Print 92 comment(s) - last by ArcliteHawaii.. on Aug 12 at 5:49 PM

The past 30 years has seen more "hot" (orange), "very hot" (red) and "extremely hot" (brown) summers, compared to a base period defined in this study from 1951 to 1980  (Source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio)
Hotter summers have become the norm from 1980 to present compared to 1951 to 1980 (the base period)

NASA researchers have claimed to find new evidence for everyone's favorite topic: global warming
James Hansen, study leader from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), as well as GISS researchers Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy, have concluded that summer heat waves (mainly in the U.S. Midwest) have become the norm over the last 30 years compared to a base period 30 years before 1980 -- and it's because of global warming. 
Their study works like this: the team collected mean summer temperatures from 1951 to 1980. This was considered the base period for the study. They then looked at the surface temperature data from the last 30 years (1980 until now) to determine whether extreme heat events were increasing. 
From there, the team wanted to see how much heating and cooling occurred in both time periods. To do this, they used a bell curve, which is a common tool that places the middle ground at the top of the bell (for instance, if this were a grading curve, a "C" would be at the top while the next tier down on each side would be a "B" and a "D," and the bottom of the bell would be an "A" and an "F). In this case, the top of the bell would be mean temperature, the next tier down would be "cold" on one side and "hot" on the other, then "very cold" and "extremely cold" on one side moving down while "very hot" and "extremely hot" are moving down the bell on the other side. 
Researchers then applied mean temperatures from 1980 until present, and found that 1980s, 1990s and 2000s fell more to the hot side than cold. The curve widened and flattened as well, which means there was a broader range of variability. This is important because Hansen once predicted that global warming's connection to extreme events would become more apparent in the decades from 1980 to present, but natural variability can play a role too and actually mask the trend. It was important to distinguish the two. 
This wider curve created the new "extremely hot" category, which was barely there in the base period. However, hot has become considered normal in the last 30 years. To be more specific, 75 percent of land area on Earth had "hot" summers in the last decade alone, where only 33 percent had "hot" summers from 1951 to 1980 total. 
According to the researchers, an "extremely hot" summer is considered a mean summer temperature that is experienced by less than one percent of Earth's land area during the base period. But since 2006 alone, approximately 10 percent of land area across the Northern Hemisphere had a summer like this. 
"This summer, people are seeing extreme heat and agricultural impacts," said Hansen. "We're asserting that this is casually connected to global warming, and in this paper, we present the scientific evidence for that."
The study noted "extremely hot" summers in other areas besides just the U.S. Midwest, like Texas, Mexico and Oklahoma in 2011 and Eastern Europe, Western Asia and the Middle East in 2010.
This study was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Source: Science Daily

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Cherry picking
By Tony Swash on 8/7/2012 1:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, a period of fourteen years has no statistical significance whatsoever but a period from 1980 to 2000 does.

Why were those start and end dates selected? Because the period between the late 1940s and the late 1970s was a period of global cooling. Then there is a period of about twenty years of gentle warming, then about fifteen years with no temperature trend at all. So in the sixty years since World War II there has only been a short period of twenty years when there was some warming and that warming appears to have stopped fifteen years ago.

This sort of stuff from ideologues and political activists at NSA such as James Hansen is just PR and spin, it is not science.

There are those from the NASA camp that are getting very impatient with this sort of stuff, the recent statement from 50 former astronauts and scientists - including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center which said:

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

The letter was signed by seven Apollo astronauts, a deputy associate administrator, several scientists, and even the deputy director of the space shuttle program.

NASA had no immediate comment

RE: Cherry picking
By Dr of crap on 8/7/12, Rating: -1
RE: Cherry picking
By Tony Swash on 8/7/2012 2:35:27 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe I failed to express myself correctly, maybe you failed to read me correctly. I am a climate change sceptic. I think this latest piece of shite from Hansen is pure propaganda. NASA need to clean their stable.

RE: Cherry picking
By WalksTheWalk on 8/7/12, Rating: 0
RE: Cherry picking
By km9v on 8/7/2012 2:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
Let's face it, 30 or so yrs. of temp. data is statistically insignificant in the big picture. Yes, the climate changes. We are currently between ice ages. It gets hot, it gets cold.

RE: Cherry picking
By Arsynic on 8/7/2012 3:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
Irrelevant. The tiny data set compared to the age of the Earth makes any argument they make irrelevant.

RE: Cherry picking
By geddarkstorm on 8/7/2012 4:48:45 PM , Rating: 5
It is hilarious the small year range they used, excluding the hotter 1930's or the flatter temps since the 2000's. Oh, and the fact the entire southern hemisphere was ignored, despite there being data for it.

How did this pass peer-review?

RE: Cherry picking
By DennisB on 8/9/2012 5:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
It is hilarious the small year range they used, excluding the hotter 1930's

What most people ignore is WWII increased fuel consumption like x000% which does give a very nice spike in the data.
That's the most proof of relation between fossil fuel and temp change.

RE: Cherry picking
By geddarkstorm on 8/9/2012 1:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
Spike in the data? That begins in the 1930s and ending in the early 1940s. Or do you mean the sudden negative spike, cold snap that dropped global temperatures considerably down starting around 1945/1947, and persisted all the way through the 1970s?

RE: Cherry picking
By Dr. Rae on 8/8/2012 11:04:52 AM , Rating: 1
2005 was the hottest year globally, and 2009 the second hottest. The issue is called GLOBAL warming, not USA warming, not ocean warming, not surface air warming, not land warming. GLOBAL warming. See Murphy 2009, Fawcett & James 2008, Fawcettt 2007, ECMWF 2009.
If you must obsess over land temperatures, May 2012 was the warmest on record (NOAA), 1.21C above normal. If you must look only at the northern hemisphere land, May 2012 was the warmest on record (NOAA), 0.85C above norm.
The data is public, from the Met (UK), NASA, NOAA, Hadley Centre (UK), BEST... HADCRUT says 1998 was the warmest, but it had far fewer sampling stations than the others, missing swaths of Canada, Russia, Africa.
You are cherry picking one set of data, one that is well explained by ECMWF.
Science is about looking at the largest possible, well collected data sets and trying to make sense of them. NO explanation fits the data better than AGW.
While Africa starves, America burns, Canada has less food, China droughts... Nero fiddles (plays his cithara) and eats cherries.

