
Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change - sharan
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
======
todayiamme
You know whenever I read about this debate for some reason I recall George
Carlin's prophetic words;

"The planet is fine....

The people are fucked."

[http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&...](http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DeScDfYzMEEw&ei=rC_ETObjAorZcfT9nc0N&usg=AFQjCNH8Nxzpk1rsIxEmp_Ju5jTVgjTxag)

Whether we like to admit this or not; the earth and life will go on without
us. It's our own survival we are fighting for over here; not a complex system
in which life has taken hold by surviving through tough odds without the
intend of surviving. This piece of rock really doesn't give a damn.

~~~
nice1
Alarmism has a really bad track record.

~~~
todayiamme
It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable
by any metric you care to throw at it. We've over run our phosphorous
reserves. We're depleting energy, land and the ability to feed our
civilization. We're systematically amputating ourselves while worrying about
the blood spilling on the floor.

It just strikes me how far away from reality this debate has taken us. Yes,
none of this will kill the planet or this species for that matter, but it will
kill this civilization.

In fact, this has happened again and again throughout history as Jared Diamond
points out in his book, Collapse. When you see the record of civilizations and
the choices they have made then 5 key metrics stand out;

1) Environmental damage

2) Climate change

3) Hostile neighbors

4) Friendly trade partners

5) The societies response to it's environmental problems

What's interesting is how he compared these metrics and individually isolated
cases in histories where only a few were present and used them as examples to
see what was going on. It's a beautiful and thrilling exploration between the
factors, stakeholders at play and why those choices were made (as far as we
know). A comment simply won't do that entire thing justice.

The thing is that there is a delicate interplay between our surroundings and
our civilization and stretching it too far without healing won't lead to
pleasant consequences. A civilization is a delicate state of things that needs
to be maintained at a certain cost be it resources, intellectual or cultural
capital. Everything joins to create an integrated whole and that's the
problem; you can't have one without the other.

So, essentially we need to make a series of choices about how we are doing
things and how we could do them if we want this period of prosperity to
survive beyond a few decades.

Yes there is hope, but there's loads of work to do.

see:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed)

~~~
jacoblyles
>It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable
by any metric you care to throw at it

That sounds like alarmism to me.

You can find examples of writers worrying about running out of the specific
resources industry used at the time running back to the 19th century. The
modern environmentalist movement has predicted apocalypse like clockwork every
ten years dating back to 1960.

The current environmentalist movement is much more well-funded and
professional. I guess time will tell if that means they are more accurate.

I'm not familiar with Diamond's book, but it's worth pointing out that the
civilizations he examines are at a much earlier phase of technology.
Individual differences often confound authors who try to paint historical
trends with a broad pen.

~~~
todayiamme
Actually, he backs up his claims with pretty hard data. He draws conclusion
from a wide variety of metrics and evidence like core samples, records, tool
use, geological standing, possible trade relations, genetic sampling etc.

You really need to read him. Check his wikipedia page out (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond> )

>>>are at a much earlier phase of technology<<<

Ironically, our ancestors said analogous things. Are we truly that different?

~~~
jacoblyles
>"Ironically, our ancestors said analogous things. Are we truly that
different?"

The difference between human society before 1800 and today is huge.

~~~
jonhendry
Nevertheless, we can't wish new, needed technology into existence. Sometimes
it develops quickly, sometimes it doesn't.

------
kia
Why did they decided to cut the graphic at 400,000 years before today? Maybe
that's because a couple of million years ago the concentration of CO2 was well
above today's level?

By the way here is another picture:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaci...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif)

~~~
mmphosis
Look closely at the right edge of the picture. The text below the picture is
revealing...

 _Human deforestation and burning of fossil fuel has raised atmospheric CO2 to
over 380 ppm in the last century, well above pre-industrialized levels, and
"off the scale" of this graph top._

~~~
electromagnetic
"Off the scale" is a complete fucking BS term. The carboniferous period had a
mean CO2 concentration of around 800ppm and was marked by glaciation and low
sea levels - our current correlation between CO2 and "global warming" is off
the bullshit scale.

The mean global temperature in the carboniferous period, with CO2
concentrations over double of present day was an astounding, just wait for
it... 14C, which is the incredible, * unbelievable* 0C above the mean present
day global temperature.

As CO2 levels spiked in the carboniferous period, it is marked by the drop of
sea levels by 120m to the present day level, and as the CO2 level subsided,
the sea levels rose 80m.

