11 ms·

http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI Look at the Dow Jones index. If you look at it today, it looks lik

http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI Look at the Dow Jones index. If you look at it today, it looks like a dramatic drop. If you look at it in the span of several years, that drop looks somewhat trivial. Same thing goes for climate change. Go back 1 billion years, and you will find that the earth has warmed and cooled far more dramatically than in the last 100 years. I'm not denying anthropogenic global warming, I'm just saying that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. (And for the record, I'm not pushing one political agenda or the other, I'm just trying to look at a given data set rationally). Edit: either way, I encourage the pursuit of clean energy and reusable resources.

FollowSteph3 13y ago
Don't forget we're also near the end of a mini ice age so we should be expecting the earth to heat up. A lot of people forget this. Antarctica was once warm...
- gavanwoolery 13y ago
  By some predictions we are going into another mini-Ice Age (Ice Ages are typically preceded by climbing temperatures, which might seem counter-intuitive but a similar phenomenon is when you experience several warm, sunny days and then it suddenly gets very cold).
  - sxcurry 13y ago
    I guess I'm more likely to believe the climate scientists of the IPCC rather than "some predictions".
    - gavanwoolery 13y ago
      Evaluate all predictions critically, whichever side they are on. History has proven the minority right sometimes (again, I'm not suggesting one side or the other is right, I simply don't know who is right because I do not have a crystal ball).
- prawn 13y ago
  Climate scientists are very well aware of this.
  - archgoon 13y ago
    > Climate scientists are very well aware of this. For example, the IPCC report itself. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm
Loughla 13y ago
Okay? Why even bring this up unless trying to cast a disparaging light onto global warming? You are, in fact, denying human caused global warming in your last comment, "I'm just saying that correlation does not equal causation." Every time I see this argument it's usually the first statement in the 'human's aren't really causing global warming, so we shouldn't try to fix it' circle-jerk. What is the worst thing that happens if we try to address global warming, human caused or not? We get to keep the beneficial conditions that we've had since the beginning of humanity as we know it? Our children get to inherit a functioning and healthy planet? Society can continue on the way it has for many, many generations without plague or famine? Stop it.
- ars 13y ago
  It's horrible how climate change is now a religion not a science. "Deniers and believers".
  - teraflop 13y ago
    You could say the same about evolution; there are plenty of deniers there! But one side is much more responsible for turning into a religious issue than the other.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    Well-established scientific theories have long had deniers. That did not make them not science.
    - gfdgf546 13y ago
      Climate sensitivity is far from "well-established" science.
      - 13y ago
theknown99 13y ago
Also wouldn't it basically be unprecedented if the climate didn't change? Of course the climate is changing. Like it has done for millions of years. Big whoop.
pippy 13y ago
This is a ignorant response. The nature of climate change isn't the empirical data; that's simply validation of the various scientific models of the earths climate. To date our models have been fairly accurate and we've been predicting this as far back as the 1800's.
redthrowaway 13y ago
>I'm not denying anthropogenic global warming, I'm just saying that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Sounds a whole lot like you're trying to cast doubt on it. There's as close to a scientific consensus as you're likely to ever get that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and we're the cause of it.
- gavanwoolery 13y ago
  Doubt is very good. Doubt is the foundation of science (the consensus used to be that the earth was flat). Not doubting is when something becomes faith or religion. I don't care what side the coin lands on, I only care that the methods used to predict the coin toss are sound.
  - anodari 13y ago
    Excelent point, but unless I were a scientist studying the subject, I would not dare try to refute the opinion of most of the researchers in the field. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- brc 13y ago
  Consensus means nothing. If anything it encourages groupthink and makes doubt and scepticism unfashionable - which is the exact opposite to what you need for doing good science. What matters is predictions, hypotheses and observations. These are the essence of science. You should be making arguments based on how a hypothesis has been tested against real world observations, not how many people agree with a particular position. The parent quite rightfully points out that correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, and you want to ping them for casting doubt. What you should be doing, in the spirit of scientific enquiry, is trying to find out how, in this case, causation can be disproven, to better advance knowledge. Trying to throw someone from the temple for casting doubt belongs to religion, not science.
anodari 13y ago
Unfortunately, in this case there is a correlation: "In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
- gavanwoolery 13y ago
  Yes, the question of "Is there AGW?" is not a debate, at least among scientists. The important question is "how much do humans affect the warming of the earth?" To date, we have not been able to determine this accurately because there are so many factors (our CO2 emissions, emissions from cows, volcanoes, under-sea vents, emissions reduced by trees and plants, increased output from the sun, etc - let alone measuring one of these accurately across the globe). A million variables, no way to isolate any two of them. There might be a "consensus" but that does not guarantee accuracy - I encourage you to write a computer program that will determine the global temperature next year, and see how accurate your prediction is - you will likely find it impossible, because among other things you do not know which volcanoes will erupt and how much more radiation the sun will output. 10-20 years ago, the consensus was that sea levels would rise by a few meters, but that has not happened.