RE: Cherry picking
By amosbatto on 8/9/2012 1:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, a period of fourteen years has no statistical significance whatsoever but a period from 1980 to 2000 does.

You are wrong. If Hansen had chosen the years 1998-2012, then the trend toward global warming would have been even stronger. See:

1980 is the year when the global warming trend became very clear, but in 1998 the average global temperatures rose significantly. 1998 and 20005 were the two warmest years since the thermometer was invented (although 2012 is on track to be even warmer still).

The letter was signed by seven Apollo astronauts, a deputy associate administrator, several scientists, and even the deputy director of the space shuttle program.

Sorry, but those people aren't experts in this field of study. The question is whether they have found problems with the methodology used by Hansen. They have failed to show why Hansen's science is wrong. Lots of people would like Hansen to be wrong, but his work has consistently stood up to peer-review by the top climate scientists. You should read his scientific articles (or at least his book Storms of My Grandchildren) before defaming the man. He is a very careful scientist.

RE: Cherry picking
By KoS on 8/9/2012 6:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ya right Hansen is solid person. Some people would disagree. Take a read...

Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7 also recently chastised Hansen. “Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him,” Cunningham wrote in an essay in the July/August 2008 issue of Launch Magazine. “NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science,” Cunningham wrote.

[Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and is formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]

I really wish I could find the link to a video where a sentor talked about himself and Hansen deciding to have that infamous 88 meeting. But here is a link referencing what I have mentioned....

“We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room.”

RE: Cherry picking
By amosbatto on 8/9/2012 9:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
The article you site does little to prove your argument. First of all, Walter Cunningham has never published a peer-reviewed article on the climate (at least I couldn't find any with a Google search and a search through Cunningham's bio). The only place he seems to have published an article is the Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank. I downloaded the PDF of his article:

A quick read found a number of problems with his arguments. For example, he writes the article in 2010, but he chooses to use a temperature graph published in 1998, which doesn't show recent warming and is based on proxy data which has had significant revision since the late 90s. If he were being honest, he would have chosen a recent graph with the latest science. I'm not sure what temperature is being measured in Figure 1, but at -32C it clearly isn't the global average for the whole Earth.

Then he argues that CO2 levels do not cause temperature change and that correlation is not the same as causation. The problem with this argument is that scientists have proven that CO2 does hold heat (unlike many other gasses) and that we have millions of years of correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. Then he goes on to use graphs from Willie Soon purporting to show that the sun causes global warming, not CO2. These arguments by Soon were thoroughly debunked back in 2003. See:
Cunningham should be embarrassed to even use these arguments in a 2010 paper.

Then, Cunningham argues "In reality, water vapor has more than twice the impact on temperature as atmospheric CO2". Yes, it is true that water vapor holds twice the amount of atmospheric heat as CO2, and no climate scientist denies that fact, however water vapor is not the *cause* of global warming. Cunningham makes no attempt to show that water vapor is causing global warming, because he knows that he can't. The 4% extra water vapor in the atmosphere today is caused by rising temperatures. It is the effect, not the cause.

Cunningham then argues that CO2 levels can't cause temperature
increases, because: "it becomes clear that temperature
increases have preceded high CO2 levels by anywhere from 100 to 800
years, suggesting that higher temperatures cause CO2 levels to rise, rather than vice versa." Yes, this is true, and the reasons that temperature rises right before CO2 rises has already been explained by many climate scientists including Hansen. This argument doesn't debunk CO2 as the cause of global warming.

I don't know where Cunningham got Figure 4 in his article, but its temperature numbers do not correspond to any published graphs that I have seen in other places. Since it was published in 2001, I suspect that it is using proxy temperature data that is no longer considered accurate. Cunningham could have chosen more recent and accurate temperature proxy data, but that data would have disproven his argument.

In figure 5, Cunningham cherry picks one temperature graph in a particular location to prove that there has been very little warming. Actually the graph disproves his point showing an average 0.3C rise between 1979 and 2009, but if he shown a graph of global average temperatures, we would see a 0.5C rise.

On page 12, Cunningham sites a 2009 report on Antarctica with all sorts of quotations which directly contradict the known science on the Antarctica, however the source for these quotes was not the report itself but simply a list of quotes compiled by people who are known to be funded by petroleum companies. See what wikipedia has to say about one of the authors:

Judging from Cunningham's paper, I can only conclude that Cunningham is more interested in producing propaganda than real science.

As for the other people quoted in the article that you linked to, Joe Romm has written a good article showing that the New York Times' reporter Revkin was misquoted and wasn't really saying those things about Hansen. See:

Hansen has frequently been far ahead of his fellow scientists in his predictions, but history has proven him right. For example, he was saying that we should aim for 350 ppm of CO2 when other scientists were saying 450 or 550ppm. Today, most scientists have come to believe that Hansen was right. Saying that Hansen thinks that sea rise will be faster than most models predict does not make him wrong. In fact, ice is currently melting far faster than most scientists predicted and the predictions of Hansen on the speed of ice melt are currently happening.

Your article also quotes Dr Theon at great length. Here is what Romm has to say about Theon:
Note: On RealClimate, NASA's Gavin Schmidt writes: "Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator)."

Look, if you want to convince anyone, you have to site peer-reviewed studies which debunk Hansen's work, not retired nobodies who have never published any serious work on climate science. Otherwise, you are just repeating propaganda from right-wing think tanks and politicians.

RE: Cherry picking
By KoS on 8/10/2012 8:52:12 AM , Rating: 2
And the other gentlemen? Or just picking on the low hanging fruit?

Peer review doesn't mean much in my book. They are gate keepers, if they don't like something(based on personal views), it doesn't get past them. And it does happen. I know, those in the bubble think the peer-review is the holy grail.

I remember arguing with a Poli-Sci professor about the validity of polls. He swore they were the greatest thing since slice bread and how accurate they reflected what was going on. Well, a few months after that, he was on radio talking about how surpurising the local election results were. The results didn't match up with the polls, it couldn't be, the polls said it was suppose to be x, but in reality it was y.

When uncertain language is used, like possible, potential and the like. I don't trust the findings.

