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!

New Climate Change Warning

samzenpus posted more than 9 years ago | from the getting-warmer-every-day dept.

Science 1023

sebFlyte writes "A new grid computing climate research project, climateprediction.net, has come up with its first major results, and they're really not good news for the planet according to the BBC. The simulations suggest that over the next hundred years we could see average rises of average temperatures of up to 11K, more than twice what was previously thought."

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

Further Evidence in the Linux/Hygiene Conspiracy (1, Funny)

repruhsent (672799) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488202)

I read here a while back that Wal Mart is selling PCs with Linux preloaded on them.

Now, think about your local Wal Mart. Everyone's there buying stuff at dirt cheap prices because they can't afford to do so anywhere else. What is one of the things that they doubtlessly buy? Soap, of course. What do you use soap in? Taking showers.

Does this make sense to you? Of course it does - because people who go to Wal Mart don't take showers, they're perfect candidates for using Linux - since it's an operating system made by people who don't take showers for people who don't take showers.

Uh, what? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488204)

11K? 11000 degree rise? 11 Kelvin increase? The temperature will be 11K?

Re:Uh, what? (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488256)

As if you can't figure that out. 11 Kelvin increase.

Re:Uh, what? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488271)

Kelvin and Celsius degrees are actually the same amount. The point at which they start is the only difference. One is absolute zero and the other is the freezing point of water. So the change will be 11C.

Re:Uh, what? (1, Informative)

kaedemichi255 (834073) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488272)

RTFA. It says ranging from 2 degrees Celsius, up to 11 degrees. I guess it doesn't help when the original submitter is an idiot and can't even get the facts straight. Incompetency on Slashdot. Sigh.

Re:Uh, what? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488342)

Incompetency on Slashdot. Sigh

what - you're surprised?

Re:Uh, what? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488279)

It was pretty obvious to me at least that the submitter meant global_temperature += 11 kelvins. (Differences between Celsius temperatures are expressed in kelvins.)

Re:Uh, what? (1)

tonyr60 (32153) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488293)

Fairly obvious, they mean an 11 degree Kelvin rise, which is the same as 11 deg Centigrade or 19.8 F.

Re:Uh, what? (1)

spac3manspiff (839454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488313)

uhh this is /. remember
The K stands for kilobyte [webopedia.com]

Re:Uh, what? (1)

KnightStalker (1929) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488346)

Um, how many libraries of congress are in an 11 kilobyte increase in temperature?

Re:Uh, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488417)

About 3 Volkswagon Bugs.

Re:Uh, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488328)

Are you just NOT funny or are you REALLY that stupid?

Re:Uh, what? (2, Insightful)

ari_j (90255) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488356)

Actually, based on this:

The simulations suggest that over the next hundred years we could see average rises of average temperatures of up to 11K

I can only conclude that the average annual rise in the average global temperature* will be up to 11 degrees Kelvin for the next 100 years. In other words, the average temperature will be up to 1100 degrees warmer in 2105 than it is now.

I'm no global warming expert or pundit, but that's certainly my interpretation of the story blurb that made the front page. Good work on the clarity, Slashdot submitters and editors!

* - Saying "temperatures" in the plural is misleading, as global warming is about global average temperature, and using the plural indicates local measurements are what is relevant, which is not the case.

Nothing to see here, please move along. (0, Offtopic)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488205)

Could we not just have the front page update delayed for 10seconds to completely avoid this additional server load when a new story is posted?

It's because.... (5, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488207)

This thing was run on so many PCs. They obviously took the simulation itself into account -- good job!

Someday... (4, Insightful)

davew2040 (300953) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488208)

Someday people are going to feel awfully silly that they were worrying about terrorism instead of the warning signs of ecological degeneration.

Re:Someday... (0, Troll)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488288)

Someday people are going to feel awfully silly that they were worrying about terrorism instead of the warning signs of ecological degeneration.

Don't worry, Dubya and Rumsfeld will be dead before ecological degeneration gets real bad.

You have to prioritize (3, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488306)

It's better to deal with one issue then to not deal with any issues at all.

You have to prioritize based on immediate threat.

