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!

Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the let's-blame-the-dinosaurs dept.

Earth 869

An anonymous reader writes "A study out of McGill University sought to examine historical temperature data going back 500 years in order to determine the likelihood that global warming was caused by natural fluctuations in the earth's climate. The study concluded there was less than a 1% chance the warming could be attributed to simple fluctuations. 'The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales. For the industrial era, Lovejoy's analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. ... His study [also] predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. That range is more precise than – but in line with — the IPCC's prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.'"

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

Buy a Prius as your next car... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733595)

Translation: Buy a Prius for your next vehicle.

CAPTCHA: Approval.

Re:Buy a Prius as your next car... (1)

haruchai (17472) | about 7 months ago | (#46733831)

Nope.
Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model S, Ford Focus Electric, Chevy Spark or any other decent BEV with that supplies reasonable range for most North Americans or Western Europeans.

more pseudo science (1, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about 7 months ago | (#46733597)

we cannot ascertain the temperatures of past centuries with enough precision to make any such study nor claims

Re:more pseudo science (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733629)

Well, petro-bot has responded...

Re:more pseudo science (2, Insightful)

popo (107611) | about 7 months ago | (#46733837)

The poster you are referring to made a legitimate argument. Your strategy was a silly ad hominem.

I don't know what the right answer is, but between your two comments I can easily say who the winner is.

Re:more pseudo science (2, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46733951)

The poster you are referring to made a legitimate argument.

He's not made any argument at all. He's simply repeated his opinion, contrary to the scientists paper, with nothing to back it up.

It's classic denial, no more.

Re:more pseudo science (5, Insightful)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 months ago | (#46733633)

Splendid. Where have you published this remarkable result?

Re:more pseudo science (1, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about 7 months ago | (#46733653)

You have it backwards, please point me to the authoritative record of temperatures to within say a quarter of a degree C for the last 500 years.

Re:more pseudo science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733713)

No, the original statement is a fabrication so the conclusion is a non-sequitur. We may not have direct records but that's not what the paper presents. Science is not always able to have first-hand accounts, but only indirect data sources, and yet we rely on it for a shocking amount of findings. Will you start dismissing those as well because they don't suit your agenda? Because an agenda it must be, for you to make such unreasonable demands and yet draw unrelated conclusions from them, while trusting other science based on similar methods.

Re:more pseudo science (3, Insightful)

popo (107611) | about 7 months ago | (#46733865)

But who is dismissing what? There has never in the history of the world been climate-stability. The causality of *all* prior changes appears to have been dismissed.

Re:more pseudo science (4, Informative)

savuporo (658486) | about 7 months ago | (#46733755)

There are dozens and dozens, multi-proxy reconstructions of temperature records.

https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

Its called science.

Many warmer periods in the past with no AGW (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733899)

Yea, look at this ice core data. Much warmer in the past, with no anthropogenic CO2 influence.

http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg

Certainly no catastrophic AGW, humans do well in warm times.
Cold is cop failures, starvation, and freezing to death.

Re:more pseudo science (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 7 months ago | (#46733959)

Hopefully in a journal that is reviewed by skeptics rather than Ideologues.

Re:more pseudo science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733641)

read the paper, the maths are correct: http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

Re:more pseudo science (2, Interesting)

rubycodez (864176) | about 7 months ago | (#46733661)

I did, the maths are applied to temperature estimates lacking in necessary accuracy and precision, and so are rubbish

Re:more pseudo science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733747)

they compare temperature proxies vs time curves and use that toderive a robust statistical estimator.
nowhere it claims to use temperature mesurements, so you clearly did not understand the paper.

Re:more pseudo science (4, Informative)

savuporo (658486) | about 7 months ago | (#46733777)

Its called data reconstruction, and the existing large scale records factor use multiple proxy methods of records of reconstructing the temperature records.
There are multiple indirect ( or proxy ) ways of obtaining temperature history, and all of these would have to be invalidated to prove the existing reconstructions wrong.
The reconstruction models match with accurate instrument measurements that we have for a past hundred years or so.

