Global warming

[nutball]

we have hard data showing that it has in fact warmed.

Not "in any given period" we don't. We have evidence that the planet has both warmed and cooled in any arbitrary period you might like to choose.

Fox living up to its self-professed "balanced" ideal as usual, I see.

I'm no fan of Murdoch and his little wizards and familiars but

"refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period"

sounds to me like they're asserting that they should refrain from asserting anything. Which would be a good thing for any media organisation. Whether this happens in practice remains to be seen of course.

 

[Grall]

It can't both warm AND cool in the same timespan. It has to be either one or the other. If you want to nitpick, you might say in any given timespan it first warms, then cools, then warms...etc, however the net sum of all changes cannot be both warming AND cooling at the same time. It's like force vector addition, elementary highschool physics.

And we have evidence the earth has warmed in the modern industrial era, so disputing that kind of makes people into little don quijotes, flailing at windmills.

 

[KimB]

"refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period"

sounds to me like they're asserting that they should refrain from asserting anything. Which would be a good thing for any media organisation. Whether this happens in practice remains to be seen of course.

I don't think so. A news organization should be dedicated to the truth. Explicitly saying that they aren't going to bother to uncover the truth in this regard means that they are abrogating their responsibility.

Of course, it's not like Fox News has ever cared about the truth.

 

[NRP]

He he, might want to use "fact" rather than "truth", Chal. "Truth" too often has religious connotations.

 

[KimB]

He he, might want to use "fact" rather than "truth", Chal. "Truth" too often has religious connotations.

I don't agree with that. Facts are simple, uninteresting. They're just simple lists of information. "Truth" can include things like explanations of facts. In this case, for instance, that humans are causing global warming is the most parsimonious explanation for a wide array of facts.

Furthermore, it is entirely possible, through the selective reporting of facts, to provide a completely distorted picture. For instance, take what Andrew Breitbart has done: he made a name for himself by making the video of the "sting" operation that brought down Acorn. Technically, everything in the video was a fact by definition. But the video was artfully edited to leave out many crucial facts to distort the truth.

Dedication to the truth means not only listing facts, but also ensuring that the viewer doesn't get a distorted view of reality from those facts listed. Furthermore, a news organization should also be dedicated to uncovering truth that people would otherwise prefer to keep hidden, something that the mainstream US news has been woefully inadequate at doing (e.g. the NY Times asked the Obama administration for permission to publish the Wikileaks info).

 

[Sxotty]

That is a foolish notion.

News organizations should be focused on describing how to make chemical weapons systems. That is a truth that people would prefer to keep hidden. Let's uncover it quick. Just because people would prefer to keep something hidden does not automatically make it something the news should waste time with. Though by your definition they certainly make a huge effort at uncovering truths that celebrities would prefer remain hidden. That should warm your heart at least. To bad some things are more important than others. And whether people would prefer it to be hidden is not the litmus test. There are plenty of topics that are important and uncorrelated to the desire for discretion.

 

[KimB]

News organizations should be focused on describing how to make chemical weapons systems. That is a truth that people would prefer to keep hidden. Let's uncover it quick. Just because people would prefer to keep something hidden does not automatically make it something the news should waste time with.

Yeah, um, the news is absolutely terrible at providing detailed technical information on any subject. I don't think anything the news reports could make it easier to build chemical weapons systems. The vast majority of the information required would be found in standard chemical engineering classes coupled with historical information about previous chemicals used.

Though by your definition they certainly make a huge effort at uncovering truths that celebrities would prefer remain hidden. That should warm your heart at least. To bad some things are more important than others. And whether people would prefer it to be hidden is not the litmus test. There are plenty of topics that are important and uncorrelated to the desire for discretion.

Well, I'm a big fan of personal privacy. But not of government secrets, or of business secrets.

 

[Squilliam]

Chalnoth, get the HELL out of my thread.

Its funny when you read the comments of any climate change news article it is full of people spouting nonsense. It's like even worse than Apple iPad or iPhone news articles even!

 

[corduroygt]

I remember seeing some sort of map that actually showed North America has cooled but other parts of the world warmed up, which caused the average trend towards warming.

 

[KimB]

I remember seeing some sort of map that actually showed North America has cooled but other parts of the world warmed up, which caused the average trend towards warming.

Well, for the most part this isn't the case. This happened to be the case last winter, due to an extremely weak arctic wind pattern that dumped cold wind into lower latitudes that is usually bottled up in the arctic.

On average, North America, including the US, is warming. But there still remains local variability so there will still be cold winters. They don't happen as often as they used to, but they still happen.

 

[zed]

Yeah, um, the news is absolutely terrible at providing detailed technical information on any subject.

well thats not the main reason that statement is stopid, the main reason is describing how a chemical weapon is made is not actually news!
stuff like that belongs in technical/learning manuals etc
news is chiefly reporting on current events etc

 

[Gubbi]

I remember seeing some sort of map that actually showed North America has cooled but other parts of the world warmed up, which caused the average trend towards warming.

This year's arctic oscillation (so far)

Last year.

Cheers

 

[KimB]

This year's arctic oscillation (so far)

Last year.

