Hotter Now Than in the Last 400 Years

Remove all ads!

So much for scientists disagreeing on global warming...

Heat Wave

The main "disagreement" is whether or not this is hottest the world has been in the last 400 or last 1,000 years.

 

Wrong. The main disagreement is whether or not this is a normal part of the Earth's cycles.

 

Felinoid is right.

As recently as 1975, scientists were getting headlines talking about "The New Ice Age."

 

Actually, he's not "wrong" - I believe Aldeth was referring specifically to the article, in which the scientists involved do in fact unanimously conclude that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.” What is in dispute, as per the article, is whether there was a hotter period 1000 years ago or not. Did you not read it before commenting?

 

Exactly. What else would I be referring to other than the info in the article? Some of those interviewed stated that they felt the data prior to the year 1600 wasn't as convincing as the more recent data - that's the part about the hockey stick data in the middle of the article. However even those who expressed doubts for temperatures before 1600 stated, “We do roughly agree with the substance of their findings”

 

I read it. But I wanted to correct the misconception that was sure to come from such a simple sentence.

 

I don't take "The conclusions from the research are very close to being right” to be anything close to unanimity.

The article says that the panel that issued the report agreed. Not all or even most scientists.

 

Depends what you mean by "most". I am pretty sure that in the scientific community those who disagree are outnumbered by about 50 to 1 (not that this make them necessarily wrong, just very very probably so ).

 

Interesting stuff. Let's all turn our PCs off now to help the cause.

 

man am I tired of climate change sceptics pulling out the "cycles" card... I mean do they actually believe that every climate scientist in the world somehow forgot to take cyclic behavior into account? What kind of argument is that? I'll tell you what: an argument meant to stop a discussion before it even starts that's what...

And then there's the cheery industry-sponsored cynicism: oh sure, europe will be plunged into a new ice age, but that's just natural, no worries today mate.

as a side note, it still seems weird to me to see DR and gawain posting in the same thread...

 

This is just one of the many things that show this earth is bound to be destroyed by human hands, one way or an other (IMO).

 

Considering that the cycles are over centuries or millenia, for which we have no data...yeah, pretty much. Though it's more like "couldn't accurately", rather than "forgot to".

Don't get me wrong, though; I think it's an absolute load of BS to say that everything is perfectly normal. But it's a load of ego to say that we're the only cause of global warming.

When scientists take a page from politicians in extremity of opinion just to prove their point, it is a dark day indeed for modern science.

 

argh. of course they have data over centuries and even millenia. drilling ice cores for a start. and the data's pretty accurate too. and of course natural events, from prairie fires to volcanos, produce considerable amounts of greenhouse gases. all of these things are taken into account.

but the idea that scientists are being "extremists" and ignoring data on this issue is a load of crock. do you know what scientists actually do with their time? do you know the kind of work that goes into getting a paper published in a good peer reviewed journal?

I'm not saying that scientists are always right; in fact, working from the idea that cherished ideas could be wrong is the main strength of the scientific worldview. but you're buying into a load of industry-sponsored propaganda if you think these guys are making all this up for political gain or "to get their grants removed."

 

So they know what the temperature was on April 5th, 733 AD, by drilling into an ice core? They know how much greenhouse gas was expelled by every volcano, to scientific precision, by...how was it again? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Besides, you'd think that if they could extrapolate 1000's of years into the past with scientific accuracy, they might be able to predict the weather for, oh I don't know, tomorrow (with accuracy).

You are trying to put words in my mouth, sir, and they do not fit. I never said anything about ignoring data. Rather, that seems to be the claim (upheld, I think) of the Global Warming side.

Actually, I am rather acquainted with that through my father. His job title is mechanical engineer, dealing with precision equipment and raw data every day. But he actually does three jobs: mechanical engineer, network security, and other scientists' jobs. Those of the 'pure sciences' apparently cannot be bothered to get their own data, being too busy with "the kind of work that goes into getting a paper published in a good peer reviewed journal". Clearly there are two possibilities: either they're just lazy sh*ts, or doing that work consumes so much time that they don't have time for anything else. Having met some of the frenzied men and women, I discount the former option. (Which, BTW, my father favors, but doing what you think of as "someone else's job" can do that to a person's opinion. ) So yeah, I can safely say I know how much work it is.

^This is EXACTLY the problem I'm talking about. The opposite side will be industry-sponsored propoganda while your side will be choir-boy scientists, doing it purely for the furthering of man's knowledge (no matter who it is you stand with). It is NEVER, EVER that simple. The clear split between the two sides is precisely the extremism I'm talking about. There's noone in the middle, no moderates, just the two camps saying diametrically opposed things. And I'll bet you everything I own that neither has the whole truth.