In the end, when I have climate scientists tell me in private they dont' really know for 100% for sure what is going on. Models have about 14 variables they are making assumptions on. There are problems basing our future or policy on, if that is the case.

In the end, let the planet warm. I will enjoy the weather! Right now, people in positions of authority, leadership and the like, really can't be trusted. They will need to re-earn that trust before I move on anything they wish.

RE: Cherry picking
By amosbatto on 8/10/2012 4:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
Peer review doesn't mean much in my book. They are gate keepers, if they don't like something(based on personal views), it doesn't get past them. And it does happen. I know, those in the bubble think the peer-review is the holy grail.

Many climate change skeptics seem to think that there is a grand conspiracy to exclude any science which casts doubt on the consensus because it would threatens all their research funding.

The problem with that theory is that a large percentage of funding institutions which would love climate change to not be true and they would gladly fund their research if it were even remotely credible. The Koch brothers are funding anything which looks like it could disprove climate change and Exxon has funded a whole lot of junk science.

Anyone who could truly prove that global warming were a hoax would win wide acclaim and probably win a Nobel Prize for his work. The whole world would be so glad if the science could be disproven, because it would mean that we could avoid all sorts of difficult changes. Look at how hard the politicians are trying to avoid actually doing anything about climate change except talk. Most corporations would love climate change not to true, because they wouldn't have to change their business plans for the next 50 years.

The idea that a couple thousand scientists would conspire to hoodwink the entire world is pretty far-fetched, especially when a lot of their data is in the public domain. What makes it even more unlikely is that their funders (governments and corporations) would love climate change to not be real. The fact that scientists keep coming to conclusions that almost everyone hates should tell you that they are probably telling the truth.

Aside from all that, you can verify a number of things with your own eyes. Look at the number of hurricanes, heat waves and floods that are occurring compared to 50 years ago. Look at all the extreme weather that is occurring which is exactly what Hansen predicted back in 1988. Look at how the coral reefs are bleaching and how animals are migrating. These are things which you can verify yourself.

When uncertain language is used, like possible, potential and the like. I don't trust the findings.

Uncertain language is how science works when you are dealing with natural systems. This isn't the real of pure mathematics, but the messy real world. It is almost impossible to have 100% certainty, but as Bill McKibben noted, the chance that the world would have 327 months in a row with temperatures above the 20th century average is 1 in a google (1 followed by a 100 zeros).

In the end, when I have climate scientists tell me in private they dont' really know for 100% for sure what is going on. Models have about 14 variables they are making assumptions on. There are problems basing our future or policy on, if that is the case.

Yep, and they don't just say it privately. James Hansen notes many limitations of climate models in his book, Storms of My Grandchildren (p. 44, 74, 75-6, 81-2, 226), and he was one of the first to work on climate models. Hansen is the first point out that the models are based upon assumptions and there are many things that the modelers don't know. Hansen says that research priority should be placed in this order:
1. accurate measurement of the current atmosphere,
2. study of the Earth's history,
3. climate models
He trusts climate models the least of the three and thinks they must be constantly verified by current measurements and the Earth's history.

Hansen is up front about the problems with climate modeling:
Thirty years later, models alone still cannot do much better. Here is another killer: Even as our understanding of some feedbacks improves, we don't know what we don't know--there may be other feedbacks. Climate sensitivity will never be defined accurately by models. (p 44)

Climate Change
By homernoy on 8/7/2012 1:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
I was under the impression that the term Global Warming was being replaced by the more accurate term Climate Change. I guess I was wrong.

RE: Climate Change
By Camikazi on 8/7/2012 2:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
Guessing Global Warming seems more menacing and will scare people into giving them more money.

RE: Climate Change
By ClownPuncher on 8/7/2012 3:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
It's isn't global. It got cooler where I live!

RE: Climate Change
By homernoy on 8/7/2012 4:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
You must live in the PNW too.

RE: Climate Change
By Noya on 8/9/2012 6:13:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I live in PNW and I miss having a hot summer! June and July were barely warm, finally had some 90's this past week. Crazy. More like Global Cooling.

RE: Climate Change
By TSS on 8/7/2012 5:23:21 PM , Rating: 5
No because the researchers belive the earth is warming and thus call it global warming. That they are trying to find evidence to support a theory rather then the other way around, which would be proper science, isn't relevant. You call it what you belive it to be (in other words atleast they still have beliefs).

Climate change is used by people who know the data itself is faulty (the decrease in global temperature measuring stations since the 80's) but still want the money, power and control climate research currently has.

The title of this artile isn't either though. It's just plain stupid. Really Tiffany, it is sheer stupidity. Read it again:

"Hotter Summers Since 1980 Caused by Global Warming"

So i take it hotter summers before 1980 where caused by global cooling? Or having hotter summers, one summer actually being warmer then the previous one, never occurred before 1980? Or are hotter summers in general caused by a global warming of the earth? Did global warming have no effect on hotter summers before 1980?

I vote this to be the most ridicolous title DT has had so far, and it's had quite a few.

RE: Climate Change
By amosbatto on 8/9/2012 1:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
There is no contradiction here, since both Global Warming and Global Climate Change are occurring. The average global temperatures are rising. At the same time, we are having more extreme weather events. For example, the warmer temperatures are causing the atmosphere to hold 4% more water than they used to and stronger winds. That means that we have more hurricanes and violent thunderstorms. It also means more rapid evaporation and a shifting of rain patterns which causes more drought. The question is how are scientists communicating the facts to the public.

By Denigrate on 8/7/2012 2:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but this does not back up the thoughts on mankind destroying the earth so it can't be correct. Not that I think we shouldn't be good stewards of the earth and be on the hunt for better sources of energy.

By dgingerich on 8/7/2012 4:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'd never heard about this study before. This is some really useful information. Thanks.

By DennisB on 8/9/2012 5:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
I think this 2000 years of data is a better sample

No, because it's only for one location. To proof or disproof global change you gotta collect from all location and take the average.

Hansen's cherry picking
By ThreatcoreNews on 8/8/2012 7:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
Why does DT cite these studies when they are flawed????

Notice the missing Southern Hemisphere data. If you're going to talk about 'global' warming, you MUST account for the entire globe. And why is the sea ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere reaching record levels?

