10 ms·

Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

109 points by sharan 16y ago

thangalin 16y ago
Visit: http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/master.shtml http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/master.shtml 1. City: Cranbrook BC 2. Days: June 1 to October 1 3. Click Report 4. Repeat for any number of Canadian cities
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  http://www.surfacestations.org/ http://www.surfacestations.org/ Only about 1 in 10 surface weather stations is sufficiently properly sited to produce data accurate to within 1 deg. C.
  - cromulent 16y ago
    ...in the US.
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      If you imagine that Canadian surface stations are sited altogether differently then you're living in a fantasy world.
      - cromulent 16y ago
        I'm not imagining anything, just increasing the accuracy of your statement - I think accuracy is important when it comes to climate science.
        mkr-hn 16y ago
        "...in the US" doesn't increase accuracy. "...in the US; here's a good study on the subject:" would.
  - flgb 16y ago
    The urban heat island effect and 'micro-climates' have a negligible impact on long term warming trends, especially when records are averaged over large areas. Also, rural temperature records show the same warming trends as urban ones. The 'evidence' on this site isn't relevant to arguments regarding the existing of global warming.
    - thangalin 16y ago
      Exactly. You can use the Climate Reports to lasso areas away from urban centres in the map: http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/guru.shtml http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/guru.shtml The site says nothing about global warming or the cause. The site does show that there is a consistent warming trend over summer months across all of Canada, and is most extreme in northern Canada. Also, I believe the Environment Canada data is accurate to within 0.2 degrees C.
KaeseEs 16y ago
You'd think NASA would know well enough to start the y-axis at 0. Lousy graphs of this sort create the appearance of deceit, even in it absence, and wind up giving ammunition to skeptics.
- dools 16y ago
  Why does the y-axis of a graph need to begin at 0? 0 is a number like any other number. If the result set you're attempting to display doesn't have any values at 0 then why would you display 0? The graph in question also doesn't show any data points at y=-257,687 ... does that concern you?
  - cromulent 16y ago
    Edward Tufte agrees with you: Baselines In general, in a time-series, use a baseline that shows the data not the zero point. If the zero point reasonably occurs in plotting the data, fine. But don't spend a lot of empty vertical space trying to reach down to the zero point at the cost of hiding what is going on in the data line itself. (The book, How to Lie With Statistics, is wrong on this point.) For examples, all over the place, of absent zero points in time-series, take a look at any major scientific research publication. The scientists want to show their data, not zero. The urge to contextualize the data is a good one, but context does not come from empty vertical space reaching down to zero, a number which does not even occur in a good many data sets. Instead, for context, show more data horizontally! . -- Edward Tufte, October 18, 2001 http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00003q http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
    - haberman 16y ago
      > The book, How to Lie With Statistics, is wrong on this point. Ugh, the more I read of Tufte the less I like him. He loves to make blanket statements (like calling a point "wrong") in an authoritative way, and he's amassed enough adoring followers that people repeat his words like gospel instead of calling him on it. It's valid to say that a non-zero-based scale shows the data better. But it's also completely valid to note that non-zero-based scales can be used in alarmist ways to make data extremely misleading. I thought "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" was terrible, and I went in really wanting to like it: http://www.amazon.com/review/R11NYC3OE3LBE http://www.amazon.com/review/R11NYC3OE3LBE
sliverstorm 16y ago
I think at this point, everyone has made up their minds which side to believe, and more evidence isn't going to help the matter, unless it is the sort of rock-hard evidence no one can possibly ignore (like repeated snowless winters in Detroit).
- danparsonson 16y ago
  Really? You mean to say that if you believed something, no amount of new evidence to the contrary could persuade you to change your mind?
  - ryanwaggoner 16y ago
    I think he's probably saying that most people are like that, and sadly, I have to agree.
    - danparsonson 16y ago
      Ah that's a good point - reminds me of this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-%E2%80%93-why-shaking-someone%E2%80%99s-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/1...
      - sliverstorm 16y ago