 

You are aware that "The New Ice Age" is actually supposed to be caused by the melting of the polar icecaps due to Global Warming, right? Global Warming and the next Ice Age happening way ahead of schedule are closely related.

 

You want a temperature down to a specific day? No, of course they can't tell you that. They can give you an average temperature for the YEAR of 733 AD though. And they can also tell you how much greenhouses gases were around at the time, because some of the gas gets trapped when the ice freezes.

Furthermore, why would you need temperature readings down to a specific day? Especially since you're talking April, a month where there is a high variability in temperature. Where I live, the average highs in April are probably around 60 degrees, but it certainly wouldn't be extremely unusual if on a given day the high temperature was only 45 degrees, or conversely if it was 75 degrees. Cold spells and heat waves happen - that's why they calculate temperature changes by doing yearly averages, as the cold spells and heat waves tend to even out if you take a longer period of time.

This may sound very sarcastic, but it is not my intention. To me, there is no middle ground. The basic statement is this: "The predominant factor in global warming is human activity." Now you can either agree with that statement or you can disagree. There is no middle ground. There's no such thing as "kind of or sort of predominant".

[ June 23, 2006, 15:48: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Yeah, the day thing is way off, but it was late and I couldn't think of how to say what I wanted to say. Specifically, where are the ice cores? Antarctica, the Artic Circle, Greenland? And these are supposed to be representative of the entire planet. Can you tell me what the average temperature of Madison was in 733AD? Even if you can come up with a number, I'm betting it's off (unless there are some ice cores somewhere in Madison that I haven't noticed ). The type of precision that science requires (especially for proof of things as gradual as temperature cycles) is simply not possible.

That said, discounting what extremely rough data we do have is essentially saying that we have no clue. Not something a scientist would do, but given the unreliability, I do. As I've said before, I don't think it's all the Earth's cycles, but I also don't think it's quite as dire "we're blowing up the world!" as the Global Warming side would have you believe.

It'd be incredibly stupid to write it off and go on our way, though. We already know the effects of some of our stuff on the ozone layer (among other things), and it would be idiotic not to try to cut back as much as we can. But I am sick and tired of scare tactics. I won't put up with it from the president, and I sure as hell won't put up with it from a bunch of scientists.

You can't have two causes for something? What burns me is that there is no allowance that someone on the other side might actually have a point. No actual investigation of the other side beyond an attempt to discredit them. (This applies equally to both sides, though the size of the Global Warming side makes the percentages much lower.)

Hell, even the fact that scientists are actually disagreeing on something should have you looking warily at both sides. I mean, when was the last time scientists disagreed on something this big? The last one I can think of is...slavery. (Something about "negroes' brains are smaller". )

I just don't understand how anyone can take either side when they're so opposed. I say we let them figure it the heck out before we do anything that isn't common sense. Make some changes to stop hurting the Earth, but the really hard stuff can wait until everyone's sure.

And Drew, don't go on about peer-reviewed stuff. If your peers heatedly disagree with you, you can't get it properly (read: impartially) reviewed, no matter how right or wrong you are. It's not a valid argument in this case, unless you're going for "majority rules", which is not an indicator for whether something is right or wrong.

 

Everyone needs to sit back in their central air conditioning homes at their PC's that are perpetually on while their parents go get groceries in big ol' Suburbans. We can all agree that before Waterworld or Steel Dawn kill us we'll be livin (or dead) per Mad Max.

PS- If you get it I'll mail you a cigar to add to the Greenhouse effect.

PPS- There is always a middle ground, our country's people are seeing more and more in terms of Black and White and THAT is what will ruin the legacy of Washington's grayscale democracy. Long Live the Red, White, and Blue.

 

Peer review exists because scientists and doctors have often tried to mislead those who have no education on the subject. Dr. Atkins looks like he's making sound science to a layman when he talks about his diet, but his diet has been repeatedly and unequivocally proven to be very dangerous.....even deadly. The American Diatetics Association (ADA) consider men like Dr. Atkins (who, ironically enough, died of heart disease and was also clinically obese when he died) and Barry Sears (who isn't even a medical doctor) dangerous threats to the overall health of America.....since a layman is unable to recognize their "science" for the dangerous that it actually is. Atkins actually talks about purposely causing ketosis as if it were a good thing (it isn't.....and a layman is unlikely to be aware of that fact).

On to your comments about the "bias" of peer review......scientists are a hell of a lot more impartial than politicians and untrained non-experts on the subject. Sinced you and I lack the scientific knowledge and training to judge a scientific study solely on its scientific merit, peer review exists to protect you and me from bad science. By the way.......you brought up peer review this time.

[ June 24, 2006, 01:59: Message edited by: Drew ]