  - anodari 13y ago
    Ok, but it seems simple to calculate the CO2 produced by fossil fuels, since oil production is controlled by a handful of companies and require them to collect from our air the wastes of the product they sell, just as is done with producers batteries and tires.
- brc 13y ago
  Argument by consensus is simply argument by headcount. It isn't an argument. I can point out a long laundry list where the 'consensus' was completely wrong, yet every person with a letter behind their name supported it. Consensus doesn't prove anything but the fact that a bunch of people agree on something. It doesn't make that thing true or false.
ridicter 13y ago
Yes, the climate has fluctuated over geological time. Scientists know this. The difference is a) the rate at which it is warming and b) the fact that all living things have adapted to a completely different climate. Climate change means mass famines and suffering, mass disruptions in commerce as whole industries implode, increased conflicts over dwindling resources, and mass extinction. It's a big deal. As far as agriculture, crops have evolved to certain soil types and climactic conditions. For examples, yield rates are going down for grains like wheat due to warmer nights, and the soil in Iowa in 2012 was too hot for seeding corn! It won't be a simple as moving the crops northward as the world gets hotter: soil types and ecological conditions are important for crops too. As far as mass famine and suffering: whole countries will be wiped off the map. That means refugees. It means fewer resources for more people. As far as more more violence associated with climate change: see dwindling resources and refugees. The US Department of Defense predicts that there will be armed conflicts over desertifying regions, especially Africa, which experience some of the worst climate change [1]. The USDOD is not made up of hippies. As far as mass extinction: it's already happening. Due to CO2, the ocean is 30% more acidic than it was in the 70s, and the shell fish industry on the wet coast is dying [2]. (Shellfish are particularly sensitive to ocean acidficiation.) This is just the beginning, and the great coral reefs of the world are dying too.[3] Basically, in my view, climate change is the single most consequential event in human history, and its scope will extend beyond humans too. The aggregate pain and suffering and the unimaginable loss will have a profound effect on the human psyche. If anyone reading this is concerned, I urge them to join 350.org [4], which is a climate change activist organization. 350 is named after NASA scientist James Hansen's estimate for the upper bound of acceptable CO2 PPM for humanity to thrive in. We passed 400PPM in 2012; humanity evolved in the upper 200's. James Hansen was head of NASA's Goddard Institute before he retired to organize against climate change full time [5]. 350.org's main initiative at the moment is divestment: getting major educational institutions to divest from fossil fuels as a social statement. To sign the petition for your school, go to http://gofossilfree.org/ http://gofossilfree.org/ [6] . The climate change movement desperately needs conscientious, scientifically aware individuals to stand up! [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.ht... [2] http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/ http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/... [3] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-acidification-hits-great-barrier-reef/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-acidificatio... [4] http://350.org http://350.org [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Research_and_publications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Research_and_publi... [6] http://gofossilfree.org/ http://gofossilfree.org/
brc 13y ago
What you are saying is that the observed climate sensitivity to co2 has been much lower than the modeled climate sensitivity to co2. And that the earlier, alarming models showing large temperature rises are most likely to be incorrect for a variety of reasons. And on that basis the case for punitive taxation no longer makes sense, and attention should be focused on the development of alternative, efficient and productive energy sources. This should be regarded as a technology challenge, rather than a public policy crisis whereby the blunt instruments of taxation and regulation should force the use of inefficient and costly energy sources. And you'd be correct. You shouldn't be so shy about stating your position. I understand that stating a realist position has become unfashionable, but in the spirit of the PG essay 'What you can't say' [1] - I always make a point of saying the unfashionable thing. And that is that early models or climate sensitivity were wrong, and the public policy positions generated from those are counter-productive and ineffective. [1] http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html
ankitml 13y ago
Does the rate of temperature change matters? In all those billion years, the rate has never been so steep.
lutusp 13y ago
> Go back 1 billion years, and you will find that the earth has warmed and cooled far more dramatically than in the last 100 years. You're confusing a wide range of historical temperatures with a rate of change. Today's rate of change is unprecedented. A temperature change of 10 or 20 degrees Celsius over ten million years isn't likely to wipe out species, but that same change over 500 years is much more likely to greatly reduce populations of species that cannot adapt fast enough -- including us.