Re:You have to prioritize (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488352)

You also have to prioritise based upon possible casualties and cost of the threat.

Terrorism in the USA: A few billion dollars, a few thousand lives, maybe once every 10 years.

Warming: Sea defences, mass migration from low-land, and everything else: Hundreds of billions of dollars, millions? of lives, over the next 100 years.

And when there is no significant immediate threat (1, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488388)

Make one up!

Re:You have to prioritize (2, Insightful)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488426)

More people die in cars than in terrorist attacks every year.

Terrorism is overhyped. Planes are STILL the safest way to travel, yet we have this screening program hiring McDonalds rejects.

Re:You have to prioritize (2, Interesting)

Darken_Everseek (681296) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488432)

Yes, and "shock and awe" wars are the best way of letting the rest of the world know that America won't let it's superpower status diminish the respect it gives to other nations.

Oh, and repeatedly saying that Iraq caused 9/11, doesn't make it true; it only makes stupid people think it is. (Darby Conley, Get Fuzzy comic) They didn't have WMD's, they didn't have facilities to manufacture large amounts of WMD's. They had oil, and GWB had a family grudge. Keep your military in your own damn country; no-one likes a nosy neighbour.

Yeah, yeah. (-1, Flamebait). Bring it.

Probably as silly as... (1)

glrotate (300695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488334)

the scientists who 30 years ago said we were starting experience global cooling. Or the intellectuals who said that the world couldn't support more than 2 billion people. Or, dare we mention, the people who claimed Y2K would matter.

Re:Probably as silly as... (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488348)

You missed Nuclear Winter.

Re:Probably as silly as... (1)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488427)

Or the intellectuals who said that the world couldn't support more than 2 billion people.

And you are saying it can at the level the western world is accustomed to? It is falling apart already and standard of living in China and India is not even close to that in the US.

Some trivia fact: humans consume (eat,use,burn,whatever), directly or indirectly, over 50% of all plant life that grows on land each year.

Re:Someday... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488382)

Half of their population can't...

...not good news for the planet... (4, Insightful)

hwestiii (11787) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488210)

I suspect that the planet will be fine in either case. Now perhaps not good news for it inhabitants...

Re:...not good news for the planet... (1)

EvilAlien (133134) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488265)

mod parent up insightful

The planet couldn't care less about change, the organisms on it are another matter. The organisms that evolve thanks to wonderous change may very well thank us for our SUV-driving efforts.

I, for one, welcome the coming of our new -40 degree Celcius winter defeating climate masters.

Re:...not good news for the planet... (5, Funny)

savagedome (742194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488312)

Planet will be fine. This is just the planet's way to get rid of us. We were here to create plastic and that need is over.

In the words of George Carlin:

If plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' Plastic...asshole.

Re:...not good news for the planet... (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488405)

I think goatse must be deaf.
He misheard his calling as elastic.

Re:...not good news for the planet... (1)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488316)

I suspect that the planet will be fine in either case. Now perhaps not good news for it inhabitants...

I am willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, since both the U.S. government administration and I are both inhabitants of Earth. Much like fucking the fat chick at the bar while your friends get the hot chicks that are her friends, this is called "taking one for the team." Ah, short end of the stick. We meet again...

Stale joke (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488212)

I for one welcome our blah blah blah...

HOWTO: give science a bad name. (4, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488214)

Disclaimer: I actually do think there's something in the global warming argument. I think putting loads more energy into a chaotic system gives that system the freedom to explore states in its phase space that could cause us some real grief. I actually don't care if "the planet will survive, it's seen worse". I'd prefer to survive personally, and I'd like to keep a few other humans around as well...

However I think the results are pretty conclusive in their own right and right-minded politicians ought to be doing something on that basis alone (they're finally beginning to, as well :-). I don't think that alarmist, over-the-top "reports" are doing any real good - in fact I think they harm the argument they try to represent.

So, by varying the parameters in a simulation, they've found a range of temperature increases which we should engender reactions from "concerned" (2 degrees) through "terrified" (11 degrees). Hey, I admitted my bias in the first paragraph! The press reports the "terrified" figure and it's big news. Until someone points out that it's a Normal distribution, and the massively-more-likely figure is in the "worried" temperature range of (guessing here) 5-6 degrees.