RE: Hansen's cherry picking
By sorry dog on 8/8/2012 9:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about DT but I always love studies about casual relationships, because everybody knows it's better to have a casual relationship than serious one.

RE: Hansen's cherry picking
By amosbatto on 8/9/2012 1:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
These studies do take into account the southern hemisphere. Look at the data that NASA is using:

If you look at the 3 graphs in the "Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands" section, you can see that the southern latitudes are also experiencing global warming, but not as fast as the northern latitudes. Part of the reason is that the northern hemisphere has large amounts of landmass in the Arctic region, where global warming is much stronger. Another thing to keep in mind, is that you have to look at the earth as a whole over many years. For example, There is a part of Antarctica which is currently getting cooler, but that is not the global trend.

By Cascader on 8/8/2012 5:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
Almost all of the carbon based fuels we are burning were initially created during a period of extreme global warming when co2 levels and sea levels were extremely high. This is a proven geologic fact. Common sense would dictate burning and releasing this carbon into the atmosphere will elevate co2 levels and return us to similar conditions.

The particles released when burning coal also block incoming sunlight... up to 20% to be exact. This is a seldom discussed phenomena known as global dimming.

To say 7billion human beings and their zeal for consumption will not negatively affect our environment is sheer lunacy. It truly speaks to the ignorance and selfishness of modern society.

Feel free to dismiss these global warming and refuse to take meaningful action. There's a growing suspicion the economy is currently encountering hard limits to growth. Inevitably the naysayers will be forced to give up their consumptive lifestyles whether they want to or not.

RE: Lunacy
By dgingerich on 8/8/2012 6:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
That period was also a period of huge proliferation of life, which is the reason we have the coal and oil. There were huge freshwater swamps throughout the world (which made the coal) and huge areas of high concentrations of algae, with dead zones underneath it (that formed our oil.)

In addition, there is a lot of CO2 that was loose back then that is now locked in coral reefs. So it can't get as high as it was 350 million years ago.

I'd say we'd be better off with such conditions. the ice ages wouldn't be so quick to return, we'd have longer growing seasons and many areas where we could grow a lot of our food year round, and human life would have a better chance to grow and flourish.

RE: Lunacy
By ArcliteHawaii on 8/12/2012 5:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
An increase in global temperature is not to be welcomed. Whenever you increase the energy in a system you increase the disorder and chaos.
* More heat will result in more extreme weather events like tornadoes and hurricanes.
* The rise in the sea levels will reduce the land available for an increasing global population
* Rising sea levels will also inundate fresh water aquifers with salt water, further reducing an already shrinking amount of fresh water on the planet.
* The increase in temperature will cause further drought and desertification of America's breadbasket and that of other countries pushing arable land further north. This land is less productive due to it's acute angle to the sun. Food will be more expensive or even unavailable.
* In addition the heat makes hard to treat tropical diseases more widespread. Already cases of west Nile and malaria are spreading in the US due to the increased average temps.

GLobal Warming
By Jay Mack on 8/7/2012 2:59:01 PM , Rating: 3
Of course, anything getting hotter is warming. It's a trivial observation. The issue is, whether it is attributable to man made CO2 EMISSIONS and, concurrently, whether Cap and Trade legislation will reverse it, assuming it is undesireable.

But if it is man made, which it may not be, it is likely attributeable to deforestation, primarily in the third world, and/or excessive pavement, highways, roads and parking lots, everywhere. Forests normally sink CO2. Pavement, the heat island effect, is local, but as the locality becomes larger, the effect becomes universal.

Cap and trade will not change the weather. It just makes Al Gore wealthy. And besides, I love this weather we're having.

RE: GLobal Warming
By amosbatto on 8/9/2012 4:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
NASA has broken down the sources of climate forcing which is causing global warming (uncertainty ranges are listed in parentheses):

===Forcing in Watts per m2 of atmosphere:===
Greenhouse Gasses:
CO2: 1.4W (+-0.2W)
CH4: 0.7W (+-0.2W)
CFCs: 0.35W (+-0.05W)
Tropospheric Ozone: 0.3W (+-0.15W)
N20: 0.15W (+0.05)

Other Anthropogenic Forcings:
Tropospheric aerosols: -0.4W (+-0.3W)
Forced cloud changes: -1W (+0.5W,-1W)
Land cover alternations: -0.2W (+-0.2W)

Natural Forcings:
Sun: 0.4W (+-0.2W)
Volcanic Aerosols: 0.2W to -0.5W


There is scientific debate about the exact percentage of CO2, CH4 and N2O which is man made, but look at how these gases have increased between 1750 and 2007 in the atmosphere:
CO2: from 280 ppm to 396 ppm
CH4: from 700 ppb to 1745 ppb
N20: from 270 ppb to 314 ppb
CFC-12: from 0 to 533 ppt

What is clear is that most of the increase in these gasses is coming from humans and is not natural. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased from 28.7 to 49.0 gigatons of CO2 equivalent between 1970 and 2004. Deforestation and decay of biomass caused 17.3% of the 2004 emissions, whereas fossil fuel use caused 56.6% of the 2004 emissions. See:

So all your speculation is rubbish. Most climate change is caused by humans who burned fossil fuels which creates CO2. Third world deforestation is a minor factor, but not the major factor. As for heat islands, they are are also a small factor, but mostly localized. When climate scientists calculate global average temperatures, they look at a wide range of data from many locations over a large time span. They are very careful to not let localized conditions govern their averages (as you would realize if you took the time to read any of their literature).

Another short-sighted study
By dgingerich on 8/7/2012 3:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, woopie, another "my internet hasn't been working for the last half hour so the internet must be down" kind of study. They compare a very short period of time and proclaim that it must have been this way forever, and we're the only thing that can change it. Frankly, it's a bit of an overblown ego problem. Human's aren't that powerful. (yet?)

Never mind the fact that the sea levels have been provably higher at least three times in human history. (There are several port cities uncovered in the Middle East that date back to 500BC that are now hundreds of feet inland. There are also ports in Greenland that are now several feet above sea level.) Never mind that ice caps have been completely melted at least twice in human history. Never mind the fact that there were vineyards in Scotland and thriving colonies in Greenland during the middle ages.