        That, and I've also definitely been guilty of ignoring new articles on the matter. I am already convinced climate change is happening, so why should I bother reading the 26th article on whether it's happening or not? I'm sure the same thing happens with people who are not convinced.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    What evidence do you believe people will take seriously now? Its strange. I believe in vaccines, following my doctors advice, and recycling. But, then I go to the gas station and see signs that my cellphone could cause an explosion. I remember the "going into an ice age talk" from the 1970's and the plans to heat the earth. I also remember the hate on for nuclear. Most people I know also see the "security theater" at the airport as not really addressing any real problems. Never mind the constant "you are a nut!" when people ask about the data collection, the e-mail investigation, and which politicians make money from wind as opposed to other new attempts. Also, all that "Hydrogen Economy" talk seems to have died pretty fast. Solar and wind won't work. They are not constant as burning coal or oil, and we don't seem to have massive electrical storage technology to compensate. There aren't enough rivers to damn for power and those that are cause their own set of problems. Nuclear probably would have been ready along with a better electrical grid, but hollywood and certain environmental groups blew that. Add to this, a whole new group of people (the "third world") that is just being able to take advantage of the products, energy creation, and manufacturing techniques that allowed the "first world" to get where they are. Now, we are telling them to not use those because they are harmful, while not providing an actual alternative. The US is a road, liquid fuel, central electrical production country. No amount of yelling will get rid of roads. Liquid fuel might be replaceable, but it needs to be something as convenient, cheap, and easily taxed (in small chunk / not one big bill). The central grid needs to be improved and we need real, full-time replacements for coal and gas. The worst part is whatever solution we come up with better be good enough for the third world to skip to.
motters 16y ago
Also see http://code.google.com/p/tempgraph/ http://code.google.com/p/tempgraph/
points 16y ago
Religion doesn't belong here.
- gaius 16y ago
  So flag it.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
kia 16y ago
Why did they decided to cut the graphic at 400,000 years before today? Maybe that's because a couple of million years ago the concentration of CO2 was well above today's level? By the way here is another picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaci...
- mkempe 16y ago
  Yes, climate and atmosphere do change. There is nothing sacred about current measurements and composition. Here are estimated CO2 levels through geologic time -- "currently" rather low! -- at UCSD site: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1... CO2 is essentially airborne fertilizer. Our planet wouldn't be so green without lots of it. (I'd rather be alive during an interglacial, abundantly green geological period.)
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    > CO2 is essentially airborne fertilizer. Sure, but as with fertilizer on fields, there are consequences for using way too much. > I'd rather be alive during an interglacial, abundantly green geological period. As long as there aren't a billion or so refugees from the low-lying areas rampaging through.
    - mkempe 16y ago
      > using way too much Hence my link to CO2 levels over Geologic Time. Do you think there was "way too much" CO2 in the past?
      - ceejayoz 16y ago
        For Earth? No. For human society as we currently know it? Seems that way. We'll survive climate change, but flooding places like Bangladesh is going to cause tremendous upheaval. Humanity survived the ice age, but that didn't make it a fun period in our history.
mfukar 16y ago
Does anyone have any reference(s) to the methods used to sample data about atmospheric 400,000 years ago? It's amazingly interesting.
- gvb 16y ago
  They send a cyborg back in time to collect samples. While he is there, he kills Sarah and the world ends in 3... 2... 1... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator Seriously, ice core samples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
harscoat 16y ago
The power of a graph.
todayiamme 16y ago
You know whenever I read about this debate for some reason I recall George Carlin's prophetic words; "The planet is fine.... The people are fucked." http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DeScDfYzMEEw&ei=rC_ETObjAorZcfT9nc0N&usg=AFQjCNH8Nxzpk1rsIxEmp_Ju5jTVgjTxag http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&#38... Whether we like to admit this or not; the earth and life will go on without us. It's our own survival we are fighting for over here; not a complex system in which life has taken hold by surviving through tough odds without the intend of surviving. This piece of rock really doesn't give a damn.
- nice1 16y ago
  Alarmism has a really bad track record.
  - todayiamme 16y ago
    It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable by any metric you care to throw at it. We've over run our phosphorous reserves. We're depleting energy, land and the ability to feed our civilization. We're systematically amputating ourselves while worrying about the blood spilling on the floor. It just strikes me how far away from reality this debate has taken us. Yes, none of this will kill the planet or this species for that matter, but it will kill this civilization. In fact, this has happened again and again throughout history as Jared Diamond points out in his book, Collapse. When you see the record of civilizations and the choices they have made then 5 key metrics stand out; 1) Environmental damage 2) Climate change 3) Hostile neighbors 4) Friendly trade partners 5) The societies response to it's environmental problems What's interesting is how he compared these