The problem is not that the scientists are lying (they're not), and not that the press are lying either (they're not). The problem is a lack of understanding of the end-result in announcing a catastrophe and then saying "No, we'll be ok". There's a fable about this, and it involves a boy crying "wolf" too many times...

I'm not sure who's to blame. Should the scientists state more forcefully what their expectation is rather than the extremes of their results? Would they ever get published in that case ? Should journalists be held accountable for doing the equivalent of shouting "Fire" in a theatre ? Well, a journalist's job is not to report the news, it's to sell papers, and catastrophes sell better. Perhaps there's a need for a neutral ground, some sort of arbiter that can interpret the results in a way the public can understand (since no-one seems to take science these days), but *that*'s open to *easy* abuse as well.

Perhaps science was better off in its ivory tower after all. That's a depressing thought. Perhaps the best solution would be to comprehensively educate people about science (better, about statistics) and beat the snake-oil salesmen at their own game.

Simon.

Re:HOWTO: give science a bad name. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488332)

I'd prefer to survive personally, and I'd like to keep a few other humans around as well...

Why don't you just say it? You want everyone to die except you and 10-20 really hot chicks on a desert island. Threesomes, lesbian orgies, it's all fun and games.

Re:HOWTO: give science a bad name. (1, Interesting)

digitalsamzon (853718) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488335)

I for one, can't imagine a center to study the climate coming up with any conclusion other than there's trouble ahead. If they said all is well they would be out of business. So what if the record high temperature for today is from 1950 and the record low is from 1970. This would indicate that the planet might be getting cooler? Okay, science is a business you know. What scientist is going to put himself out of business by saying everythings safe. We're okay. Don't worry. Give me money to tell you your okay and safe. Never happen. Give me money because we need to calculate how hot the earth will be 15 years from now. I can do it in four years, and by the way, I need a huge computer system to study this, along with about 10 college students, pretty ones will do. I'll need plane tickets to travel around and lecture about my findings. Ho HUMMMMMM

Re:HOWTO: give science a bad name. (2, Insightful)

pavera (320634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488381)

I agree with the sentiment in your post. However, I really don't see how 11 degrees is going to suddenly make the planet uninhabitable.

Personally, I live in Salt Lake City, Utah, in the winter the average temp here is probably around 30 degrees F. My family lives in Las Vegas, NV a mere 400 miles away. The average temp there is probably more like 50 degrees, I was there last week wearing shorts and flip flops, it was warm (60 F) for January.

Now, in the summer it gets up to 120F in Vegas, yet more than a million people somehow manage to live there. That is easily 11C warmer than Salt Lake in the summer, people live all over this planet in all sorts of temperatures. Storms might get worse, but that's not going to make the planet "uninhabitable", the Tsunami killed more people by far than all of the huricanes Florida had last year, so unless you're saying global warming causes earthquakes, I'd say we fear that alot more than having to wear short sleeves instead of sweaters.

Even if "The day after tomorrow" happens, (oh whoops it only destroyed the US.. weird... I'm glad that the climate knows who is creating all the greenhouse gasses, and will selectively destroy only them, maybe I can move to Europe and I'll be ok...) That movie was so bizarre, if things really happened the way that movie talked about we'd have to redefine absolute zero (the temp is dropping 40 degrees per second!!!).

anyway, my point is the media sucks at "educating" people be it the news, movies, whatever, they are idiots and can't "convince" any thinking person of their "science". The complete misuse of statistics in this whole argument also renders it useless.

11K??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488218)

I hope they mean 11 degrees kelvin and not 11000 degrees, whatever the scale.

Re:11K??? (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488252)

Of course, measurement unit of kelvin does not carry the word DEGREE; it is 11 k, not 11 degrees kelvin...

Global warming (1)

panth0r (722550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488219)

They should have just found a way to point the finger at someone else...