The global warming idiots seem to forget that there was any history before 1800. If they were to actually look at the history of the planet, the ice caps, and the sea levels, they'd know that the sea level does rise and fall, ice melts and comes back, all without human intervention. Frankly, I'm glad it's getting warmer. I hate snow, and I certainly don't want us to have to go back to the days of the little ice age.

RE: Another short-sighted study
By amosbatto on 8/9/2012 3:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, there have been warmer periods in the planet's history, and the climate scientists are very busy studying these periods to understand what we can expect in the future. James Hansen has written a number of articles about these periods (see his book, The Storms of My Grandchildren). The reason why Hansen argued that we should limit emissions to 350ppm, instead of 450ppm like the rest of the scientific community, is his study of past warm periods.

If you look at the 4.6 billion history of Earth, the majority of the Earth's history has been in warm periods, rather than cool periods like we have now (see Robert Strom's Hot House). The Earth is currently in a 10000 year period of stable cool weather, which has permitted the rise of modern agriculture and civilizations. If the Earth slips into a warmer climate, it is very likely that human civilization will collapse.

The Earth has experienced 5 major die-offs in its history which were caused by climate change. It is very likely that we will provoke the destruction of the majority of species on this planet if we change the climate.

Even if we don't kill off most of the species, we will make it very hard for our grains like corn and wheat to grow, so we will likely experience mass starvation. One study studied the effect of adding extra CO2 and ground-level ozone (caused by burning fossil fuels) to crops and found that that these gasses cause weeds to grow faster, but retard the growth of grains. The study predicts that we will have 20% lower yields per hectare by mid-century and 30% lower yields in China. (See chapter 2 of George Monbiot's Heat for reference to this study.)

Considering the fact that we will have 9 billion people on the planet to feed by mid-century and vast swathes of land in Northern China, Australia, the US Southwest and Subsaharan Africa are turning into infertile desert, it is highly likely that we will have massive food shortages.

At the same time, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is entering the oceans, creating carbonic acid which eats away the microscopic shells on phytoplankton, destroying the ocean's food chain. Most of the fish will be gone by mid-century, meaning that humanity has to search for another source of protein.

Finally, the glaciers will be mostly gone by mid-century, meaning that the fresh water sources for most Asian rivers (Ganges, Mekong, Yellow, Yang-tse, Indus, etc) will dry up, ending the wet-rice cultivation that currently feeds 2 billion Asians. Likewise, the Andean glaciers and the entire Amazonian basin will dry up, converting into a desert or dry plain.

All of these things will probably happen due to climate change and it isn't something to flippantly joke about if you care about the future of humanity.

By amosbatto on 8/9/2012 6:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
I have noticed a consistent trend that any article about global warming at DailyTech and many other popular web news sites are inundated with negative comments attacking climate science.

Now I am sure that some of these comments are from people who are truly skeptical about the science, but it strikes me as very strange that there are so many people who spew the same talking points over and over for every single article on popular web sites.

What we do know is that groups like the Western Fuels Association and its corporate sponsors have paid large amounts of money to generate "junk science" which generates uncertainty and doubt about the real science. We all know about the lobbying efforts of the petroleum industry. I wouldn't put it past these same groups to hire people to write negative comments about articles in the internet as well.

Firms exist to do this type of dirty work on the internet. In fact I know a girl who used to work in a company in Lima, Peru, which was hired to make positive online comments about a hygiene product which had serious PR problems.

Of course this is pure speculation on my part and there is no real way to investigate this, without being able to check the IP addresses used by posters across dozens of news sites online and see whether there is any patterns emerge. For example, if a lot of these posts originate from an IP address in a strange place like Lima, Peru. Of course any smart company doing this sort of work would cover its tracks by buying a bunch of servers all around the world and have its employees use remote desktops in these servers to post their comments.

Maybe I am just being paranoid and I sincerely hope that I am wrong. What is strange to me is that so many people would take hours of time to post comments that are so patently false and so easily debunked. I sincerely hope that DailyTech and other news sites aren't cowed by the floods of negative comments and will continue to post articles about climate science.

Just for full disclosure, in case anyone wonders about my motivations, I am a North American who currently resides in Bolivia where I am a member of an environmental activist group named Reacción Climática. My name is Amos Batto and I am very easy to find if you google my name.

By ArcliteHawaii on 8/12/2012 5:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks Amos for taking the time to rebut the skeptics. I've been reading this site for many years, and DT is unusual in being a tech website where the commenters are fairly right-wing. Usually tech sites are populated with more moderate/left wing types, which reflects the higher education of such people. So while there are astroturf organizations that pay people to do such work, and some of them may be posting here, I don't think that most of them are. I think it's just the culture of this site to have a strong right-wing contingent.

I used to fight this battle, but it takes a lot of time and energy, and betw work and family, I've not been able to. Also, despite providing data based arguments, links, and analysis, the naysayers are so wedded to their ideas that it's like trying to convince a Muslim that God does not exist. No matter what evidence you introduce it will be dismissed as a conspiracy or incomplete or made up or whatever excuse they can gin up to discredit the evidence as unreliable or untrue.

I think in the end, many people just don't want to believe the life they grew up with and were taught was the right way to live is destroying the very foundation of that life. And when the effects do come to pass, they'll still deny its anthropomorphic origins and claim it was a natural event that was unavoidable. It doesn't help that the press which could help elucidate the truth is owned by megacorporations who have a vested interest in cheap energy and few regulations.

Good luck, and keep fighting!

Already proven false
By spepper on 8/7/2012 3:05:28 PM , Rating: 3
So-called "climate data" coming from NASA has already been proven to be manipulated to fit a false narrative (manmade global warming)-- Hansen should be not only fired but also PROSECUTED as a FRAUD. The only thing transparent here is his political agenda.

Why Is This News?
By Arsynic on 8/7/2012 3:06:54 PM , Rating: 3
So it's hotter outside because the Earth is warmer? So what? Isn't that obvious?

Or are they implying with their severely limited data set that this is some kind of trend that's out of the ordinary that we need to address with draconian measures?

blah blah blah
By outinoregon on 8/7/2012 2:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
What happened to the 1920's, I might also wonder about?

