hackers" from the mainstream media as well.

Now for real science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm [skepticalscience.com]

Survey of 68 Scientific Studies from 1965 to 1979, 10% predicted cooling, 62% predicted warming, 28% had no stance. Today, more than 97% scientist agree on warming.

Re:Cheers to my old teacher (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858291)

Now for real science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm [skepticalscience.com]

I don't read crap from blogs from delusional skeptics. Probably paid by Charles Koch to make that crap up. Do you have any links from actual scientists, not corporate shill skeptics?

Re:Cheers to my old teacher (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44858461)

I don't read crap from blogs from delusional skeptics.

Except it's the non-skeptics who are delusional: homeopaths, chiropractors, religious people, astrologers etc. It's quite difficult to have negative delusions.

Re:Cheers to my old teacher (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857879)

I don't know why people keep bringing this up as if it somehow negates global warming.

1) We *are* slowly heading into an ice age (read up on Milankovitch cycles), but it is not due for tens of thousands of years, so it's kind of irrelevant on century scale;
2) On a shorter time scale (the next century or two), we're expecting the Earth to warm up due to higher CO2 concentrations, and that is a concern.

There is nothing inconsistent about these two statements because they are at different timescales. Your logic is like saying you don't have to worry about the ski jump you're about to run into because over the long term the mountain slopes down. No, you should probably pay attention to what's in front of you and worry less about the long-term until the short-term is sorted out.

Re:Cheers to my old teacher (2)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#44858007)

In fact we arent heading *into* an ice-age, we are living in one. The climate we consider normal is an ice age climate, specifically the interglacial, periods colder than typical for earth, but not the most extreme cold in earths cycle - times when there are solid ice caps at the poles, but they dont extend very far from them. The next phase of the ice-age climate is the shift from interglacial to glacial, a period of greater cold when the glaciers will grow down towards the equators as they have done many times before. And that's 'imminent' on a timescale of tens of thousands of years.

What we're being told to worry about now is that our co2 emissions will cause such drastic warming as to over-ride the Milankovitch and other natural cycles and vault us quickly OUT of our current ice-age, into a hot-house earth state - a much more common state for earth in general but one we should naturally have a few million years to prepare for. In that state, the ice-caps disappear entirely, and the next thing you know you have alligators and palm trees in London again.

Frankly I suspect the forces involved need to be understood a little better before anyone is going to know for sure what will actually wind up happening. Climatology is a rather young discipline tasked with sorting out some incredibly complicated subject matter.

Also... (5, Funny)

Orp (6583) | about a year ago | (#44857735)

Two mistakes pop up immediately int the article - IPPC (eh? OK, typo) and "The Journal of the American Meteorological Society". It's IPCC and the Bulletin of the AMS (BAMS). Maybe this guy creamed himself while typing, it is the WSJ after all.

Re:Also... (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year ago | (#44857783)

Two mistakes pop up immediately int the article - IPPC (eh? OK, typo) and "The Journal of the American Meteorological Society". It's IPCC and the Bulletin of the AMS (BAMS). Maybe this guy creamed himself while typing, it is the WSJ after all.

So..., I am trying to wrap my head around this... You're saying that the WSJ, a periodical noted for it's business expertise, is putting spin on this report? Why, oh why, would they want to do that, I wonder?

Re:Also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857999)

Maybe this guy creamed himself while typing, it is the WSJ after all.

With that you just initiated the /. cohort of pants creamers. Climate Change, Global Warming! ....Fap away!

Cue conspiracy theorists in.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857737)

3...2....1.....

Still not much of a comfort (5, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44857743)

Given the inertia of our industrial and economic processes, it only means that the unstoppable iceberg will simply crawl slower. But at least we have more time. I also don't think that this means a time-out for ocean acidification.

Re:Still not much of a comfort (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#44858363)

Well if these were truly big concerns, then why didn't they wipe out all life on earth 65 million years ago? 65 million years ago we had a few things: Large macroscale life like Dinosaurs and giant mosquitos, a large supercontinent named pangea, no ice caps, and CO2 levels ten times as high as they are right now. The ocean at this time was acidic beyond even the worst doomsday predictions of Al Gore. The planet was also "greener" (more plantlife) than at any point in history.

science and anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857747)

why anonymous? how the heck does that help science?

ok then ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857757)

So Al will be returning all the scam money he makes from his bs agenda and lifestyle, right?
Right?