11K? (2, Insightful)

t3hl33t (853427) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488225)

11K? Is that 11 000 *unknown units* or 11 degrees kelvin? If 11 degrees kelvin, why not just say 11 degrees celsius...

Re:11K? (2, Informative)

yabos (719499) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488282)

There is no degrees Kelvin. It's just 11 Kelvin. And it sounds more sciencey. Even though 11K = 11 degrees C.

Re:11K? (2, Informative)

Teclis (772299) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488431)

11K = 11 degrees C

wrong.. 11K is not 11 degrees C. 11K is -262 degrees C. What I think you meant to say is that a difference of 11K is equal to a difference of 11 degrees C.

Re:11K? (0, Flamebait)

RedWizzard (192002) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488363)

11K? Is that 11 000 *unknown units* or 11 degrees kelvin?
Reading the fucking article would be the obvious way to find out.
If 11 degrees kelvin, why not just say 11 degrees celsius...
Because the kelvin is the SI base unit of thermodynamic temperature?

Hmm.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488228)

Oh well. As long as it's the The Century After The Next, and not the day after tomorrow... not my problem.

If I have any kids, I'll be sure to painfully torture them myself long before climate becomes an issue.

The cause (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488230)

Here's a graphic [alexrosen.net] that shows the cause of all this, in a particularly vivid way.
Almost fell off my chair when I first saw this info...

Re:The cause (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488343)

You seem to be implying that Bill Gates and some sort of rainbow thing has caused it...

The cause-A Frightful Start. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488421)

And here I thought it was the Goatse.cx guy all along.

It's about time! (2, Funny)

sdo1 (213835) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488231)

All this snow in the northeast is really starting to piss me off.

-S

Re:It's about time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488423)

Depends on what happens to the Gulf Stream ... if it moves further north upon climate change, then you'll get palm trees, and the artic will probably melt, and Europe will freeze up. If it moves south, then you're fuckled, and north Europe will freeze up. It if dies, then everywhere is fuckled. Everything between the tropics will get way way hotter. Soon giant worms will start roaming the deserts of Earth eating people, and the last Americans (Free Men) will end up living a barren life and collecting moisture.

.tv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488233)

I hope that the money that Tuvalu get from the .tv TLD buys them some higher ground then.

elhuevo.

Who wrote the simulator? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488235)

How could they possibly validate a model that simulates global climate? Is there another Earth somewhere or a time machine that I'm unaware of?

HOW I KNOW GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE (1, Flamebait)

Amsterdam Vallon (639622) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488238)

The Humanists are a proud bunch. Never to be stopped or even delayed in bringing in their "Brave New World." They are proud of their accomplishments and even prouder of their future plans. They like to brag on the way in which they never let a "challenge" get them down. Whether it is splitting the atom, finding a cure for smallpox, defeating a fascist regime, or going to the moon, they never let the magnitude of any obstacle deter them or cause them tto fret.

Even now they are talking about setting up colonies on the lunar poles and mining water from lunar rocks in -200 degree temperatures like it's just a trip around the block. Build a space station? Travel to Mars? No Problem! Yet when faced with the ogre of "Global Warming," these same brave souls turn into quivering masses of flesh, paralyzed by the immensity of this "threat." There is no hope! "We're all going to die!" "The world is going to end!" "The sky is falling!"

If the Humanists ofthe world really believed that the world was getting warmer, they would look at it--not as a threat--but as a mere "bump" in the road that they would be certain they would overcome. Instead, they all panic and call for more control over industry. (?)

Think about this. If "Global Warming" is true, then think about the positive affects would have on the world:

1. There would be more land with moderate climate for all those people who are "overpopulating" the earth to live on. (Overpopulation problem solved)

2. There would be more fresh water available for irrigating desert lands. (Food Shortage solved)

3. More arable land to grow crops. (Food Shortage solved)

4. Milder winters. (Heat fuel shortage solved)

5. Milder winters. (Less sickness)

6. More Ultra Violet rays getting to earth. (UV kills some bacteria)

7. Longer summers, longer tourist seasons. (More national income)

If the Humanists really believed the world was getting warmer, they would be telling us not to be alarmed because "Man will rise to the occasion!" Instead, they huddle in the corner like terrified mice. Why? Because they want Americans to huddle in the corner like terrified mice so they can gain more power over us. Humanists hate America.