Sorry, but "off the scale" only counts when you actively pick and choose what
scale you want to use, which in terms of geological temperature, CO2 and O2
concentrations quite literally means disregarding millions of years of
geological time.

~~~
pvxc
Both CO2 concentrations and the global temperature varied significantly over
that period of Earth's history (~400-250 millions of years ago). Around 300
Mya, CO2 was comparable to what it is today and temperatures were likewise
comparable. Around 400 Mya, CO2 was in the 4000ppm's and the temperature was
likewise higher (by ~ 8 C). No contradiction.

Also, when discussing matters scientific, please cite your scientific sources
--- otherwise the discussion is of little value. Like so:

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/abs/nature06...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/abs/nature06085.html)

[http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/1052-5173(2004)014<4:CAAPDO...](http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/1052-5173\(2004\)014<4:CAAPDO>2.0.CO;2)

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

~~~
danparsonson
Really? You mean to say that if you believed something, no amount of new
evidence to the contrary could persuade you to change your mind?

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I think he's probably saying that most people are like that, and sadly, I have
to agree.

~~~
danparsonson
Ah that's a good point - reminds me of this:
[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/1...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-
in-doubt-shout-%E2%80%93-why-shaking-someone%E2%80%99s-beliefs-turns-them-
into-stronger-advocates/)

~~~
sliverstorm
That, and I've also definitely been guilty of ignoring new articles on the
matter. I am already convinced climate change is happening, so why should I
bother reading the 26th article on whether it's happening or not?

I'm sure the same thing happens with people who are not convinced.

------
bd
Does this mean human beings can effectively prevent ice age?

These are supposed to be cyclical, so it's pretty much guaranteed sooner or
later we will have to face one.

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

~~~
dools
Why does the y-axis of a graph need to begin at 0? 0 is a number like any
other number. If the result set you're attempting to display doesn't have any
values at 0 then why would you display 0? The graph in question also doesn't
show any data points at y=-257,687 ... does that concern you?

~~~
raquo
Because when zero is not marked it is impossible to judge the relative
magnitude of all graph fluctuations without looking at the y axis scale. On
this graph a lot of people (incl. me) would be tricked into thinking that in
the last 100 years the amount of CO2 increased by an order of magnitude. Now,
I know that's impossible, and I checked the scale at the left to find the
usual suspect. But many normal people would just believe what they see. It's
typical deceit method that is widely used in corporate presentations,
journalism, etc. The only excuse for not marking zero on most charts is if you
want to show minor fluctuations more precisely, which is not the purpose of
this graph.

~~~
lutorm
The magnitude of the fluctuations should really be judged against the error
bars, not against zero. That's what tells you whether the change is
significant.

~~~
sesqu
But that doesn't tell you whether it's important. Statistical significance is
a measure of trustworthiness, given assumptions about the generating process.
It tells you nothing about whether the data is in any way meaningful, after
assuming relibility.

What does tell you about that type significance of (rational) data is the
delta, which _requires_ the 0 in order for you to see the scale. Now, in many
interesting cases this could be represented as error bars under H0, but that's
usually not done in publications, because they only have room for one plot
type.

The range of the plot is not arbitrary. To suggest otherwise is deceptive.

~~~
lutorm
_But that doesn't tell you whether it's important_

Yeah, I'll buy that.

------
mcritz
So much armchair quarterbacking, very little PhD in climatology. Reading the
deniers’ comments I wonder if they tell their doctor how their endocrine
system is powered by crystal energy and argue with the pilot about Bernoulli’s
“so-called” Principle.

Science has come to a conclusion. Do you listen or merely justify your
previously held belief?

~~~
jbooth
The problem is that they really, really hate hippies. And hippies are all
about global warming, they'll even go one step further and lecture you with a
bunch of crap about "gaia" or something.

So in order for these people to be good, upstanding Americans, they must be
100% diametrically opposed to the hippies, even if the hippie is saying "the
sky is blue".

Personally, I'm ok with dropping the gaia and taking the science.

------
ChristianMarks
Despite the conservative naysayers, the federal government is heavily invested
in climate research. Take the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (GFDL) in
Princeton, NJ. This is a NOAA facility involved with sophisticated climate
models. Raytheon, a major defense contractor, was involved in day-to-day
operations and public relations.

A defense contractor is involved with public relations for this facility, not
Indymedia.

Typically, climate models require the resources of high-performance computing
facilities with thousands of processors. These facilities cost tens of
millions of dollars to implement, and millions to maintain.

Why is climate research a matter of national security, involving the oversight
of defense contractors and personnel with security clearance? For at least two
reasons. First, it is of strategic interest to the United States to know how
the planet will be affected by global warming. If large parts of China or the
Netherlands are going to end up submerged under 20 feet of water, and millions
of people will have to be evacuated, this U.S. would not want to outsource the
ability to forecast this to, let us say, non-allied countries.