Educate yourself
https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]

Re:more pseudo science (1)

fche (36607) | about 7 months ago | (#46733855)

"all of these would have to be invalidated"

No, only *any*.

Re:more pseudo science (2)

savuporo (658486) | about 7 months ago | (#46733915)

Thats not how it works, the reconstructed records are not simply and aggregate of all the proxy methods averaged or summed up, this is not 3rd grade math or Spreadsheets 101.

Re:more pseudo science (3, Informative)

fche (36607) | about 7 months ago | (#46733975)

It's a questionable mixing of questionable data, with a proposed burden of proof that claims to immunize it against questioning or any part.

It's as though you only accept a cryptosystem broken if all stages and are shown weak.

Re:more pseudo science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46734021)

it not the same thing at all. A better cryptological analogy would be : a protocol use 10 different ciphers sucssivly applied, to consider the protocol weak. the 10 ciphers would have to be shown as weak.

Re:more pseudo science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733929)

Isn't it fun how the people who claim to be skeptics, get their panties in a knot if you are skeptical of them?

Maths are dodgie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733981)

Maths are dodgie...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/lovejoys-99-confidence-vs-measurement-uncertainty/#more-107364

Look at those measurement uncertiantys he assumes !

Typical attempt for the global warming alarmists as they get more and more desperate.
There has been no warming for the past 13-17 years depending on which temperature series you look at.

Re:more pseudo science (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733649)

Not only that, 500 years? Are they thinking the world started 7000 years ago and so 500 years to now represents a significant chunk of time to have merit?

Re:more pseudo science (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46733833)

And what would make you think that percentage of all earth time covered by a data set would be relevant in any way?

Re:more pseudo science (3)

dwye (1127395) | about 7 months ago | (#46733867)

Yes, really they should have started the study at the year 1364, to get more years into the mix. That 1364 is about the start of the Little Ice Age, rather than starting in the middle of it as they do, is entirely beside the point, and should not affect the results at all. Six hundred and fifty years containing most of a period of excessive cold is a far better case of "Cherry-picking" than a mere five hundred.

Exit SARC mode

Re:more pseudo science (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733651)

Not to mention the past 500 years is 1/9000000th of the planet's actual climate history.

Re:more pseudo science (1)

Kerstyun (832278) | about 7 months ago | (#46733775)

Wrong it's 8.3 recuring

Re:more pseudo science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733669)

Says some clown on the Net as opposed to the worldwide community of climatologists. I know who my money is going on.

Re:more pseudo science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733675)

wow, thats great. I hate this whole global warming thing and I really want to
be able to throw this news in their smug, tree-hugging faces.

should just I tell them that rubycodez says so?

Re:more pseudo science (4, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#46733689)

I suppose you can't ascertain whether the universe was created 5 seconds ago either. Fortunately the laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, biology, etc. allow science to make Predictions not only about the future outcome of an event, but also about the probability of circumstances which caused observable outcomes.

If you leave your sandwich near me and come back to find a bite taken out of it, would you accept the argument, "You cannot ascertain the intake of past consumption with enough precision to absolutely blame me for eating your sandwich", or would you say I'm full of shit?

You're full of shit.

Re:more pseudo science (0)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#46733803)

"If you leave your sandwich near me and come back to find a bite taken out of it, would you accept the argument, "You cannot ascertain the intake of past consumption with enough precision to absolutely blame me for eating your sandwich", or would you say I'm full of shit?"

That depends. Did I leave it in front of you with no one else nearby, and return quickly? Or did I leave it 'near' you and a few hundred thousand other people, and for a long enough period of time that any one of them could have taken it?

Re:more pseudo science (0)

jythie (914043) | about 7 months ago | (#46733693)

People who actually work in the field and spend decades of their life in dedicated study of the subject disagree.

Re:more pseudo science (1, Insightful)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about 7 months ago | (#46733823)

People who actually work in the field and spend decades of their life in this dedicated study have a vested interest in reaching a positive conclusion. If they found that there was no man-made global warming, they'd be out of jobs.

A baker will always claim his bread is the best.

Re:more pseudo science (3, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46733903)

People who actually work in the field and spend decades of their life in this dedicated study have a vested interest in reaching a positive conclusion. If they found that there was no man-made global warming, they'd be out of jobs.