I have said it time and time again. The goal of environmentalism and animal rightism is not to "save the earth." Their goal is to destroy the American economy. Why? Because a strong America is a detriment to a One World government! That's why over 160 nations were exempted from the environmental restrictions placed on the U.S. at Kyoto, Japan. The nations with the dirtiest air were exempted while stricter regulations were imposed on America--the nation that has done the most to clean up its environment.

Remember the Gulf War? (The one to liberate Kuwait, not the one Clinton wants to fight to get our attention off of Monica.) Remember when Saddam Hussein poured raw crude oil into the Persian Gulf and then set over two hundred oil wells on fire? Where was the indignant outcry of environmentalism against Hussein? Nowhere! Why? Because he wasn't an American! Because Iraq isn't America!

So here are men who are optimistic about finding a cure for AIDS. Men who talk about manned flight to Jupiter as though it were plausible. Yet "Global Warming"? They can't think of anything positive to say. They can see no hope whatsoever. That's because they see it as an opportunity to place greater restrictions on your freedoms and a tool to push America into poverty.

Me? I'm going to pretend that "Global Warming" is true for a moment.

I look forward to seeing vast corn fields in northern Canada and Siberia. I look forward to the additional rainfall from "the greenhouse" (tremble, please) turning our deserts into lush, fertile plains where new cities will spring up to take in the "overflow" from the "growing population". I look forward to it being warmer the year round, to the new citrus groves in Ohio and the rest of the Midwest. I look forward to the auto and aircraft industries expanding to supply transportation for the expanded populations in our northernmost regions. And I really look forward to San Francisco being underwater!

Do you see? Do you see how easy it would be to put a positive spin on this so-called "Global Warming" if they really wanted to? But they don't do it. Do they? No. Because they have other plans--sinister plans for you, your family, and your country.

So if you really believe in "Global Warming," then you should lighten up a little! It really won't be the disaster that you've been told it will be. You'll soon be sipping iced tea by the pool in your new retirement community in balmy North Dakota while your investments in corn production in the Northwest Territories continue to bring you more income. You'll be watching some loony "earth scientist" on TV trying to warn you of "Global Cooling" due to "increased greenhouse gases." (Like they tried in the '70's.)

You just have to realize that these people are mentally ill, and the sooner we put them away, the sooner we can get on to "This bold new challenge facing us."

We don't have a problem with "Global Warming." We have a problem with the loonies that are claiming that it's bad. I know that there is a shortage of asylums to put them in. But we can build more. In fact, why don't we build them in Alaska?! It might be a little cold for a few more years, but in no time at all they'll be enjoying the view of tropical Alaska from their "rubber room" windows. Then they'll see how wrong they were to bother us with their foolish worries about such a wonderful blessing as "Global Warming!"

ATTR: Dr. Gipp

Once Again Totally Irrelevant (0, Flamebait)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488243)


The same assumption that we'll all be standing around in our undies one hundred years from now.

Get with the program. None of this is going to be relevant a hundred years from now.

Nanotech will obviate any of this being significant, probably well within fifty years.

Re:Once Again Totally Irrelevant (2, Informative)

Snad (719864) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488274)

None of this is going to be relevant a hundred years from now.

There are some theories that we don't have even 20 years, let alone 100. [nzherald.co.nz]

Re:Once Again Totally Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488298)

Nanotech will obviate any of this being significant, probably well within fifty years

Or genetic engineering will make it so we are quite comfortable at higher temperatures.

Either that, or Canada will actually become habitable.

Re:Once Again Totally Ignorant (1)

spac3manspiff (839454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488347)

You ignorant fool, life doesn't ceace to exsist once you die.

Re:Once Again Totally Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488370)

Nanotech will obviate any of this being significant, probably well within fifty years.

Wether this comment was meant to be ironic or not, IMHO it illustrates a rather common mistake: Overconfidence. Wether or not we will be able to solve the problem in the future, or if the problem will need any solving whatsoever is completely irrelevant here.