metrics and individually isolated cases in histories where only a few were present and used them as examples to see what was going on. It's a beautiful and thrilling exploration between the factors, stakeholders at play and why those choices were made (as far as we know). A comment simply won't do that entire thing justice. The thing is that there is a delicate interplay between our surroundings and our civilization and stretching it too far without healing won't lead to pleasant consequences. A civilization is a delicate state of things that needs to be maintained at a certain cost be it resources, intellectual or cultural capital. Everything joins to create an integrated whole and that's the problem; you can't have one without the other. So, essentially we need to make a series of choices about how we are doing things and how we could do them if we want this period of prosperity to survive beyond a few decades. Yes there is hope, but there's loads of work to do. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_...
bd 16y ago
Does this mean human beings can effectively prevent ice age? These are supposed to be cyclical, so it's pretty much guaranteed sooner or later we will have to face one.
TerraHertz 16y ago
For anyone who still thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, some reading material: http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt Oh and yes, the graph was limited to 400K years,because otherwise it would show CO2 levels in the past FAR higher than today. And it doesn't show CO2 vs temp over geological timescales, because that graph clearly shows that CO2 lags temp, not the other way round. It's the same old story - figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer.
- ced 16y ago
  figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer. How do you know the people behind the link you gave aren't self-interested? Besides, just because a foolish/corrupted person says X, doesn't mean that NOT X is true.
- lutorm 16y ago
  You mean I should believe a huge stream-of-consciousness ascii file over scientific papers? Sorry, that's not going to fly with me. And your money argument doesn't work. Are you seriously saying those who argue AGW is NOT real don't have a financial interest in that?
  - enko 16y ago
    > Are you seriously saying those who argue AGW is NOT real don't have a financial interest in that? Are you seriously saying that every single person who has ever questioned the establishment line on AGW has a financial interest in some kind of carbon emitting industry? Bollocks. I am not a "believer" or a "denier" but rather a skeptic, of both sides, whom I find to be very agenda-driven. Now you might think I'm an idiot, and fair enough, but my argumentativeness is in no way whatsoever driven by financial interests. I don't think I am alone in that. Please factor that into your thinking.
    - lutorm 16y ago
mcritz 16y ago
So much armchair quarterbacking, very little PhD in climatology. Reading the deniers’ comments I wonder if they tell their doctor how their endocrine system is powered by crystal energy and argue with the pilot about Bernoulli’s “so-called” Principle. Science has come to a conclusion. Do you listen or merely justify your previously held belief?
- jbooth 16y ago
  The problem is that they really, really hate hippies. And hippies are all about global warming, they'll even go one step further and lecture you with a bunch of crap about "gaia" or something. So in order for these people to be good, upstanding Americans, they must be 100% diametrically opposed to the hippies, even if the hippie is saying "the sky is blue". Personally, I'm ok with dropping the gaia and taking the science.
ChristianMarks 16y ago
Despite the conservative naysayers, the federal government is heavily invested in climate research. Take the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (GFDL) in Princeton, NJ. This is a NOAA facility involved with sophisticated climate models. Raytheon, a major defense contractor, was involved in day-to-day operations and public relations. A defense contractor is involved with public relations for this facility, not Indymedia. Typically, climate models require the resources of high-performance computing facilities with thousands of processors. These facilities cost tens of millions of dollars to implement, and millions to maintain. Why is climate research a matter of national security, involving the oversight of defense contractors and personnel with security clearance? For at least two reasons. First, it is of strategic interest to the United States to know how the planet will be affected by global warming. If large parts of China or the Netherlands are going to end up submerged under 20 feet of water, and millions of people will have to be evacuated, this U.S. would not want to outsource the ability to forecast this to, let us say, non-allied countries. Another reason is that with the increased likelihood of hurricanes in the Gulf (to mention one case of extreme weather) it is a matter of national security to have better models for predicting the likely trajectory of a hurricane as it approaches land. A wrong guess can cost billions. Despite the global warming deniers among politicians who are loyal to the big energy lobby, you can rest assured that funding for the development of sophisticated climate models and the elaborate high-performance computing systems, scientists and operational support personnel needed to design, run and maintain them them is provisioned by the federal government as a matter national security.