And yet SETI aren't reporting any alien contacts.

You're full of shit. There is MORE money available for any scientist that publishes papers that say there is no global warming. Oil companies are rich, and there are few qualified scientists willing to take their preferred side of the argument. And the reason they aren't taking this easy money? Because the science to say global warming isn't happening isn't there. It's easy to write blogs or newspaper articles denying it. It's impossible to write proper scientific papers that do so.

A baker will always claim his bread is the best.

And yet no bakers say yeast doesn't make CO2 to make the bread rise.

Re:more pseudo science (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 months ago | (#46733991)

Are you crazy? The current powers that be would love to denigrate Anthropogenic Climate Change. Their is lots of money to be found supporting the current economic paradigm of full steam (literally) ahead. The fact that their is little debate in the field makes me very worried. Remember, scientists, if left to their own devices, would argue about what day it is.

This isn't the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody gets impaled for saying things that run against the grain of major opinion. The only naysayers are a few irrational folks whose thinking has been conclusively to be incorrect.

Grab your shorts and sun screen. Then grab your ankles.

Re:more pseudo science (0, Troll)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#46733785)

Eh that's arguable, there are some approaches to paleo-climate that work fairly well, as long as their limitations are understood.

But 500 years? Are you freaking kidding me?

Nowhere near long enough to hold the weight attached. If this were science rather than religion their reviewers would have ripped them apart. But these days it seems like as long as you mouth the orthodox AGW litany no further questions are permitted.

Re:more pseudo science (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46733921)

Nowhere near long enough to hold the weight attached.

And your qualification or citation to make that claim is?

Re:more pseudo science (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46733819)

You've come up short when challenged to justify your denial. Let's try another angle. The person you are contradicting is a professor of Physics at McGill university. What's your qualification that makes you equipped to contradict?

Re:more pseudo science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733925)

Buzzzzz

Appeal to authority does not proove things in science.
One fact or data point can make all the experts wrong.

Re:more pseudo science (0)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 7 months ago | (#46734023)

You've come up short when challenged to justify your denial. Let's try another angle. The person you are contradicting is a professor of Physics at McGill university. What's your qualification that makes you equipped to contradict?

But I heard something that contradicts this on the Glen Beck show so obviously this guy is wrong.
That's how Science works, right?

Re:more pseudo science (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 7 months ago | (#46733877)

So you are an expert in the field? Good, now explain what precision is required to make the claim of the linked article.

Cherry picking the data much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733909)

Shockingly, and unsurprisingly, by limiting themselves to the last 500 years, such pesky issues as the Medieval Warm Period go away. So all this tells me is that they can't even explain that. At least other climate scientists recognize the issues they have with the MWP, rather than just waving their hands to make it go away.

Re:more pseudo science (0)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 7 months ago | (#46733977)

How dare you let facts get in the way of left-wing "science. I'm just glad that there seems to be some recent global warming (as indicated by our awful record low winters) to help keep the next ice age that we were due for at bay.

we know this.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733603)

... because we can use Earth2 as a control group.

and because our experiments are reproducible on Earth3.

Re:we know this.... (1)

steak (145650) | about 7 months ago | (#46733627)

earth2 has that hot chick and that guy that kinda looks like joey from Friends

Re:we know this.... (1)

dwye (1127395) | about 7 months ago | (#46733913)

Which Earth2, though? There have been several, and ALL had at least one hot chick and one guy who looks like Major West from Lost In Space (either of them).

Re:we know this.... (1)

itsenrique (846636) | about 7 months ago | (#46733683)

Yeah, but EarthGP was ruined by Honda completely recently.

In other news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733617)

Climate "scientists" want more money for their pseudo-science.

Re:In other news... (2)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 7 months ago | (#46733647)

Thou shalt chill, not shill.

Re:In other news... (1)

jythie (914043) | about 7 months ago | (#46733697)

Ah yes, because earning less then they could with the same degree out in private industry is such a gravy train....

Back to Pre-Industrial Revolution Days (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733623)

So what do we have to give up to have a zero change in the global temperature? OH, more taxes and the government will fix the problem.