Crichton novel- State of Fear (2, Interesting)

bach37 (602070) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488247)

Anyone else read Michael Crichton's latest novel State of Fear [nytimes.com] ?

He has an interesting take on the subject, backed with documentation to his sources.

Re:Crichton novel- State of Fear (2, Informative)

Staplerh (806722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488307)

Hmm, an interesting review was posted on Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2110815 [msn.com]

Not so good. I've had some issues with Chrichton and his reactionary, conservative stance before. This could help you take some of it with a grain of salt.

Or not, I don't propose to be an expert. Just thought it might interest you.

Re:Crichton novel- State of Fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488359)

psst State of Fear is fiction.

Just thought you should know.

Re:Crichton novel- State of Fear (4, Informative)

IvyMike (178408) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488366)

Anyone else read Michael Crichton's latest novel State of Fear? The scientists at RealClimate [realclimate.org] read it; they're not impressed. [realclimate.org] For the lazy, here's the conclusion:
In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

Re:Crichton novel- State of Fear (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488406)

I've heard the book is reason enough never to bother with a Crichton novel ever again. Dismissive to the point of being rude, totally one-sided -- basically just a huge poke in the eye for anyone that's ever cared about something other than themselves. That's what I've heard.

Oooh, If Crichton wrote it it MUST be true! (1)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488409)

Give me a break.

Here is an analysis of the "documentation" included with Crichton's novel.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

It rained yesterday (2, Insightful)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488248)

It was sunny today.

The news was unable to predict either of these to any accuracy only 24 hours prior to the weather event.

You want to believe that they can predict the weather 100 years from now?

Re:It rained yesterday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488280)

shh, keep quite, you blowing the facade

Re:It rained yesterday (1)

queef_latina (847562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488296)

In some cases it's easier to model things on a macro perspective.

Want an easy example? Physics.

Re:It rained yesterday (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488314)

First off -- I'm quite doubtful about the credibility of the eco-folks who cry Global Warming out loud every other week.

That said, long term generic predictions are easier than short-term precision predictions simply due to the fact that you have more information and flexibility.

However, we do not really have all that much information from our past to begin with and the system is too chaotic for folks to even begin formulating "predictions".

But that does not seem to stop our "climatologists" though.

Re:It rained yesterday (3, Insightful)

Capt'n Hector (650760) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488397)

Flamebait, but... I'm gunna hafta bite. Chaotic systems are predictable. A pot of boiling water is chaotic. But I can make several predictions. If I turn up the heat, the water will boil faster. If I leave the pot there for a long time, all the water will be gone from the pot. The atmosphere is chaotic in that it's a bitch to predict whether it will be sunny or raining two weeks from now. But, it's become nothing but painfully obvious to those in the field, people you degrade by putting quotes around their title, that over the long term a very orderly process is occuring. It's called global warming. This latest study is just another nail in ALL our coffins.

Re:It rained yesterday (1)

itchy92 (533370) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488365)

granted, meteorology is the one field where you can be wrong 100% of the time and still get paid, but...

I'd imagine tracking a particular low pressure system is more difficult than computing pre-observed FACTS about weather patterns and drawing conclusions thereof. They're not talking about your five-day forecast highs and lows, but rather a global change in atmospheric temperature. Now granted, the article bases this on the presumption that CO2 levels will double in this time period, which may not necessarily be true, but using that as a premise, I'd say this is more reliable than your local weatherperson's "prediction" of the weather.

Try telling me when. .. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488250)

I scape ice of my windows at -10c

youse a nigger and you like to suck that cock (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488254)

youse a nigger and you like to suck!

The u.s government (0, Troll)

trendescape (801324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488261)

Will blow up the world by then.

Off topic, FLAMEBAIT!

Re:The u.s government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488299)

I don't think 'being humored' means what you think it means.

Specifics about the model used??? (2, Insightful)

glrotate (300695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488262)

Out of sample results? Anything?

it shows there's no such thing as a safe level of carbon dioxide.

Uh. Ok.