109 points by sharan 16y ago

Visit: http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/master.shtml http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/master.shtml 1. City: Cranbrook BC 2. Days: June 1 to October 1 3. Click Report 4. Repeat for any number of Canadian cities

InclinedPlane 16y ago
http://www.surfacestations.org/ http://www.surfacestations.org/ Only about 1 in 10 surface weather stations is sufficiently properly sited to produce data accurate to within 1 deg. C.
- cromulent 16y ago
  ...in the US.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    If you imagine that Canadian surface stations are sited altogether differently then you're living in a fantasy world.
    - cromulent 16y ago
      I'm not imagining anything, just increasing the accuracy of your statement - I think accuracy is important when it comes to climate science.
      - mkr-hn 16y ago
        "...in the US" doesn't increase accuracy. "...in the US; here's a good study on the subject:" would.
- flgb 16y ago
  The urban heat island effect and 'micro-climates' have a negligible impact on long term warming trends, especially when records are averaged over large areas. Also, rural temperature records show the same warming trends as urban ones. The 'evidence' on this site isn't relevant to arguments regarding the existing of global warming.
  - thangalin 16y ago
    Exactly. You can use the Climate Reports to lasso areas away from urban centres in the map: http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/guru.shtml http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/guru.shtml The site says nothing about global warming or the cause. The site does show that there is a consistent warming trend over summer months across all of Canada, and is most extreme in northern Canada. Also, I believe the Environment Canada data is accurate to within 0.2 degrees C.

KaeseEs 16y ago

You'd think NASA would know well enough to start the y-axis at 0. Lousy graphs of this sort create the appearance of deceit, even in it absence, and wind up giving ammunition to skeptics.

dools 16y ago
Why does the y-axis of a graph need to begin at 0? 0 is a number like any other number. If the result set you're attempting to display doesn't have any values at 0 then why would you display 0? The graph in question also doesn't show any data points at y=-257,687 ... does that concern you?
- cromulent 16y ago
  Edward Tufte agrees with you: Baselines In general, in a time-series, use a baseline that shows the data not the zero point. If the zero point reasonably occurs in plotting the data, fine. But don't spend a lot of empty vertical space trying to reach down to the zero point at the cost of hiding what is going on in the data line itself. (The book, How to Lie With Statistics, is wrong on this point.) For examples, all over the place, of absent zero points in time-series, take a look at any major scientific research publication. The scientists want to show their data, not zero. The urge to contextualize the data is a good one, but context does not come from empty vertical space reaching down to zero, a number which does not even occur in a good many data sets. Instead, for context, show more data horizontally! . -- Edward Tufte, October 18, 2001 http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00003q http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
  - haberman 16y ago
    > The book, How to Lie With Statistics, is wrong on this point. Ugh, the more I read of Tufte the less I like him. He loves to make blanket statements (like calling a point "wrong") in an authoritative way, and he's amassed enough adoring followers that people repeat his words like gospel instead of calling him on it. It's valid to say that a non-zero-based scale shows the data better. But it's also completely valid to note that non-zero-based scales can be used in alarmist ways to make data extremely misleading. I thought "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" was terrible, and I went in really wanting to like it: http://www.amazon.com/review/R11NYC3OE3LBE http://www.amazon.com/review/R11NYC3OE3LBE

sliverstorm 16y ago

I think at this point, everyone has made up their minds which side to believe, and more evidence isn't going to help the matter, unless it is the sort of rock-hard evidence no one can possibly ignore (like repeated snowless winters in Detroit).