Cheers

Ah, interesting. I spent a few moments looking for the current AO index, but came up empty. I was curious whether or not we had the same thing all over again. Seems like we do...

 

[Squilliam]

Im going to blame Chalnoth for making the humid weather im experiencing. If someone must be held responsible it ought to be him.

I also hold him responsible for the loop hole in Cancun which enables countries to not set a 2nd round of targets once these expire.

Furthermore Chalnoth is responsible for all the people who say that extreme weather events are entirely attributable to climate change.

IMO Chalnoth has a lot to answer for.

 

[epicstruggle]

from the year 2000....
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

From the year 2010:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...akes-on-start-of-the-big-getaway-2163615.html

December 2010 is "almost certain" to be the coldest since records began in 1910, according to the Met Office.

Weathermen suggested that some parts of the south of England could see further snowfalls of up to 10 inches (25cm) today. Blizzards of heavy snow and ice are expected to bring further disruption over the next two days to roads, rail and flight services, particularly at Gatwick, as well as to retailers on the busiest shopping weekend of the calendar. Police in Northern Ireland – where conditions are said to be the worst in 25 years – and parts of Scotland were warning people against non-essential travel.

 

[Grall]

Epicnonsense joins the climate denialists; cannot distinguish between climate and weather.

The now-famous arctic oscillation which made last winter so cold and snowy for much of Europe has oscillated in over us even earlier this year. Sweden's experienced the coldest early winter season since 1920-something. However, what does that have to do with anything? When the cold air sits over us, the warmer air will sit somewhere else.

Just because (smart) people call it "global warming" doesn't mean the entire globe will get warmer, all the time. However if you're a conservative who likes to drive big heavy cars with large-displacement 6/8 cylinder engines, it's more convenient to simply disregard anything that does not fit one's own world view.

 

[corduroygt]

Just because (smart) people call it "global warming" doesn't mean the entire globe will get warmer, all the time. However if you're a conservative who likes to drive big heavy cars with large-displacement 6/8 cylinder engines, it's more convenient to simply disregard anything that does not fit one's own world view.

Why should someone care if his lifestyle won't be affected negatively by a little warming (that he cannot tell anyway since last winter was cold) but any measure to combat it will cost him money?

I am unconvinced as someone living in Northeastern US as global warming is a bad thing. The earth has been warmer before, and had more CO2 before than today, and nothing bad happened. If some people in Africa might have to move because they'll get flooded, that's no reason for me to pay more taxes and give up the enjoyment in driving high powered cars. I have already fulfilled my desires to have and drive high powered cars, so I don't really care about that anymore anyway, but I am not going to pay extra to combat something that I believe that won't effect me in my lifetime.

 

[KimB]

Why should someone care if his lifestyle won't be affected negatively by a little warming (that he cannot tell anyway since last winter was cold) but any measure to combat it will cost him money?

Well, it may be somewhat difficult for people to understand how it will affect them, but the changes induced by global warming are broad and sweeping.

A few important ones are:
1. Rising sea levels. By the end of this century, sea levels are expected to rise around 1-2 meters. This will put a number of coastal cities largely underwater. Now, obviously the richer cities will build dikes, but as we found with Katrina, dikes sometimes fail. The sea level rise also means that any existing dikes will need to be increased in size by around this amount.
2. Severe weather events will become more frequent. This is already happening, as there has been a measurable shift in precipitation such that a larger percentage of precipitation falls during storms than used to. This includes hurricanes, but also smaller storms.
3. Dramatic shifts in possible crops in a given region. Farmers have already noted shifts in growing seasons, and within a few decades there will be dramatic shifts in what sorts of crops can be grown in various locations. The worst of this will be experienced in areas that face significant falls in precipitation that don't allow crops to be grown at all.

Anyway, those are just a few. For more:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

 

[rpg.314]

If some people in Africa have to move because they'll get flooded, that's no reason for me to pay more taxes and give up the enjoyment in driving high powered cars.

I don't know what to say.

 

[corduroygt]

Anyway, those are just a few. For more:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

Arctic Melt
+An ice-free Northwest Passage, providing a shipping shortcut between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (Kerr 2002, Stroeve 2008)
-Loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years (Amstrup 2007)

Now why is that a negative? Why should I care about polar bears?

Nobody was saying global warming was causing more climate variation a few years ago, then when the previously noticable warming trend of 2000-2008 gave way to nasty winter storms, then it was due to global warming that these weather patterns occured...too convenient.

Not to mention stuff like epicstruggle quoted where climate scientists said that we'd say goodbye to winter in a few years isn't really helping their credibility. Neither is Al Gore's massive carbon footprint, when he says everyone else should reduce their emissions. Pachuri's attempts at forcing his cow-worshipping religion to us by telling us to not eat meat is even worse. When you have a community represented by these nutjobs, it's hard to take them seriously.

I'm unconvinced that there's such a hurry to reduce emissions, and I'm definitely not paying a cent for it myself. I'm not going to increase my electric bill by 30% to get it from wind power until all cheaper energy resources are exhausted. I do use eco-bulbs and I do combine trips when I drive, because I want to save money. If you want to find a solution to the CO2 problem that everyone can get behind, start by finding an affordable and renewable energy source.