Re:Specifics about the model used??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488294)

Maybe they mean the Earth's climate is not stable. It will oscillate indefinately regardless of CO2 levels.

Re:Specifics about the model used??? (1)

glrotate (300695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488350)

That wouldn't imply that it's unsafe, just unstable. The word "unsafe" was used so we have to assume that's what they meant.

BS, FP (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488263)

Both.

Again, why do I have to keep posting the same thing: where are the scientists?

SHOW me a graph of solar infrared output versus Earth temperatures, over a period of at least 50 years.

THEN we'll see how much B.S. this global warming crap is. ... if you think ol' Sol has a constant output, I have a bridge to sell you.

Mankind doesn't have the ability to alter the planet in this way. We're off by dozens of orders of magnitude.

Get real, folks. It's all about the sun.

Re:BS, FP (1)

phidipides (59938) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488383)

>Get real, folks. It's all about the sun.

From this site [environmentaldefense.org] :

MYTH: If the Earth has heated up since pre-industrial times, this warming is due to an increase in the intensity of the sun.

FACT: The sun's intensity does vary. In the late 1970's, sophisticated technology was developed that can directly measure the sun's intensity. Measurements from these instruments show that in the past 20 years the sun's variations have been very small. Indirect measurements of changes in the sun's intensity since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1750 show that variations in the sun's intensity do not account for all the warming that occurred in the 20th century and that the majority of the warming was caused by an increase in human-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Unconventional climate modeling method (-1, Offtopic)

queef_latina (847562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488267)

I want to sniff some... ASS-PANTIES!!1

Global warming as weather improvement! (1)

Cat9117600 (627358) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488273)

Looking out at the mountains of snow outside, I really have to ask myself whether I'd mind a few extra degrees right about now. This brings new meaning to the idea of fair-weather supporters...

Lalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalala (4, Insightful)

revscat (35618) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488281)

Let's get this over with:
  1. It's all a liberal apocalyptic myth
  2. The planet will be fine. It's been here for billions of years.
  3. It's part of a natural change
  4. Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Fox News told me different, and they're experts on the climate whose opinion I have every reason to trust.
  5. I think it's funny when liberals scream about the environment.

Do conservatives just not think there are consequences, or does it just appear that way? "Pollute the environment? Don't worry about it. Dump motor oil on your lawn, screw it. Make a liberal cry. Hahaha. Torture innocents? Eh. Has to be done. Drive up the national debt? C'est l'vie. Declare war for no good reason? They love us for it, the liberal media lies if they say any different."

I thought America was founded by *scientists*, non? The prevailing scientific opinion is that global warming is real and dangerous. Where'd these religious zealots come from, and when do we start shooting?

Re:Lalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalala (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488324)

There was a time when the prevailing scientific opinion said arbitrary functions of continuous waves cannot be represented by a collection of sinusoids. Thankfully, Fourier proved otherwise so no debate was even needed.

Re:Lalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalala (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488344)

I thought America was founded by *scientists*, non?

I was right there with you until you started speaking French. Then you began ticking me off...

Re:Lalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalala (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488372)

Haven't we done enough shooting?

How about we force the Republicans and the religious right to attend college. Maybe they'll learn something.

Ok, who am I kidding...We're Americans! Let's shoot them!

Re:Lalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalala (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488393)

The people who go into environmental sciences, like the people who go into journalism, are a self-selected group who have generally progressive ideas. Not so much with non-environmental Physics or Chemistry.

This leads to an abundance of progressive thinkers in these fields which gives them the general left-leaning slant. It's nothing like a conspiracy, just the general direction that these things take. You'll find left-leaning lawyers making up the bulk of environmental law, you'll find right-leaning lawyers making up the bulk of DAs. It's just the way things work out. People are drawn to areas they have an interest in.

So we can see how the environmental sciences would be filled with people who were actually out looking for problems and thinking up solutions. So you end up where we are now where the prevailing scientific opinion (among environmental scientists) is that doom and gloom await us if we do not change our living patterns NOW.

Well, those scientists have their own political agenda from which they take pre-fabricated solutions and apply them to the scientific problems which they've 'discovered'.