Re:Back to Pre-Industrial Revolution Days (5, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 7 months ago | (#46733663)

So what do we have to give up to have a zero change in the global temperature

Only one thing: having so many offspring.

The problem isn't that we have an excessive lifestyle. The problem is that there are TOO MANY of us having an excessive lifestyle. Get the population down to a billion or so and we can all have diesels, coal-fired power stations and as much beef as we could ever desire.

It's just that all 7 billion of us can't all do that at once.

Re:Back to Pre-Industrial Revolution Days (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 months ago | (#46734013)

You're exactly right, but how do you get from here to there? If current demographic trends hold, we are drop down to a reasonable carrying capacity in 2100 or so.

Or next week, depending on the scenario.

Reality sucks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733645)

Stop it! What I believe is what is real.

If I don't know, TV will tell me what to believe. And if they have "balanced discussions" with "experts on both sides", who cares about (un)certainties and such things. Clearly, the issue has not been decided!

(just illustrating the reality of the majority, science-shunning-except-when-improves-my-life crowd)

Five hundred years? (0)

MatthiasF (1853064) | about 7 months ago | (#46733657)

The solar system circles the milk way every several hundred million years, there are variations of the planet's orbit and tilt that deviate every several hundred thousand years...

But a study of the last 500 proves it is not a natural deviation.

Yes, I am convinced.

Re:Five hundred years? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 7 months ago | (#46733685)

You are silly, we only have accurate temperature reconds for anything that could be considered a useable "grid" covering the earth for far less than a century.

Re:Five hundred years? (2, Interesting)

MatthiasF (1853064) | about 7 months ago | (#46733767)

You mean accurate temperature records up to 1987, before they shut off the majority of the weather stations (83% and growing) and started to rely on atmospheric satellite data that has lower accuracy rates spread over much larger areas?

And the remaining weather stations turned out to not be very reliable either, with most being more than 2 degrees Celsius error.

http://www.surfacestations.org... [surfacestations.org]

Re:Five hundred years? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 7 months ago | (#46733715)

You don't know how stats work.

Re:Five hundred years? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733765)

Ask for a standard deviation of the annual temperature that gets posted here often, and you get no or derisive replies.

Plus, the "climate change" is arguing the rate of change. If that rate were the same as it was 500 years ago, no one would give a rip. The "climate change " would be too slow for you or me to worry about, everyone would be use to the slow changes and would have adjusted. But "we" must do "something" NOW, which bothers us.

Re:Five hundred years? (2)

MatthiasF (1853064) | about 7 months ago | (#46733815)

Enlighten me.

How does a 500 year data set apply to a 4.5 billion year old planet?

What postulate of statistics allows asserting accurate predictions from 0.0000001 repeating percent of the full data set?

Think about it. Could you predict the sentiments of every human on the planet (over 4 billion) by asking the last 500 people born?

Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733799)

Here's a simple solution to the problem.

1. Require everyone (corporations included) to publicly record whether they believe that the majority (51%+) of global climate change is caused by humans.

2. Allow everyone to decide whether or not to do business with entities in the other camp.

3. Apply a 10% yearly tax against the gross (not net or adjusted) incomes of everyone in the group that believe humans / industry is the culprit.

You can decide what problem I'm solving...

If you believe that humans are causing the problem, and believe the solutions that the UN is suggesting, then you are a hypocrite if you want to force other people to pay for it.

Deniers (2, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 7 months ago | (#46733679)

And yet the climate change deniers will CLING to that 1% and continue to stick their ignorant heads in the sand and pretend that we aren't messing up our climate.

Do you mean heretics? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733939)

Isn't that a more accurate term?

Re:Deniers (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about 7 months ago | (#46733999)

No, they don't accept that it's a 99%-1% problem. You guys sure like those numbers, don't you.

bleh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733687)

How about do a real study when spans more than 500 years. That is no where near long enough time to make such a claim

Yet more squawking (-1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 7 months ago | (#46733691)

The Chicken Littles are once again frustrated that no one believes them so they squawk even louder

99%? Not good enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733705)

If the government is going to interfere it needs 100% proof as an absolute minimum.
--
roman_mir.