FollowSteph3 13y ago

Don't forget we're also near the end of a mini ice age so we should be expecting the earth to heat up. A lot of people forget this. Antarctica was once warm...

gavanwoolery 13y ago
By some predictions we are going into another mini-Ice Age (Ice Ages are typically preceded by climbing temperatures, which might seem counter-intuitive but a similar phenomenon is when you experience several warm, sunny days and then it suddenly gets very cold).
- sxcurry 13y ago
  I guess I'm more likely to believe the climate scientists of the IPCC rather than "some predictions".
  - gavanwoolery 13y ago
    Evaluate all predictions critically, whichever side they are on. History has proven the minority right sometimes (again, I'm not suggesting one side or the other is right, I simply don't know who is right because I do not have a crystal ball).
prawn 13y ago
Climate scientists are very well aware of this.
- archgoon 13y ago
  > Climate scientists are very well aware of this. For example, the IPCC report itself. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm

Loughla 13y ago

Okay? Why even bring this up unless trying to cast a disparaging light onto global warming? You are, in fact, denying human caused global warming in your last comment, "I'm just saying that correlation does not equal causation." Every time I see this argument it's usually the first statement in the 'human's aren't really causing global warming, so we shouldn't try to fix it' circle-jerk. What is the worst thing that happens if we try to address global warming, human caused or not? We get to keep the beneficial conditions that we've had since the beginning of humanity as we know it? Our children get to inherit a functioning and healthy planet? Society can continue on the way it has for many, many generations without plague or famine? Stop it.

ars 13y ago
It's horrible how climate change is now a religion not a science. "Deniers and believers".
- teraflop 13y ago
  You could say the same about evolution; there are plenty of deniers there! But one side is much more responsible for turning into a religious issue than the other.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Well-established scientific theories have long had deniers. That did not make them not science.
  - gfdgf546 13y ago
    Climate sensitivity is far from "well-established" science.
    - 13y ago

theknown99 13y ago

Also wouldn't it basically be unprecedented if the climate didn't change? Of course the climate is changing. Like it has done for millions of years. Big whoop.

pippy 13y ago

This is a ignorant response. The nature of climate change isn't the empirical data; that's simply validation of the various scientific models of the earths climate. To date our models have been fairly accurate and we've been predicting this as far back as the 1800's.

redthrowaway 13y ago

>I'm not denying anthropogenic global warming, I'm just saying that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Sounds a whole lot like you're trying to cast doubt on it. There's as close to a scientific consensus as you're likely to ever get that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and we're the cause of it.

gavanwoolery 13y ago
Doubt is very good. Doubt is the foundation of science (the consensus used to be that the earth was flat). Not doubting is when something becomes faith or religion. I don't care what side the coin lands on, I only care that the methods used to predict the coin toss are sound.
- anodari 13y ago
  Excelent point, but unless I were a scientist studying the subject, I would not dare try to refute the opinion of most of the researchers in the field. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
brc 13y ago
Consensus means nothing. If anything it encourages groupthink and makes doubt and scepticism unfashionable - which is the exact opposite to what you need for doing good science. What matters is predictions, hypotheses and observations. These are the essence of science. You should be making arguments based on how a hypothesis has been tested against real world observations, not how many people agree with a particular position. The parent quite rightfully points out that correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, and you want to ping them for casting doubt. What you should be doing, in the spirit of scientific enquiry, is trying to find out how, in this case, causation can be disproven, to better advance knowledge. Trying to throw someone from the temple for casting doubt belongs to religion, not science.