The Computer Models were "a bit off" then ? (5, Insightful)

dryriver (1010635) | about a year ago | (#44857779)

The world's climate is such a huge, complex and fluid system that the best supercomputer in existence will only be able to model its future behavior "very approximately". It should thus not come as a big shock when what the computer models predicted in 2007 doesn't happen exactly in 2013, or indeed further down the timeline. It is only when more complex & accurate simulations can be run on supercomputers that we can have any reasonable expectancy of modeling the future behavior of the earth's climate with any accuracy.----- And suppose for a moment that we happen to realize further down the line that "Climate Change" worries were a bit overblown? Well, no harm done! Without the Climate Change alarmism of the last 2 decades, nobody would have put much money into developing renewables like wind and solar or tidal energy. We also might not have Toyota Priuses or Tesla electric cars on the market today. Not to mention computers and other household devices that save a lot of energy compared to past cousins. ------ So whether Global Warming is real or not, fear of it has influenced everything from automobile to refrigerator designs to become more "earth friendly". That's a good thing in my book....

Re:The Computer Models were "a bit off" then ? (1)

foma84 (2079302) | about a year ago | (#44857829)

[...]the best supercomputer in existence will only be able to model its future behavior "very approximately".[...]

That or the fact that man-made models might be inaccurate/incomplete/off.
Nontheless the only way finding out is, you guessed, crash-testing it.

Re:The Computer Models were "a bit off" then ? (3, Informative)

Derec01 (1668942) | about a year ago | (#44857869)

It's not a bad thing, per se.

However, it does feed the idea that the alarmism was trumped up for that purpose in the first place, a suspicion that many have had over the years. If too many people, scientist or not, subscribe to this "ends justifies the means" rationalization (instead of just saying that they were mistaken), that is not going to foster public trust in the scientific community.

Re:The Computer Models were "a bit off" then ? (1)

mc6809e (214243) | about a year ago | (#44857883)

It is only when more complex & accurate simulations can be run on supercomputers that we can have any reasonable expectancy of modeling the future behavior of the earth's climate with any accuracy.

The deviation from reality, though, seems systematic. Nearly all the models predicted warming greatly exceeding what we've witnessed over the past 15 years or so.

What we need are not more complex and accurate simulations. What we need are more accurate physics that we can then simulate.

Re:The Computer Models were "a bit off" then ? (2)

trewornan (608722) | about a year ago | (#44858117)

So whether Global Warming is real or not, fear of it has influenced everything from automobile to refrigerator designs to become more "earth friendly". That's a good thing in my book....

Yeah screw all the plebs who died unnecessarily because money that could have been spent on health care, research, foreign aid, etc was spent on emission targets to combat global warming "real or not".

Re:The Computer Models were "a bit off" then ? (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#44858411)

I'm a big skeptic of the global warming movement, but emissions standards are fine in my book so long as they target actual pollutants (e.g. soot, etc). Even if we cause global warming, I don't believe it will hurt us. However we can cause ourselves grief by polluting the ground, air, or water with toxic chemicals. Let's keep those two separate and not let the issue of global warming distract from the issue of pollution.

If you need proof of why we need emissions standards, go have a walk around Beijing.

Other than that, absolutely we have wasted an obscene amount of time and debate on global warming, which is a non-issue in my book.

Re:The Computer Models were "a bit off" then ? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44858129)

According to this recent paper [ed.ac.uk] , the climate models were a bit off......

Re:The Computer Models were "a bit off" then ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858177)

Broken Windows Fallacy.

Re:The Computer Models were "a bit off" then ? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858297)

What about the poor people who can not afford to heat their homes due to higher energy prices due of course to more expensive renewable energy? What about those who freeze to death in the winter time because they can not afford to heat their home? What about those poor people who start chopping down trees instead of paying for traditional heating? There is always a negative side to any political action and denying that is just as bad as denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Face it, lots of harm will be done regardless of what we do because that is the nature of politics. Don't stick your head in the sand and deny the truth...any bad effects will be blamed on scientists and politicians alike if they end up being wrong because that is the nature of reality and it is only fair.. You perform an action and you reap the benefits and the consequences equally. You are completely wrong. There is plenty of harm done, and if it also turns out that we have been wasting our money on research into climate change over the last 20 years, that is equally bad because that money could have been spent on other fields of science where we could have seen a tangible benefit.