WRONG WRONG WRONG (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | about 7 months ago | (#46733711)

The confidence levels in the data are 99%, not in the conclusion.

PS - I believe in man driven global warming, I just hate sensationalized headlines.

Re:WRONG WRONG WRONG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733987)

Exactly. And the data comes from a specific data set in a chaotic system.

My 2 cents (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733721)

If you want to find the modern culprits of greenhouse gases, look to India and China, not the US. We've cut our emissions drastically over the past 20 years.

Why so much resistance to climate science? (4, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | about 7 months ago | (#46733737)

I don't get it, after reading the comments here, why is there so much resistance accept that man is causing climate change? Just thinking logically, it makes sense. We're taking carbon that's been buried for millions of years, and then burning it, on a huge scale. How can this not affect the climate? I actually hope that the climate skeptics are right.

Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (1, Insightful)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 months ago | (#46733825)

Because they are talking out their ass and ignoring or minimizing anything that does not support their "theory".

It's been politicized (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733839)

It's become a political litmus test. Just look at the names attributed to anyone who doesn't agree with you: denier, alarmist.

There's no room for real science.

Re:It's been politicized (5, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | about 7 months ago | (#46733897)

"There's no room for real science."

Ummm the real science has been done and it's overwhelmingly in the favor of climate change. The idea that "two sides" are equal is bullshit, the same way you wouldn't treat a creationist who believed the earth and life was 6000 years old on an equal level with evolution of life on earth.

The idea that "both sides" deserve consideration is just fucking nonsense.

Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 7 months ago | (#46733859)

Because thinking that human activity can affect the environment is rubbish. And God. Also because the government is evil, taxes are evil and we are all controlled by the reptiloids behind the UN!

Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (1, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | about 7 months ago | (#46733861)

"I don't get it, after reading the comments here, why is there so much resistance accept that man is causing climate change?"

See the science on human reasoning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (3, Insightful)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 7 months ago | (#46733883)

Because the debate has been politized by people with money on the line. They have a vested interest in claiming that global warming is not caused by humans, which is, as you point out, patently retarded. But there is another problem in addition to that: because the debate has been so politicized, sometimes the science gets sucked into the shit-slinging as well, and when that happens it leads to bad science, which is a legitimate concern. The problem with bad science is that it can be attacked by legitimate scientists, which the Oil Barons can then use to say "look! look! the science isn't settled! We're right!" even though the science very clearly is settled and they're not right at all.

Basically the global warming 'debate' is such a clusterfuck because the pro-oil lobby can spin it any way they want because the public in general doesn't understand how the scientific process works. That's what leads to situations where there are 10,000 studies claiming anthropogenic global warming is real for every 2 studies that claim it isn't on the one hand, and the public at large thinking the debate isn't settled on the other.

Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (4, Interesting)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 7 months ago | (#46733893)

Because embracing anthropic climate change involves drastic controls on emissions, manufacturing, and energy generation (specifically coal) as well as being an excuse to raise a variety of taxes on an already strained economy. If something's going to hit them in the pocket people are going to want a lot of good reasons to pay up.

Personally I reckon that human activity probably does play a reasonably large part in accelerating climate change that was happening anyway (although 99% sets off my bullshit meter given that we're in an interglacial period), or pushing it over the point where we won't return to the next ie age, but in order to address it we'd have to get developing titans like India and China to play along, and good luck with that.

The best policy for the forward thinking nation is perhaps to simply prepare for flooding and adverse weather conditions.

Re:Why so much resistance to climate science? (0)

thoth (7907) | about 7 months ago | (#46734003)

I don't get it, after reading the comments here, why is there so much resistance accept that man is causing climate change?

Because the average anti-government libertarian retard neckbeard doesn't want to deal with the followup to accepting the science: behavior change, banned products, infringement on their god-given right to burn all the oil they want, conservation of resources, etc.