By Argon18 on 8/7/2012 8:47:24 PM , Rating: 2

global warming
By RU482 on 8/7/2012 9:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
I did my part....I bought a 4cyl instead of the V6 model on a recent car purchase.

/think I'll go burn a tire

By ballist1x on 8/8/2012 4:06:24 AM , Rating: 2
Its getting hot.. because...its getting hot?

I mean it doesnt take NASA to tell me that hotter temps mean hotter summers... or does it?

They dont say its down to CO2 or gasses or whatever, it seems to be merely an observation that anyone with a thermometer could have made?

By texbrazos on 8/8/2012 3:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
Here you go.
Rex Tillerson admits global warming is real.

Global warming
By 96suzuki on 8/7/2012 2:53:56 PM , Rating: 1
Global warming is nothing but a bullshit scam that makes the government trillions. THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING, and most idiots believe them... These people just cant think or reason on their own. Its a wonder they survive.

By createcoms on 8/7/12, Rating: -1
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 8/7/2012 1:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
Was wondering who was going to open the floodgates first!

By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2012 1:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
Typical Tiffany.

It's extremely poor journalistic form to leave out the fact that Hansen has been investigated for multiple counts of fraud and has permanently tainted Climate Sciences and his own reputation. This guy was at the very heart of Climategate. He's already been caught manipulated temperature data.

The reader should at least be aware that this information is coming from someone who's ANYTHING but an unbiased observer of climate. The difference between an activist and a scientist starts the minute you believe so passionately about something, that the ends justify the means to advance the agenda. Regardless of it's accuracy and methodology used.

Honestly, shame on you Tiffany.

By amosbatto on 8/9/2012 5:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
What investigations? Anthony Watts reported that Hansen accepted $1.6 million in gifts and awards over a 5 year period and did not report it properly in government disclosure forms. In a few cases, NASA asked him to give back some of the money.

There does not appear to be any ongoing investigation of Hansen for these activities and the only article written about it seems to be Anthony Watt's article which was endlessly repeated over the right-wing blog-o-sphere. Given that the documents were made publicly available due to a court case and anyone could have investigated it, it is interesting that no reputable news sources bothered to write about it. It would appear that there isn't much there, or the violations aren't considered very significant. In my opinion, it does raise some conflict of interest questions, but it doesn't debunk Hansen's scientific articles, which are all peer-reviewed and generally have a number of coauthors at NASA, so you are also attacking the scientific credibility of a whole team of top climate scientists.

As for the climategate scandal, that is utter baloney and you know it. The question was what to do with proxy data which didn't agree with measured temperature data from thermometers. The scientists weighted the proxy data to agree with the measured data. It was publicly acknowledged in their published papers what they were doing long before the publication of the emails and there was no effort to deceive the public.

What happened is that a number of emails were quoted out of context to make it seem like the scientists were trying to deceive and manipulate the public, but all the investigations into the matter concluded that there was no effort to deceive the public.

The real question is whether anyone has been able to disprove the findings in Hansen's scientific articles. On that score, Hansen has an impeccable track record and is highly regarded in his field. Stop defaming the man when it is obvious that you have never even bothered to read his work.

By WalksTheWalk on 8/7/2012 3:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why you were rated down. Hansen clearly doesn't have an agenda or anything...or does he?

By PaFromFL on 8/8/2012 8:35:41 AM , Rating: 1
The climate is changing (always true).
Politicians exploit disasters to grab power and get rich.
Budgets to prove global warming are growing.
NASA budgets are shrinking.
James Hansen is not stupid and needs to eat.

Humans significantly affect climate change.
Climate change can be controlled by humans.

I didn't notice the word "manmade" in the above article. Either no one told James Hansen that you are more likely to get funding if you include the word "manmade", or he is too honest for his own good.

By MZperX on 8/9/2012 1:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
How dare you? The last thing James Hansen can be accused of is being honest. If anything he's gone out of his way to make sure that label could never be attached to his name!


By sciguybm on 8/7/12, Rating: -1
By Jeffk464 on 8/7/2012 8:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
"What are we going to do about it"

Obviously we(by we I mean China) are going to keep increasing our outputs of CO2, keep studying it, and see what happens.

By wordsworm on 8/7/2012 10:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
China's government is pushing pretty hard to change from gasoline powered vehicles to electric powered vehicles. I understand that many cities, for example, are working on banning gas motorbikes and scooters in favour of their electric counterparts. You've got to give credit to the Chinese for often doing fantastic things when they set their minds to it.

By sorry dog on 8/8/2012 9:16:38 PM , Rating: 2 ever been to China?

they don't even have clean water much less clean energy.

...most of population takes a dump in hole in the ground.

By wordsworm on 8/8/2012 9:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I've been to China, S. Korea, and Indonesia. All of those countries use squatters. Though, I wasn't in China long enough to sample their toilets.

Ideological nonsense
By Tony_R on 8/7/12, Rating: -1
RE: Ideological nonsense
By homernoy on 8/7/12, Rating: 0
RE: Ideological nonsense
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2012 3:10:41 PM , Rating: 1
Man kind has pretty much fucked up everything else in nature

Oh is that so? Brilliant analysis there Mr. Spock.

I am not saying we have global warming, but I believe climate change at least partially caused by man is a very real possibility and should not be dismissed because of your religion or some other personal agenda.

Okay lets explore that. Let's say we are partially adding to an already naturally occurring warming trend.

So. What.

The only religion I see here is the Church of AGW.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By homernoy on 8/7/2012 3:22:05 PM , Rating: 1
Well let me ask you this. Are you religious?

RE: Ideological nonsense
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2012 6:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
No I'm not, and I don't understand why people insist on bringing religion into this argument.

Listen here, and listen good. We are animals. Literally. We're animals with a highly developed brain, but still animals. Nobody snapped their fingers and brought us here. That is what I believe. We crawled from the evolutionary pit and we're here in all our glory, stop cowering, revel in it.

And we have the same needs as every other animal. Food, shelter, protection, procreation, etc etc. We are the dominant species on this planet. If cows were the dominant species, their collective methane farts would also effect the planet in some way.