So no, don't give me this immoral attitude that even if they are wrong no harm was done, because that completely ignores the billions of dollars we spend on climate change research every year and it completely ignore the billions spent on renewable subsidies that is good money that could have went to any number of endeavors in science or even in aiding other humans in this big blue world of ours. Above all else let me say this:

If decisions are made because of faulty information in science, there is always harm done and plenty of it. To simply ignore the negative effects is not only immoral, but delusional and rather crazy. This is why the scientists behind climate change MUST above all else be absolutely and positively sure if they advocate for political action because if they get it wrong and people end up dying due to energy poverty and artificial shortages of power, that blood is on their hands since those people would have only been thrust into fuel poverty due to energy scarsity advocated by same scientists.

Re:The Computer Models were "a bit off" then ? (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year ago | (#44858401)

I've said this here before, but it's worth repeating: regardless of whether or not AGW is true or not, it's probably not a good idea for us to be running an open-ended experiment of dumping as much carbon dioxide as we can into the atmosphere just to see what happens.

Useless. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857781)

Something out of a Murdoch rag, don't bother.

Sigh (4, Insightful)

jasnw (1913892) | about a year ago | (#44857813)

(Sound of pooch being screwed.) This is how real science works, particularly with highly complex issues like the earth's climate. We learn new things as we go along, and when new knowledge means we need to adjust our undestanding, that's what is done. The next update by the IPCC (if it gets funded, that is) may well show that what we learn in the interim indicates that the current estimates of climate change were too small. Unfortunately, the polarization of politics will take this latest IPCC report (if it indeed says what the article states) as an indication that these science types have been lying to us all along and they should now be ignored and driven from the temple. Efforts to deal with the effects of the upcoming changes will be killed off and nothing will be done until it's too late to do much of anything other than hope to cope.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857851)

This is how real science works

Speaking of how real science works, to RTFS...

"Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult."

Um... because the meanings are specific, comparison is more difficult? How does that work?

Re:Sigh (1, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#44858435)

If you want to know who to blame, blame the groups that try to use climate science to push their pet agendas like vegetarianism, socialism, organic, or whatever "new age" philosophies they think are mankinds next answer when they have almost nothing to do with the issue at hand.

(By the way I'm not speaking about whether vegetarianism or socialism or good or bad, just that they don't belong in this discussion and only serve to complicate things.)

Editors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857857)

Wasn't this immediately discredited as a false document?

What's with all the Global Warming stuff here? (5, Informative)

rolfwind (528248) | about a year ago | (#44857863)

Just a few days ago, there was a story how the ice in the arctic "rebounded" 60%.

The real story is in this graph:

http://postimg.org/image/hcadakghv/ [postimg.org]

We've been measuring arctic ice the late 70s. It's at it's maximum in March, melts during the summer, and sees it's minimum in September. 2012 was the record year we had so far for the LEAST amount of artic ice. 2007 has second place and 2011 has 3rd. This year we have more than 2012. This was expected among scientists because of something called regression towards the mean. That concept basically says when an extreme outlier event occurs, we expect the next event to be closer to the average. Basically, the entire hoopla is about playing math games to appear more impressive than it is.

When the story came out, it was premature the typical September lowpoint, so don't expect the 60% figure to quite hold that high, but it is higher than last year none the less. However, you can see it's still well below 00s average and that every decade has since the measurements started have less and less ice.

So there you have it? Maybe the heat is going into the oceans? Then melting the poles as the currents do a good job of distributing the equator heat around via currents. The ice melts, breaks off whatever, and like icecubes in a warm drink, cool it down.... until there is no ice left?

Come on, what is with the propraganda here? Last year was an obsolute low point in Arctic Ice extent.... and we get stories of so called "rebounds"? Just look at the graph and tell me that it trend isn't clear.

Re:What's with all the Global Warming stuff here? (3, Insightful)

Alef (605149) | about a year ago | (#44858029)

The ice story was particularly idiotic. The ice cover of 2012 was at an extreme low; this years it's pretty much spot on the (downward) trend line, which happens to lie 60% above the 2012 record. Drawing any long-term conclusion from that difference is like saying there will be no winter this year, because it was warmer today than yesterday.