danparsonson 16y ago
Really? You mean to say that if you believed something, no amount of new evidence to the contrary could persuade you to change your mind?
- ryanwaggoner 16y ago
  I think he's probably saying that most people are like that, and sadly, I have to agree.
  - danparsonson 16y ago
    Ah that's a good point - reminds me of this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-%E2%80%93-why-shaking-someone%E2%80%99s-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/1...
    - sliverstorm 16y ago
      That, and I've also definitely been guilty of ignoring new articles on the matter. I am already convinced climate change is happening, so why should I bother reading the 26th article on whether it's happening or not? I'm sure the same thing happens with people who are not convinced.
- protomyth 16y ago
  What evidence do you believe people will take seriously now? Its strange. I believe in vaccines, following my doctors advice, and recycling. But, then I go to the gas station and see signs that my cellphone could cause an explosion. I remember the "going into an ice age talk" from the 1970's and the plans to heat the earth. I also remember the hate on for nuclear. Most people I know also see the "security theater" at the airport as not really addressing any real problems. Never mind the constant "you are a nut!" when people ask about the data collection, the e-mail investigation, and which politicians make money from wind as opposed to other new attempts. Also, all that "Hydrogen Economy" talk seems to have died pretty fast. Solar and wind won't work. They are not constant as burning coal or oil, and we don't seem to have massive electrical storage technology to compensate. There aren't enough rivers to damn for power and those that are cause their own set of problems. Nuclear probably would have been ready along with a better electrical grid, but hollywood and certain environmental groups blew that. Add to this, a whole new group of people (the "third world") that is just being able to take advantage of the products, energy creation, and manufacturing techniques that allowed the "first world" to get where they are. Now, we are telling them to not use those because they are harmful, while not providing an actual alternative. The US is a road, liquid fuel, central electrical production country. No amount of yelling will get rid of roads. Liquid fuel might be replaceable, but it needs to be something as convenient, cheap, and easily taxed (in small chunk / not one big bill). The central grid needs to be improved and we need real, full-time replacements for coal and gas. The worst part is whatever solution we come up with better be good enough for the third world to skip to.

motters 16y ago

Also see http://code.google.com/p/tempgraph/ http://code.google.com/p/tempgraph/

points 16y ago

Religion doesn't belong here.

gaius 16y ago
So flag it.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

kia 16y ago

Why did they decided to cut the graphic at 400,000 years before today? Maybe that's because a couple of million years ago the concentration of CO2 was well above today's level? By the way here is another picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaci...

mkempe 16y ago
Yes, climate and atmosphere do change. There is nothing sacred about current measurements and composition. Here are estimated CO2 levels through geologic time -- "currently" rather low! -- at UCSD site: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1... CO2 is essentially airborne fertilizer. Our planet wouldn't be so green without lots of it. (I'd rather be alive during an interglacial, abundantly green geological period.)
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  > CO2 is essentially airborne fertilizer. Sure, but as with fertilizer on fields, there are consequences for using way too much. > I'd rather be alive during an interglacial, abundantly green geological period. As long as there aren't a billion or so refugees from the low-lying areas rampaging through.
  - mkempe 16y ago
    > using way too much Hence my link to CO2 levels over Geologic Time. Do you think there was "way too much" CO2 in the past?
    - ceejayoz 16y ago
      For Earth? No. For human society as we currently know it? Seems that way. We'll survive climate change, but flooding places like Bangladesh is going to cause tremendous upheaval. Humanity survived the ice age, but that didn't make it a fun period in our history.

mfukar 16y ago

Does anyone have any reference(s) to the methods used to sample data about atmospheric 400,000 years ago? It's amazingly interesting.

gvb 16y ago
They send a cyborg back in time to collect samples. While he is there, he kills Sarah and the world ends in 3... 2... 1... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator Seriously, ice core samples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

harscoat 16y ago

The power of a graph.

todayiamme 16y ago

You know whenever I read about this debate for some reason I recall George Carlin's prophetic words; "The planet is fine.... The people are fucked." http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DeScDfYzMEEw&ei=rC_ETObjAorZcfT9nc0N&usg=AFQjCNH8Nxzpk1rsIxEmp_Ju5jTVgjTxag http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&#38... Whether we like to admit this or not; the earth and life will go on without us. It's our own survival we are fighting for over here; not a complex system in which life has taken hold by surviving through tough odds without the intend of surviving. This piece of rock really doesn't give a damn.