A technologist would look at global warming and see an opportunity to create something to help mankind cross that bridge. The environmental scientist can only consider cutting back current levels of technology to prevent the inevitable from happening.

On a tech site, you'd think you'd find more of the technologist perspective, but instead you find the latter Chicken Little perspective. The solution to global warming is technology, not the repealing of technology.

ignert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488396)

America was founded by homosexuals, and then taken over by the Elders of Zion.

Learn some history before you post crap like this, frog.

Scientists..... (1)

wpiman (739077) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488292)

This is how scientists make idle chit chat..... talking about the weather.....

They are that much different from the average Joe.

the sunny side... (1)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488305)

well, we will be seeing a hell lot of more bikinis and skimpy clothings at workplace.

I am just trying to find a silver lining to all the gloom and doom.

Re:the sunny side... (1)

Justin205 (662116) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488364)

Or maybe temperature controlled clothing... ...

On second thought, let it be the bikinis...

Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488315)

I hate to sound like a nihilist, but here's what it seems like:

The cause is either primarily manmade or natural. If it's manmade, it's not like anybody who has the power to do something about it is going to mess with the industries that cause it.

If it's natural (ye eyef rolle upwardf) then it's not like anybody can do anything about it anyway.

My personal belief is that it isn't natural. It just seems like a magnificent coincidence that natural climate change would occur right at the same point as our civilization's greatest amount of energy consumption and waste production. But what does it matter what I think? The industries are still going to back the necessary propaganda to make it seem like there's nothing they're doing wrong, the idiotic masses will believe it, and in the meantime, will continue to rake in the profits necessary so that the richest amongst them can afford the real estate costs for those parts of the planet that are still inhabitable by the time we start really seeing the damage.

new hotness (1)

trs9000 (73898) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488318)

average rises of average temperatures of up to 11K
whoa whoa whoa... 11,000 degrees! Damn! I'm not even sure if you mean Fahrenheit or Celcius, but I know that's hot!

Re:new hotness (1)

Ziviyr (95582) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488353)

Yeah, that had me terrified for .2 seconds.

It's All Rubbish (1, Insightful)

skeptic1 (852999) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488320)

A few decades ago, it was global cooling [globalclimate.org] , now they're all panicky about global warming. I wonder what it'll be next?? It's all just ridiculous scare tactics/political propoganda. The data they're citing isn't even standardized.

Don't worry people, sit tight, the sky isn't gonna fall down on us.

11K? (1)

mjh49746 (807327) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488327)

All those Pentium 4's running sure are a threat for the future.

Thats what I have been waiting for..... (1)

dracken (453199) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488345)

...Canada will become warm and I can move there. GWB is doing atleast one good thing.

A change of 11K? (1)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488351)

How much is that in degrees Celcius? :)

Errata (1)

adeydas (837049) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488385)

Its 11 degree Celsius not Kelvin. 11 K is -262 degree C which does not make any sense.

MORE LIBERAL HIPPY SHIT. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11488403)

Global Warming like evolution is a stupid theory made by hippies and freaks.

From the Friendly Article..... (1)

thewldisntenuff (778302) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488412)

The scientists behind climateprediction.net believe their project, because it is distributed to individual PCs, can help inform people about climate change - and that, in turn could bring political change.

I hate to say it but people wont care. Youd have to ask for drastic changes in the way things are done, ranging from moving to lesser polluting cars to stronger pollution controls......People are resistant to this kind of change, and the controls enforced in the First World often are ignored in the Third World (ie-China, India, etc) A life-changing event (akin to that of the movie The Day After Tommorrow (minus the horrible science)) would be the only surefire way change people......

-thewldisntenuff

Soon we'll be as hot as the sun's surface? (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 9 years ago | (#11488418)

The simulations suggest that over the next hundred years we could see average rises of average temperatures of up to 11K, more than twice what was previously thought.

So we previously thought we'd be 5,500 degrees hooter than we are currently? (That's half of eleven kay.)

The surface of the sun is about 5,600 degrees. [caltech.edu]

I know, lame joke, but teh degree symbol is a standard HTML object (°).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?