Peter Hadfield summarised it [youtube.com] quite nicely in a video.

Re:What's with all the Global Warming stuff here? (4, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | about a year ago | (#44858323)

The problem is the global-warming deniers trumpet the low temperature outliers, and the global warming proponents trumpet the high temperature outliers. Last year, one side made a big deal about the least ice in the Arctic in recorded history. This year the other side is making a big deal about the ice pack rebounding. Same thing with hurricanes. In 2005 it was all about the worst Atlantic hurricane season in history being caused by global warming. Then 2006 was one of the mildest hurricane seasons in history and the other side got to crow.

It's stupid trying to use outliers as evidence. Both sides of the global warming debate are guilty of this. The average trend is what everyone should be looking at. The same goes for pretty much everything. e.g. People get their panties in a bunch about plane crashes or nuclear reactor accidents, when statistically they are the safest forms of transportation and power generation respectively. People are convinced schools are becoming more dangerous because of recent mass shootings on the news, when in fact they're the safest they've ever been in spite of those shooting incidents. We give up our rights and freedoms because of a single hugely successful terrorist attack, when once you remove that single incident you're statistically more likely (in the U.S.) to be killed by lightning than a terrorist attack. All these incidents are outliers and they should be assumed to be non-representative of the long-term average.

NASA Climate Change Data (3, Interesting)

dgp (11045) | about a year ago | (#44857903)

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators [nasa.gov]

The CO2 graph (direct measurement) is clearly climbing at a never-before-seen rate. How does this compare to the conclusions in the report?

Re:NASA Climate Change Data (2, Informative)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#44858473)

Never before seen? Ever? What about during the Cambrian period? CO2 levels 18 times as high as they are today.

In fact - this may come as a shock to you - we are currently at one of the low points for CO2 levels in Earths history. Not just low, but VERY low.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html [geocraft.com]

Just wait (1)

no-body (127863) | about a year ago | (#44857917)

what the evaluation on the CO flood will say - damage, cost, cause.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/15/colorado-floods-weather/2816051/ [usatoday.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/14/colorado-flooding-climate-change_n_3926284.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX3w90YecnA [youtube.com]

How much denials there will be and if it's all blamed on the FSM (or equiv.).
Enjoy the coming show!

Right wing not to be trusted on IPCC leaks (5, Informative)

Bueller_007 (535588) | about a year ago | (#44857929)

The author of this article, Matt Ridley, is a known climate change denialist and of course the Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch and therefore operates under the same umbrella as Fox News.

Supposed leaks from the IPCC document have already been mischaracterized in the right-wing media. See, for example, Phil Plait's demolition of them here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html [slate.com]

Or if you prefer your demolition in video format:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH5D9P6KYfY [youtube.com]

I have no reason to trust the right-wing's interpretation of the IPCC document before it is officially announced and I can check it for myself. Why don't you try WAITING for it to be released before you start spreading this very likely BS.

Re:Right wing not to be trusted on IPCC leaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857955)

http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

Re:Right wing not to be trusted on IPCC leaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858057)

We need to do something about the vast right wing conspiracy. Seriously these people are nuts. What kind of person points out failed predictions? Complains about political funding as a source of scientific bias? Makes fun of Al Gore? It's just plain rude!

Re:Right wing not to be trusted on IPCC leaks (1, Insightful)

KeensMustard (655606) | about a year ago | (#44858295)

What kind of person points out failed predictions?

Perhaps you are not asking yourself the right question.

The oft stated prediction from the industry funded denialist machinery that the temperature wouldn't rise has been proven, demonstrably and unequivocally, false.

The follow on prediction from the industry funded denialist machinery that the temperature rise, though unusual, was cyclical and due to something natural, e.g. increased solar output has been proven, demonstrably and unequivocally, false.

So the question you should be asking yourself is, what kind of person continuously believes a body of work and people whose only achievement so far is being consistently wrong?

Re:Right wing not to be trusted on IPCC leaks (0)

bricko (1052210) | about a year ago | (#44858345)

Its Bush's fault and you are all racists

Re:Right wing not to be trusted on IPCC leaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858351)

That sounds like a pretty tidy conspiracy theory you have there.