nice1 16y ago
Alarmism has a really bad track record.
- todayiamme 16y ago
  It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable by any metric you care to throw at it. We've over run our phosphorous reserves. We're depleting energy, land and the ability to feed our civilization. We're systematically amputating ourselves while worrying about the blood spilling on the floor. It just strikes me how far away from reality this debate has taken us. Yes, none of this will kill the planet or this species for that matter, but it will kill this civilization. In fact, this has happened again and again throughout history as Jared Diamond points out in his book, Collapse. When you see the record of civilizations and the choices they have made then 5 key metrics stand out; 1) Environmental damage 2) Climate change 3) Hostile neighbors 4) Friendly trade partners 5) The societies response to it's environmental problems What's interesting is how he compared these metrics and individually isolated cases in histories where only a few were present and used them as examples to see what was going on. It's a beautiful and thrilling exploration between the factors, stakeholders at play and why those choices were made (as far as we know). A comment simply won't do that entire thing justice. The thing is that there is a delicate interplay between our surroundings and our civilization and stretching it too far without healing won't lead to pleasant consequences. A civilization is a delicate state of things that needs to be maintained at a certain cost be it resources, intellectual or cultural capital. Everything joins to create an integrated whole and that's the problem; you can't have one without the other. So, essentially we need to make a series of choices about how we are doing things and how we could do them if we want this period of prosperity to survive beyond a few decades. Yes there is hope, but there's loads of work to do. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_...

bd 16y ago

Does this mean human beings can effectively prevent ice age? These are supposed to be cyclical, so it's pretty much guaranteed sooner or later we will have to face one.

TerraHertz 16y ago

For anyone who still thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, some reading material: http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt Oh and yes, the graph was limited to 400K years,because otherwise it would show CO2 levels in the past FAR higher than today. And it doesn't show CO2 vs temp over geological timescales, because that graph clearly shows that CO2 lags temp, not the other way round. It's the same old story - figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer.

ced 16y ago
figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer. How do you know the people behind the link you gave aren't self-interested? Besides, just because a foolish/corrupted person says X, doesn't mean that NOT X is true.
lutorm 16y ago
You mean I should believe a huge stream-of-consciousness ascii file over scientific papers? Sorry, that's not going to fly with me. And your money argument doesn't work. Are you seriously saying those who argue AGW is NOT real don't have a financial interest in that?
- enko 16y ago
  > Are you seriously saying those who argue AGW is NOT real don't have a financial interest in that? Are you seriously saying that every single person who has ever questioned the establishment line on AGW has a financial interest in some kind of carbon emitting industry? Bollocks. I am not a "believer" or a "denier" but rather a skeptic, of both sides, whom I find to be very agenda-driven. Now you might think I'm an idiot, and fair enough, but my argumentativeness is in no way whatsoever driven by financial interests. I don't think I am alone in that. Please factor that into your thinking.
  - lutorm 16y ago

mcritz 16y ago

So much armchair quarterbacking, very little PhD in climatology. Reading the deniers’ comments I wonder if they tell their doctor how their endocrine system is powered by crystal energy and argue with the pilot about Bernoulli’s “so-called” Principle. Science has come to a conclusion. Do you listen or merely justify your previously held belief?

jbooth 16y ago
The problem is that they really, really hate hippies. And hippies are all about global warming, they'll even go one step further and lecture you with a bunch of crap about "gaia" or something. So in order for these people to be good, upstanding Americans, they must be 100% diametrically opposed to the hippies, even if the hippie is saying "the sky is blue". Personally, I'm ok with dropping the gaia and taking the science.

ChristianMarks 16y ago

Despite the conservative naysayers, the federal government is heavily invested in climate research. Take the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (GFDL) in Princeton, NJ. This is a NOAA facility involved with sophisticated climate models. Raytheon, a major defense contractor, was involved in day-to-day operations and public relations. A defense contractor is involved with public relations for this facility, not Indymedia. Typically, climate models require the resources of high-performance computing facilities with thousands of processors. These facilities cost tens of millions of dollars to implement, and millions to maintain. Why is climate research a matter of national security, involving the oversight of defense contractors and personnel with security clearance? For at least two reasons. First, it is of strategic interest to the United States to know how the planet will be affected by global warming. If large parts of China or the Netherlands are going to end up submerged under 20 feet of water, and millions of people will have to be evacuated, this U.S. would not want to outsource the ability to forecast this to, let us say, non-allied countries. Another reason is that with the increased likelihood of hurricanes in the Gulf (to mention one case of extreme weather) it is a matter of national security to have better models for predicting the likely trajectory of a hurricane as it approaches land. A wrong guess can cost billions. Despite the global warming deniers among politicians who are loyal to the big energy lobby, you can rest assured that funding for the development of sophisticated climate models and the elaborate high-performance computing systems, scientists and operational support personnel needed to design, run and maintain them them is provisioned by the federal government as a matter national security.