They just don't give a fuck and the simplest way to resolve any cognitive dissonance or guilt or rationalize not doing anything (i.e. living the same lifestyle they are accustom, unwilling to change change anything), is to simply pretend it doesn't exist and claim the science is bullshit and a conspiracy. They latch on to counter arguments presented to scientists funded by energy companies and the Koch brothers and figure screw the poorer parts of the planet, they didn't get to my massive consumption lifestyle early enough so they lose out first while we all go over the cliff.

Study is 99% wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733749)

well that settles that

...a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733757)

Ah, now there is the problem.

Because CO2 is going UP and the temperature is going DOWN.

The study is based on modelling, and adjusted base data. It's another scam....

Re:...a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the a (1, Troll)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 months ago | (#46733795)

Yep. Garbage in, garbage out. Models are like maps, they are not the territory. Since these "scientists" want me to ignore their 4.5 billion years of climate change and accept their area of focus that would not even qualify as a sliver of that time frame. They are just promoting pseudo-science. I to can smell a scam.

99% of the confidence intervals... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733759)

will include the true value. Do not transpose the conditional. Also, he is only "disproving" whatever model of natural variability he is using. If this turns out to be a strawman like most then this was a waste of time.

Re:99% of the confidence intervals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733817)

I now looked at the paper, It looks like this is a well thought out model he is testing rather than the usual strawman.

Ahh, statistics (2, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | about 7 months ago | (#46733761)

Temperature goes up more or less linearly, and CO2 goes up more or less linearly. Thus they are well-correlated. There's not a lot of power to that correlation, as the article demonstrates itself by trying it with different lags (from 0 to 20 years -- would have been interesting if he'd tried negative lags); the data is too featureless to show anything interesting.

To all deniers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733771)

I'm going to guess that if you don't believe in climate change you also don't believe we stopped acid rain and most smog around the world because we changed what we are doing. Because that would admit you are wrong and well your ego can't handle that.

Not even trying any more (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 7 months ago | (#46733779)

500 years isn't even enough time to properly determine how cities develop, never mind the climate.

Also, you guys are behind the times on the whole manmade climate change thing. It's irrelevant if the climate is changing as a function of what mankind is doing, in whole or in part - because we aren't making enough of a change to be a problem. Any changes under way are a blip compared to the natural climate ranges that have existed in the past, and not even close to any degrees of change that will require substantial effort to adapt to.

But good luck scaring the kids! It might even last for a few hours until they figure out we've dumped a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere for the past decade with almost no upswing in temperature. Once you realize that, you start caring about real pollution again instead of hating on poor old carbon so much.

Re:Not even trying any more (2)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 7 months ago | (#46734017)

500 years is not enough time to properly determine how climates develop, but 10 years is?

Additionally, the effect of CO2 on the climate is cumulative, and climate changes slowly. The last ten years of emissions pales in comparison to the stretch of time from now back to the start of the industrial revolution.

Causation vs correlation (0, Troll)

glitch23 (557124) | about 7 months ago | (#46733781)

I think I'm going to create a theory that states if you point a laser pointer at space for a long enough period of time that it will cause more meteors to hit the earth.

Then when the rate of meteorites hitting the earth goes up I'm going to claim my theory was apparently correct.

I'm going to purposely ignore the reality that the meteorite rate could also be due to some other root cause because I need to convince people that meteorites are going to kill all of us and the planet if we don't do something about it.

I just hope that no one comes along who predicts that the rate of meteorite impacts will be just like what I predicted but will explain that the rate has nothing to do with any influence on my part but rather the rate increased simply because of a natural phenomenon. I should be safe though. The media will prefer the fear aspect of my theory, the progressives will be able to use my theory to impose unprecedented levels of control on citizens of my country to better align with other countries that are already moving in this direction of controlling cow flatulence, vehicle flatulence, house flatulence, etc. and evil corporations, which liberals hate when republicans protect them, will be able to make billions off this fake theory, which will make liberals and progressives who receive bribes and donations from the same evil corporations will become rich off it as they continue lying to people that my theory is true.

My theory will be the excuse people need who believe in total control by government. And I'll get rich by receiving money from these my own government and others to continue lying about my data and interpretations in order to counter valid claims my theory has been proven false.

Re:Causation vs correlation (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 months ago | (#46733807)

Could not have said it better.