Obviously because the man works for Fox News he is an evil lizard man who wants to make money on trashing this planet. Did I sum your beliefs up pretty well there? Because lets face it man, your entire post is one logical fallacy after another and why I will say this it does sound rather crazy when you throw in logical fallacy after another.

You have no support that this is wrong other than off-topic red herrings, and of course your first sentence is just a bunch of ad-homs thrown together rather crudely. Other than that, after you give an off-topic "proof" that something similar happened that is not this event, you conclude that this event must be wrong, sans proof simply because the lizard men of Fox News and other right-wing lunatics are just wrong. Next time, why don't you read the actual article and prove the actual article wrong.

Misleading article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44857945)

The "dangerous" prediction of 2 degrees c in the original UN report is now, as rumored in this article, fine tuned to somewhere between 1.5 and 4 degrees. How is that better ? Spin spin spin from WSJ and the Wall Street pundits.

Re:Misleading article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858357)

The "dangerous" prediction of 2 degrees c in the original UN report is now, as rumored in this article, fine tuned to somewhere between 1.5 and 4 degrees. How is that better ?

Because the previous prediction was from 2 degrees to 100000000+ degrees. Now it's from 1.5 to 4. If you take the averages of those two ranges, there is quite a difference.

Conversion (5, Informative)

colinrichardday (768814) | about a year ago | (#44857961)

1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit)

1.5 degrees Celsius is 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature#Conversion [wikipedia.org]

Context (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858423)

1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit)

1.5 degrees Celsius is 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.

TFS got its "4" right, you've got the "7" right, but there has to be a "3" in front of all:
1.5 degrees Celsius is 34,7 degrees Fahrenheit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature#Conversion [wikipedia.org]

It's context that makes the difference. ;)

Re:Conversion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858425)

I love that you don't just post the correction, you feel the need to site wikipedia....

hey more lunatic fringe climate change discussions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858061)

get the tinfoil hats on!

is this GLP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858071)

i thought i was on slashdot, not another conspiracy theory site

methane (1)

tbonefrog (739501) | about a year ago | (#44858075)

from fracking, warming permafrost, and warming oceans. i wonder if they considered it. it could cause runaway warming.

What about chemtrails? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858083)

I think this is all due to chemtrails.

Sorry guys, it's all my fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858089)

I left my car idling this morning. You can blame the heat on me. /ba-da-ching!

Living in the biosphere. (4, Insightful)

eriks (31863) | about a year ago | (#44858095)

I really wish that both "sides" in the climate change "debate" could put away the hyperbole and come to grips with the fact that we need to live in some way approaching equilibrium with the various processes happening here on planet Earth. That's not just about co2 production. Even though there is unquestionably consensus among climate scientists that the rising co2 level IS significant, there are *many* other factors at play. It won't matter if we get the co2 situation under control, but still have high-levels of fresh water pollution and half-dead oceans.

We need to pollute less, period.

We need to dramatically increase our total energy efficiency, which can largely be achieved by picking the "low-hanging fruit" of building insulation, indoor daytime lighting and industrial energy usage. All three of these can be addressed (easily!) with incentives like rebates and tax credits -- granted that takes political will, which seems in short supply, but it's all there already, just waiting to happen: just (gradually) shift the subsidies currently granted to fossil fuel companies over to businesses and homeowners that are willing to make investments in long-term energy efficiency and savings, it just makes sense: since energy saving == money saving.

The reality is that our total energy usage is increasing, so the more we stretch it, the more comfortable humanity can be in the long term. We need to be building as many solar, wind, wave, thermal gradient and salinity gradient systems as we can, all the while earnestly studying the effects and operation of these systems, and discovering our mistakes and correcting them as we go. We need better fission reactor designs: meaning serious R&D and testing. We need better (and more!) energy storage systems. And probably most importantly we need to come up with new ideas for generating and storing energy. Life is not static, we can't just say "hey, this is good enough" -- we have to make it better! Life forms don't stop evolving just because they find a successful niche. They keep going, because there's always more pressure around the corner. As humans, we've insulated ourselves from a lot of pressures, but that's really an illusion, since all we can ever really do is make buffers. Everything remains interconnected and interdependent.

As Bunker Roy [ted.com] says: Decentralize, demystify! People should know that they CAN provide for themselves, but they have to understand how it all works.