People are NOT going to accept a lower standard of living because you tell them they are killing the planet. So give it up. It's not true anyway, but even if it was, you're wasting your time. The same drive that spurred us to dominate this planet also drives us, individually, to acquire things. Like money, a house, cars, etc etc.

And here's the thing, all you environmentalists are the same way. You don't want to make personal sacrifices, you just want some Government to do it all for you. To force it on everyone else.

So you can attack me, you can accuse me of being "religious" (whatever the fuck THAT has to do with anything), but I'm coming out and saying it. I don't give a fuck. I'm 35 and in the blink of an eye I'll be dead. In the blink of an eye, my children will be dead. All I want is to have the best life possible, sorry that's so offensive to some people, but there it is.

Now if you can prove that this is "killing" the planet because of a few degrees in temperature, and that mankind is the reason, great. Knock yourself out. Here's the thing though, if the fix for this effects me in any way, I'll fight you tooth and nail. Leave me and mine out of it.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By homernoy on 8/7/12, Rating: 0
RE: Ideological nonsense
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2012 6:24:55 PM , Rating: 1
I said things have been fucked up by people. That is a fact. I am not an environmentalist in any way. I only stated that people who blatantly dismiss things that are very possible because of personal reasons seems....short sighted.

Yeah but what's the point on dwelling about that? We can't go back and fix our mistakes. We just have to soldier on like the upright animals we are, doing the best we can with what we know at the time.

Nobody likes it when people throw mankind up in your face, like you're personally responsible for the world. Not saying YOU are doing that, but a lot of people on your side do that. It's annoying, cheap, and just emboldens people against you.

Never said anything was killing the planet. I said things have been fucked up by people. That is a fact. I am not an environmentalist in any way.

Okay man then we're cool.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By Jeffk464 on 8/7/2012 8:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
"We are animals"

The correct term is "clever monkeys" :)

RE: Ideological nonsense
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/2012 8:28:16 AM , Rating: 2
lol clever upright monkey mammal things :P

RE: Ideological nonsense
By amosbatto on 8/9/2012 9:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
People are NOT going to accept a lower standard of living because you tell them they are killing the planet. So give it up. It's not true anyway, but even if it was, you're wasting your time. The same drive that spurred us to dominate this planet also drives us, individually, to acquire things. Like money, a house, cars, etc etc.

The problem is that if we don't reduce our greenhouse gases by 80% to 90%, we are going to be experiencing a drastic reduction in our standard of living. We are not going to have enough of the essential things like food and fresh water.

So basically the choice is between a small reduction in our material consumption in the short term or mass starvation and a hellish planet in the long term. Our own self interest should lead us to change, but short term seems to win out over long term so we do nothing.

Looking at human history, it is not surprising that we act this way. Jared Diamond's Collapse shows that civilizations have made this choice over and over to destroy themselves rather than change.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By ClownPuncher on 8/7/2012 3:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
He was talking about Mankind, the wrestler.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By Tony Swash on 8/7/2012 3:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
plant and animal extinctions,

References to human caused extinctions get tossed around a lot. Sometimes it is claimed there have been thousands of extinction, that hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of species are going extinct every year.

I say that's bullshit.

If you say it isn't bullshit then please list at least some of the species that have been driven to extinction in, say, the last fifty years.

For anyone interested in the scientific facts about extinctions (spoiler - there have not been that many) have a look at this article entitled "Where Are The Corpses?"

RE: Ideological nonsense
By Tony Swash on 8/7/2012 3:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
plant and animal extinctions,

References to human caused extinctions get tossed around a lot. Sometimes it is claimed there have been thousands of extinction, that hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of species are going extinct every year.

I say that's bullshit.

If you say it isn't bullshit then please list at least some of the species that have been driven to extinction in, say, the last fifty years.

For anyone interested in the scientific facts about extinctions (spoiler - there have not been that many) have a look at this article entitled "Where Are The Corpses?"

RE: Ideological nonsense
By homernoy on 8/7/12, Rating: -1
RE: Ideological nonsense
By ebakke on 8/7/2012 4:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
And even one species humans wipe out is one too many in my opinion.
Even one?! I can tolerate a lot more than one. I'm not saying we should go around trying to exterminate things, but if it happens here or there...[shrug]

RE: Ideological nonsense
By homernoy on 8/7/2012 5:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing my point. One here and one there starts to add up. If you don't care, that's your right. I just don't like seeing animal or plant species disappear. And this is just how I feel about it. I have no militant stance, and am firmly in the middle about most issues.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By ebakke on 8/7/2012 4:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
Also, what is your opinion of global eradication of diseases? These occur (or rather, occurred) naturally and humans have seen fit to alter the natural course and remove them from the planet. Thoughts?

RE: Ideological nonsense
By homernoy on 8/7/2012 5:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
Listen, I am not an extremist. It sounds hypocritical but I think pathogens that harm or kill people should be controlled or eradicated if possible. Unfortunately these micro organisms are far more resilient than say, a flightless bird from New Zealand.

RE: Ideological nonsense
RE: Ideological nonsense
By homernoy on 8/7/2012 5:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Hippies? You from the 60's or something?

RE: Ideological nonsense
By Tony Swash on 8/7/2012 5:45:38 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a list of species recently extinct in the wild.

Looks like the last of this species died in June. And even one species humans wipe out is one too many in my opinion. You can argue semantics all day long with recent numbers, and how large the extinction numbers need to be for relevance.

So the figure you quote from Wikipedia is for a total of 12 species since 1840.

Using data from the link I included in my previous comment that looks like a bit of an under estimate, the paper I referenced gives the following:

Grand Total Extinct Mammal Species is 61 species in 500 years
of which 58 were highly vulnerable island species (low numbers, limited habitat)

Out of a total of 4,428 known mammal species not restricted to islands (i.e. continental species) only three mammals have gone extinct in the last 500 years. These were the Bluebuck antelope, South Africa; the Algerian gazelle, Algeria; and the Omilteme cottontail rabbit, Mexico.

Grand Total Extinct Bird Species is 129 species in 500 years
of which 123 were highly vulnerable island species (low numbers, limited habitat)

Out of a total of 8,971 known continental bird species 6 have gone extinct in 500 years.