anodari 13y ago

Unfortunately, in this case there is a correlation: "In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

gavanwoolery 13y ago
Yes, the question of "Is there AGW?" is not a debate, at least among scientists. The important question is "how much do humans affect the warming of the earth?" To date, we have not been able to determine this accurately because there are so many factors (our CO2 emissions, emissions from cows, volcanoes, under-sea vents, emissions reduced by trees and plants, increased output from the sun, etc - let alone measuring one of these accurately across the globe). A million variables, no way to isolate any two of them. There might be a "consensus" but that does not guarantee accuracy - I encourage you to write a computer program that will determine the global temperature next year, and see how accurate your prediction is - you will likely find it impossible, because among other things you do not know which volcanoes will erupt and how much more radiation the sun will output. 10-20 years ago, the consensus was that sea levels would rise by a few meters, but that has not happened.
- anodari 13y ago
  Ok, but it seems simple to calculate the CO2 produced by fossil fuels, since oil production is controlled by a handful of companies and require them to collect from our air the wastes of the product they sell, just as is done with producers batteries and tires.
brc 13y ago
Argument by consensus is simply argument by headcount. It isn't an argument. I can point out a long laundry list where the 'consensus' was completely wrong, yet every person with a letter behind their name supported it. Consensus doesn't prove anything but the fact that a bunch of people agree on something. It doesn't make that thing true or false.

ridicter 13y ago

Yes, the climate has fluctuated over geological time. Scientists know this. The difference is a) the rate at which it is warming and b) the fact that all living things have adapted to a completely different climate. Climate change means mass famines and suffering, mass disruptions in commerce as whole industries implode, increased conflicts over dwindling resources, and mass extinction. It's a big deal. As far as agriculture, crops have evolved to certain soil types and climactic conditions. For examples, yield rates are going down for grains like wheat due to warmer nights, and the soil in Iowa in 2012 was too hot for seeding corn! It won't be a simple as moving the crops northward as the world gets hotter: soil types and ecological conditions are important for crops too. As far as mass famine and suffering: whole countries will be wiped off the map. That means refugees. It means fewer resources for more people. As far as more more violence associated with climate change: see dwindling resources and refugees. The US Department of Defense predicts that there will be armed conflicts over desertifying regions, especially Africa, which experience some of the worst climate change [1]. The USDOD is not made up of hippies. As far as mass extinction: it's already happening. Due to CO2, the ocean is 30% more acidic than it was in the 70s, and the shell fish industry on the wet coast is dying [2]. (Shellfish are particularly sensitive to ocean acidficiation.) This is just the beginning, and the great coral reefs of the world are dying too.[3] Basically, in my view, climate change is the single most consequential event in human history, and its scope will extend beyond humans too. The aggregate pain and suffering and the unimaginable loss will have a profound effect on the human psyche. If anyone reading this is concerned, I urge them to join 350.org [4], which is a climate change activist organization. 350 is named after NASA scientist James Hansen's estimate for the upper bound of acceptable CO2 PPM for humanity to thrive in. We passed 400PPM in 2012; humanity evolved in the upper 200's. James Hansen was head of NASA's Goddard Institute before he retired to organize against climate change full time [5]. 350.org's main initiative at the moment is divestment: getting major educational institutions to divest from fossil fuels as a social statement. To sign the petition for your school, go to http://gofossilfree.org/ http://gofossilfree.org/ [6] . The climate change movement desperately needs conscientious, scientifically aware individuals to stand up! [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.ht... [2] http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/ http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/... [3] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-acidification-hits-great-barrier-reef/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-acidificatio... [4] http://350.org http://350.org [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Research_and_publications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Research_and_publi... [6] http://gofossilfree.org/ http://gofossilfree.org/

brc 13y ago

What you are saying is that the observed climate sensitivity to co2 has been much lower than the modeled climate sensitivity to co2. And that the earlier, alarming models showing large temperature rises are most likely to be incorrect for a variety of reasons. And on that basis the case for punitive taxation no longer makes sense, and attention should be focused on the development of alternative, efficient and productive energy sources. This should be regarded as a technology challenge, rather than a public policy crisis whereby the blunt instruments of taxation and regulation should force the use of inefficient and costly energy sources. And you'd be correct. You shouldn't be so shy about stating your position. I understand that stating a realist position has become unfashionable, but in the spirit of the PG essay 'What you can't say' [1] - I always make a point of saying the unfashionable thing. And that is that early models or climate sensitivity were wrong, and the public policy positions generated from those are counter-productive and ineffective. [1] http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html

ankitml 13y ago

Does the rate of temperature change matters? In all those billion years, the rate has never been so steep.

lutusp 13y ago

> Go back 1 billion years, and you will find that the earth has warmed and cooled far more dramatically than in the last 100 years. You're confusing a wide range of historical temperatures with a rate of change. Today's rate of change is unprecedented. A temperature change of 10 or 20 degrees Celsius over ten million years isn't likely to wipe out species, but that same change over 500 years is much more likely to greatly reduce populations of species that cannot adapt fast enough -- including us.