I remember when... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733805)

/. was a great place to witness the flame wars between M$ and the Linux community. And where a geek could go to get help or insight to a technical problem. Now it's becoming another version of MSNBC.... Miss the old days.

Re:I remember when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733947)

I hear ya, the scientific illiteracy (science deniers) are off the charts, like wtf. Slashdot has been swamped by pseudo-nerds or lower cognitive types.

It starts at home. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46733871)

The only way we are going to be able to rely on wind and solar if we can get refrigerators, microwaves, computers, AC's to run below 20 watts which seems impossible for now. Electric cars are nothing new they have been done back in the late 1800's but mostly used by the post office. If we can find away to utilize 100% of gas(a new type of engine) and run maybe 200-400mpg then we might reduce co2 dramatically. Electric car range and recharge time sucks for now.

pollution hurts the environemnt (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 7 months ago | (#46733873)

I've never understood the controversy...does anyone think that pollution isn't harmful?

Our modern industrial society makes by-products of type and/or scale that **hurt nature**

No one, absolutely no one, even the climate change "deniers" can contradict this fact.

It's about government regulation...that's the only thing that keeps companies from unscrupulously disposing of their waste.

Companies do not want regulation...that pretty much explains the entire "climate debate"

CO2 not pollution (0, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 7 months ago | (#46733963)

Pollution is harmful. So you BASTARDS that have been trying to reduce CO2 (which plants use as food!!) have diverted vast funds of money that might have gone have gone into reducing real and meaningful pollution.

Many species have died and will die because of your idiocy.

Those of us who ACTUALLY care about the environment saw Global Warming as the political sham it always was, funneling money into lining the pockets of many politically connected people and industries. Those of us who care have seen the rusted wind farms of Hawaii and California from decades past, and shake our heads as the cycle of meaningless and environmentally damaging forms of alternative energy comes around for another pass..

But please, do go on posing as if you care what happens to the Earth while you block support for things like nuclear reactors.

10^6 tons of extra CO2 is def pollution (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 7 months ago | (#46734015)

In ***unnatural*** concentrations anything is a pollutant.

Our modern industrial society makes by-products of type and/or **scale** that **hurt nature**

Scale is key. Nuclear waste is pollution b/c of its radioactivity (found in nature)...CO2 is pollution b/c of the **scale** it is being unnaturally produced

All pollution is harmful b/c it *distrupts nature's perfect system*

Pollution disrupts in many ways.

Re:pollution hurts the environemnt (0)

buttfuckinpimpnugget (662332) | about 7 months ago | (#46733985)

Exactly! But guess what? CO2 is NOT pollution. Instead of spending billions or trillions of dollars reducing carbon output it should be spent reducing actual horrible things like NOx and thousands of others that ACTUALLY fuck things up. Unlike CO2 which makes my tomatoes and weed grow stronger faster longer better. Make no mistake, these regulations were written by these very industries to stifle competition.

Re:pollution hurts the environemnt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46734009)

I've never understood the controversy...does anyone think that pollution isn't harmful?

I see you don't understand it. Pollution is not related to global warming, which is said to be predominantly caused by CO2, not by pollutants.

Our modern industrial society makes by-products of type and/or scale that **hurt nature**

No one, absolutely no one, even the climate change "deniers" can contradict this fact.

Indeed. That's why they don't.

It's about government regulation...that's the only thing that keeps companies from unscrupulously disposing of their waste.

Well, that and ethics. But again, how is disposing waste related to global warming?

Companies do not want regulation...that pretty much explains the entire "climate debate"

Politicians want regulation... that pretty much explains the entire "climate debate".

Global warning is the new nutjob religion (2)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about 7 months ago | (#46733911)

Folks, there is no doubt that man causes some degree of global warming. It may even be significant.

But putting forward a very questionable "study" with little practical "science" and having almost nothing that can be repeated or validated does not help the cause of proving global warming. It harms it! With each one of these "studies" it makes me wonder why there isn't some expert who has proven the thesis, with so many interested "scientists".

These news stories might be adequate for the masses, but definitely not for me, thanks.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?