We are squandering our resources: geological, biological, financial and (most importantly) human. We need to refine our entire way of doing things.

The oil and coal WILL run out someday. It might be 100 years or 1000 -- but we need to be thinking truly long term here. It would be nice to still have plenty of oil and coal left for other stuff when we finally stop having to burn it for fuel just to keep the lights on. It's amazingly useful, and we have a finite supply.

The real problem is HAARP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858097)

The government manipulates the weather by way of HAARP.

The oceans (1, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#44858113)

The oceans weigh 280 times as much as the atmosphere, so it's nice to see it start to be included in the climate models. Maybe next year they will start to consider geothermal inputs as well. Maybe do some energy flow models rather than trying to recreate the world with statistics.

Re:The oceans (1, Informative)

KeensMustard (655606) | about a year ago | (#44858371)

The oceans weigh 280 times as much as the atmosphere, so it's nice to see it start to be included in the climate models.

Did you post this in 1990 and it took until now to get published?

Oceans are included in GCM models. They have been for some time now.

Re:The oceans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858443)

I don't know what you mean by "start to be included", since the oceans have been part of climate models from the beginning. Maybe if you actually flipped through one of the assessment reports, you would know what kind of things have been covered and what haven't.

You mean people actually stil believe this fraud? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858229)

"Global warming" is better referred to as Al Gore's 401K plan. Go research his "Generation Investment Management" company and the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). This entire fraud was created for the purpose of making some liberal politicians very, very rich.

It was a ridiculous fraud from the start, and even in the face of the blatant evidence of this fraud, the left-wing politicians succeeded doing in what they do best: creating mass-hysteria among their useful idiot liberal sheep.

How we used to view all of this in the Olden Days (2, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | about a year ago | (#44858253)

Just for minute let's ignore the seemingly pointless harangues about whether or not "climate change" really exists.

Instead let's examine the issue in the terms that we used back in the 1970's:

1) Burning stuff releases pollutants.
2) Putting less pollutants into the air, water, and ground is a good thing.

Re:How we used to view all of this in the Olden Da (0)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#44858429)

1) Burning stuff releases pollutants. 2) Putting less pollutants into the air, water, and ground is a good thing.

If burning things has caused us to avoid an end to the present interglacial, then is it still a bad thing?

Re:How we used to view all of this in the Olden Da (2)

haruchai (17472) | about a year ago | (#44858471)

Some of those pollutants have strong cooling effects so they slow down the warming from increased GHGs.
So cleaning up the air will proably speed up warming unless we do a hell of a lot of CCS or get a more volcanic eruptions.

All I know.... (1)

CHIT2ME (2667601) | about a year ago | (#44858285)

All I know is that this report doesn't dissuade me from offering beachfront property for sale here in Missouri!!!

Blind trust in models (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858333)

...the predicted temperature rise expected as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than predicted in 2007.

...and how accurate were the 2007 predictions compared to the actual temperatures?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/ [drroyspencer.com]

It seems, "not very".

Do you want to be scientific? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44858359)

Climate change as a religion is nothing but re-branded socialism/marxism. It will continue to prey on those who believe they know what science is while they among other things in fact haven't understood any of the basic general concepts of science such as falsifiability, the impossibility of final proof, the inherent weakness of all modelling and simulations, and how the best scientific axioms or laws inherently and inescapably are far less precise than reality itself.

So to those it may concern please shut up and never say a word about scientific matters again: you are in fact nothing but ill educated anti-scientific luddites and ideological sheep. You're unwittingly part of a political and economical scam benefiting exactly the kind of scum your masters claim to oppose: bankers, lawyers, politicians, journalists, the “elite”. You are actively attacking and hurting humankind as well as the Earth itself.

Climate change is by now a stale excuse against freedom in addition to all the old; just another “proof” that validates hatred against humans (and in particular against whites) and technology.

If this post outrages you please do us all a favour and go kill yourself as well as any indoctrinated family you might have. Or better yet: kill the fuckers who dece8ived you and lied to you.

Consider the source (1, Troll)

Alomex (148003) | about a year ago | (#44858477)

Just a note to point out that IPCC has an agenda, as opposed to the climate scientists, who, while perhaps suffering from confirmation biases, have a much more neutral stake on the whole thing either way.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?