Note that most of the extinctions above took place a long time ago, that the rate of extinctions appears to have fallen sharply in recent decades, even though the amount of specie monitoring has vastly increased.

It is worth bearing in mind that there are an estimated total of 8.7 million species on earth.

So what you have is a picture of very, very low levels of actual extinctions.

Even if the rate of extinctions were to quadruple in the next 500 years, and even if we assume that the rate of extinctions for continental species accelerates massively to match the rate of island extinctions then we get an absolutely worst case nightmare scenario of a total of 760 bird and mammal species going extinct in the next 500 years out of a total of 8.7 million species.

Frankly that doesn't seem worth worrying about. It certainly is not something that should be used as a convincing case for slowing or restricting economic development (or more accurately prolonging human poverty, suffering and premature death), nor should it be an issue which is used to whip up alarm about the impact of human activity on the environment.

The constant use of the term 'endangered species' and the banding around of wild figures for extinctions based solely on computer models and not on real world observations is a constant feature of environmentalist campaigning. It is pure propaganda and is not based on any actually observed pattern of extinction.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By homernoy on 8/7/2012 6:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly don't think you've bothered to read anything I wrote. I never used the words 'mass extinction', I just said man causes extinctions. That's a fact. I didn't state did. Also, this issue is far more complex than you lead on. Just because there a a few left of a certain species does not mean everything is ok.

Here is an example:

And why anyone would not want to stop or slow extinction is beyond me. You act like it's a personal attack on you. It's not. It's my opinion like I stated in other posts.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2012 6:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
The only extinctions we've caused is from directly hunting a species to extinction. And guess what? Animals do this to other animals all the time thorough history.

Most of the species on your list it cannot credibly be stated that mankind has directly caused their plight. Recent DNA discoveries of some endangered species has proven a big problem is that there is not enough genetic diversity.

Also you've conveniently left out the fact that mankind has interfered with nature to preserve species that would have died out as well.

Earlier you accused me of being religious because I didn't have your point of view on this. Which is curious because you don't seem to have a very firm grasp on the evolutionary process.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By homernoy on 8/7/2012 6:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
I did not accuse you of being religious. I asked if you were. Also, I did post a link to animals extinct in the wild and that makes it quite obvious they are being kept from extinction by people.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By glennco on 8/8/2012 2:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
i wouldnt bother

RE: Ideological nonsense
By Tony Swash on 8/7/2012 7:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
I repeat the rate extinctions seems to be slowing and very, very low. Its not a big problem and there is no evidence based on real world observed data that the rate extinction is accelerating. It will be shame if some large mammals go extinct but not a disaster and it is not likely. Mostly what I expect to see is that a number of large land mammals will be restricted to living in large nature parks. Environmentalists should stop tossing around doom mongering about extinctions, none of it is based on fact.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By wordsworm on 8/8/2012 10:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
Man, that's the dumbest thing you've ever said. I expect dumb stuff like this from the conservative right wing nut jobs that post comments here, but somehow you saying crap like this surprised me. The rate of extinction is accelerating. This is a fact, not a theory. The theory is that mankind is the cause.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By amosbatto on 8/9/2012 4:53:51 PM , Rating: 1
References to human caused extinctions get tossed around a lot. Sometimes it is claimed there have been thousands of extinction, that hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of species are going extinct every year. I say that's bullshit. If you say it isn't bullshit then please list at least some of the species that have been driven to extinction in, say, the last fifty years.

First of all, estimating extinction rates is very tricky and there is a great deal of debate whether biologists are doing it correctly. See:

However, there is a wide consensus among biologists that the world is currently loosing species at a faster rate than in the past. The debate is whether we are currently entering a mass extinction and comparisons of the current extinction rate with the normal background extinction rate.

Here is the wikipedia summary on the issue:

According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused extinction,[33] known as the Holocene extinction. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated [6] in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years.[34] More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth.[35]


RE: Ideological nonsense
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 8/7/2012 4:00:02 PM , Rating: 1
Man kind has pretty much fucked up everything else in nature (plant and animal extinctions, pollution, deforestation, seawater acidification), why is it so controversial to examine the possibility that we might be fucking up the worlds climate as well?

So... it was man that wiped out the dinosaurs (Meteor), the people of Pompeii (Volcano), The Tlingit tribes of Alaska (Glaciers), 10000 japanese (Tsunami), 830,000 chinese (Earthquake), etc.. etc.. etc... Call me crazy, but I'd say Nature has fucked up more nature than humans (minus that whole A-Bomb)!

RE: Ideological nonsense
By homernoy on 8/7/2012 4:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
As we all know, we can't control nature, but we can do better in what we do. Hey I'm not trying to say global warming is a fact, I am saying it's a real possibility. If that's the case I think people should look at it more objectively and with less of a black and white opinion.

RE: Ideological nonsense
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 8/7/2012 4:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
Not according to Al Gore and the rest of the extreme left. That's why you see so much back and forth on this issue in these debates. The question is not whether or not global warming is real (we know its real at some point.. how else do you come out of ice ages?), its the question of whether man has an influence and if so.... to what degree can 'man' influence earthquakes and Tsunamis?
As we all know, we can't control nature

Welcome aboard!

RE: Ideological nonsense
By Arsynic on 8/7/2012 3:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
Improperly placed, you say? INTENTIONALLY PLACED, I say!!!

RE: Ideological nonsense
By Gondor on 8/8/2012 2:01:02 AM , Rating: 1
Satellite sea surface temperature measurements since the mid-1960s show essentially zero average global temperature change. That's a fact, and you can look it up.

Um, it would be ignorat to claim there has been no warming up - understanding how this fits with sea water temperature remaining the same is a matter of elementary school physics. As any material changes phase (say from solid into liquid), vast amounts of energy are expended on this change. It is a fact that polar ice has been diminishing (= changing state from solid to liquid, thereby absorbing the heat - this prevents water temperature in the region from going up until all the ice is expended).

Now this needn't be the result of man-made "global warming", but it is nevertheless happening (and has been happening ever since the last Ice Age, which clearly wasn't perpetuated by humanity's use of fossil fuels, unless of course the Ice Age cavemen drove around in V8 pickup trucks and their vast cattle herds farted up huge clouds of methane ...).

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki