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!

Global Warming Skeptics Discover Global Warming

Black Parrot (19622) writes | more than 3 years ago

Politics 7

Black Parrot (19622) writes "A team of Berkely Scientists skeptical of global warming, led by prominent skeptic physicist Richard Muller (and funded by the Koch Brothers) unexpectedly testified to skeptical politicians in the US House of Representatives that theiir results — still preliminary — is finding the same thing mainstream climate scientists have been telling us. Other scientists are unsuprised; the article quotes Peter Thorne (not on the team) as saying "Even if the thermometer had never been invented, the evidence is there from deep ocean changes, from receding glaciers, from rising sea levels and receding sea ice and spring snow cover." However, Thorne criticizes the team for announcing the preliminary results before publishing an peer-reviewed papers on their work."
Link to Original Source

cancel ×

7 comments

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

Muller skeptic? (1)

surveyork (1505897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35772672)

"prominent skeptic physicist Richard Muller" [citation needed] The impression I got from Muller's Physics For Future Presidents lectures is that he's no skeptic of climate change. Apparently, he just saw that some skeptics/denialists were right in pointing faults in the measure system, so Muller's work tries to correct that.

Uhhhh (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#35772934)

Who are these idiots who doubt climate change? Isn't the debate whether climate change is man made or not?

Re:Uhhhh (1)

cwebster (100824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35774824)

It should be, but sadly it is not for a lot of people.

Re:Uhhhh (0)

polar red (215081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35775136)

1/CO2 is a greenhouse gas. you can TEST THIS FOR YOURSELF.
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm [espere.net]
2/man-made annual CO2 : 29.3 billion tons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions [wikipedia.org]

simple conclusion : humans are the source.
Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof
SO : climate change not being man-made needs proof.

Re:Uhhhh (2)

SirWinston (54399) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786170)

> 1/CO2 is a greenhouse gas. you can TEST THIS FOR YOURSELF.

Yes, we all know this. It is correct on a basic level, all other things being equal. And yet, in the real-world atmosphere all other things are NOT equal; we have many buffers and sinks at work, almost none of which we understand fully. Ultimately, we have no way of knowing with our current infantile level of climate science what net effect additional industrial CO2 has on total net irradiance, we can only make incomplete calculations. The IPCC and most climate scientists--a self-selecting field which disproportionately attracts environmental extremists--tend to assume the worst, and naturally lean towards models which amplify warming effects.

> 2/man-made annual CO2 : 29.3 billion tons

Yes, but the the atmosphere is about 6 QUADRILLION tons, so 29.4 billion tons per year is not necessarily a significant change. And again, the presence of this added CO2 is transient and its effects depend heavily upon the action of many sinks and buffers, and its ultimate effect on net irradiance is unknown. We can see the IPCC's conclusions about this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg [wikipedia.org]

But, that nifty chart is the product of many complex calculations all of which are disputable, and which ignore the bulk of climate interactions which are not yet fully understood.

In any event, the pertinent question isn't, "Is global warming happening?" (The answer is yes.) The pertinent question isn't, "Is global warming anthropogenic?" (The answer is, partially yes.) The pertinent question is, "Given reasonable and likely projections of the anthropogenic component of global warming, do the net benefits of extreme short-term CO2 emission cuts (factoring in their costs) make them preferable to the slower long-term phaseout of CO2 emissions that the market is naturally adopting?" The answer on that seems to be a resounding NO. We will already see net temperatures rise by a degree or two regardless of what we do today (assuming current IPCC projections are accurate, and things like solar irradiance and other uncontrollable forcings don't change much), and 50 more years of high CO2 emissions by the developed world won't make much difference (esp. since China, India, and the rest of the developing world will continue increasing emissions). Many projections, indeed, show that developed nations like the U.S. will actually see a net benefit in productivity and carrying capacity from global warming, so we have no objective reason to risk economic meltdown by voluntarily limiting CO2 prematurely.

I am one of those idiots. (1)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35775838)

I am one of those idiots. I have two degrees in physics. Climate is a long term thing, and must be measured that way. Short term measurements only hint at what might be happening, not what is. In the 1970s, I listened to the argument that the climate was getting cooler, and we were on our way to a new ice age. Now, I am forced to listen to an equally vehement argument that the exact reverse is true. The truth may be somewhere in between.

I have no problem with disagreement. It's healthy. Calling people you disagree with idiots is inappropriate. By the way, in what field of science do you hold a degree?

Re:I am one of those idiots. (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#35776230)

I take it this was meant to be a reply to me.

I don't think I phrased it very well. What I meant was who are these people who doubt that the temperature has increased in the past, is not the debate about whether or not it increased before due to man made emissions or due to something else?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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