Another reason is that with the increased likelihood of hurricanes in the Gulf
(to mention one case of extreme weather) it is a matter of national security
to have better models for predicting the likely trajectory of a hurricane as
it approaches land. A wrong guess can cost billions.

Despite the global warming deniers among politicians who are loyal to the big
energy lobby, you can rest assured that funding for the development of
sophisticated climate models and the elaborate high-performance computing
systems, scientists and operational support personnel needed to design, run
and maintain them them is provisioned by the federal government as a matter
national security.

------
thangalin
Visit:

<http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/master.shtml>

    
    
      1. City: Cranbrook BC
      2. Days: June 1 to October 1
      3. Click Report
      4. Repeat for any number of Canadian cities

~~~
InclinedPlane
<http://www.surfacestations.org/>

Only about 1 in 10 surface weather stations is sufficiently properly sited to
produce data accurate to within 1 deg. C.

~~~
flgb
The urban heat island effect and 'micro-climates' have a negligible impact on
long term warming trends, especially when records are averaged over large
areas. Also, rural temperature records show the same warming trends as urban
ones. The 'evidence' on this site isn't relevant to arguments regarding the
existing of global warming.

~~~
thangalin
Exactly. You can use the Climate Reports to lasso areas away from urban
centres in the map:

<http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/guru.shtml>

The site says nothing about global warming or the cause. The site does show
that there is a consistent warming trend over summer months across all of
Canada, and is most extreme in northern Canada. Also, I believe the
Environment Canada data is accurate to within 0.2 degrees C.

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

~~~
gvb
They send a cyborg back in time to collect samples. While he is there, he
kills Sarah and the world ends in 3... 2... 1...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator>

Seriously, ice core samples: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core>

------
motters
Also see <http://code.google.com/p/tempgraph/>

------
harscoat
The power of a graph.

------
points
Religion doesn't belong here.

~~~
gaius
So flag it.

------
TerraHertz
For anyone who still thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, some reading
material: <http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt>
<http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt>

Oh and yes, the graph was limited to 400K years,because otherwise it would
show CO2 levels in the past FAR higher than today. And it doesn't show CO2 vs
temp over geological timescales, because that graph clearly shows that CO2
lags temp, not the other way round.

It's the same old story - figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and
things get a lot clearer.

~~~
jbooth
"figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot
clearer."

So let's get this straight. Your theory is that a 95% scientific consensus
exists because they're all trying to make money off a scam? What's the scam,
you get a PhD, postdoc, do 4 years of research at poverty-level wages and you
get a 40k grant? Wow, that's effective.

Wouldn't they just work in finance or technology if they wanted money? Or, if
they know climate science, they could probably just call the coal industry and
build graphs saying the opposite for 10X what they're making right now.

So the reality's actually the exact opposite of your statement.

~~~
ced
Scientists may not care much about money... But they care a great deal about
peer recognition, status, buying expensive hardware to do simulations, having
a lot of grad students, etc.

All of those would disappear if convincing evidence against climate change
were found. I once heard a top scientist in solar science complain that his
field had been corrupted that way.

I agree that Science is our best hope for understanding climate, but let's not
idealize it.

~~~
jbooth
Yeah, so in that field, if you're one of the 5% guys and you're actually
right, and can make a convincing case? Total meal ticket. Everyone loves the
David beats Goliath story when David wins.

The problem isn't incentives, it's evidence. The overwhelming majority of
evidence points towards an existing warming trend that's exacerbated by CO2.

~~~
ced
In solar science, the reason we get so much money is that satellite-launching
agencies would like us to produce a "solar weather forecast", because solar
eruptions can severely damage equipment in orbit. The top scientist I
mentioned earlier had a paper that basically said:

"Solar weather forecasting is much more complicated than anticipated. The
medium-term prospects are grim."

He bitterly complained that his paper was ignored. All the other scientists
were busy making (possibly hopeless) predictions and applying for more grants.
See also: the AI winter.

 _Yeah, so in that field, if you're one of the 5% guys and you're actually
right, and can make a convincing case?_

The issue here is that in a complex field, with such incredible uncertainty,
when do we ever have a truly "convincing case"? Who's to be the judge on that?
Hacker News readers? The government? So that leaves us with the other
scientists. If they are any good, they'll graciously acknowledge the
challenger's criticism. But if they are heavily invested in the status quo,
they might find it easier to just ignore you.

I love science. But I'm uneasy its politicization. We've discussed a prominent
scientist's resignation from the American Physical Society before:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1775143> The top comment was great.

