More on hockey and climate change

[pelikano 1]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2012/04/climate-change-and-canadian-hockey

[Chadd 916]

Funny how none of these stories came out last year when we had one of the coldest winters in decades

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

Well now they know how most of us Americans play ice hockey haha. It's ashame that they are losing outdoor ice time but I am sure they still get more than the average American ice hockey player.

[goblue9280 33]

Funny how none of these stories came out last year when we had one of the coldest winters in decades

Not sure I understand your point... the reason the stories are appearing in the news right now is because the study was just published at the beginning of March. Would the study have received as much news coverage during the 2010-11 winter? Who knows... but one cold winter doesn't negate the fact that the overwhelming majority of winters over the past few decades have been statistically warmer than average.

[hockeymass 11]

Not sure I understand your point... the reason the stories are appearing in the news right now is because the study was just published at the beginning of March. Would the study have received as much news coverage during the 2010-11 winter? Who knows... but one cold winter doesn't negate the fact that the overwhelming majority of winters over the past few decades have been statistically warmer than average.

How can the majority of winters be warmer than average? Half are warmer, half are colder. That's how you get an average.

[Jason Harris 31]

My understanding of the effect of climate change is the oceans have become warmer, which somehow leads to more extremes in weather. So there might be more top end hurricanes or tornadoes, or even colder winters, but overall the average temperatures for the years have been steadily rising, although I'm not sure about the last year.

[goblue9280 33]

How can the majority of winters be warmer than average? Half are warmer, half are colder. That's how you get an average.

Here's what I said:

"the overwhelming majority of winters over the past few decades have been statistically warmer than average."

By average, I'm referring to a historical average (could be the last 100 years). The data is out there.

[iceNsteel 0]

The problem with climate change is simply we don't have accurate data from a long enough time frame reach any conclusions about long standing weather patterns. History is full of climate changes that obviously weren't caused by humans. During the Medieval warm period it was hot enough for grapes to be grown in England and the Vikings to colonize Greenland. Then it pretty suddenly ended with the little ice age. You can't say humans caused any of that because they simply didn't have the technology to affect the climate.

So 50 years of data might be something we're doing, and it could just as easily be one of the many naturally occurring changes in weather patterns the planet has experienced.

[goblue9280 33]

The problem with climate change is simply we don't have accurate data from a long enough time frame reach any conclusions about long standing weather patterns.

The problem with anthropogenic climate change is that the dispute of it is media/politically driven... amongst the scientific community, there is little dispute.

Also, if you're going to use the little ice age and medieval warming period as examples of natural climate change, than you should also acknowledge that the global warming seen since the industrial revolution is exceptional in comparison.

[doodman 0]

There is NOT a clear consensus amongst the scientific community, and I don't trust em anyway. ahem! climategate?

ANY data you throw out to support climate change I refute on the grounds that it has been proven that the scientific community is fudging the numbers to support it.

And please don't roll in here with 'but its warmer here!' because where I live we've had cooler winters AND SUMMERS

[Jason Harris 31]

I suppose it depends how one defines "consensus." Does consensus equal unanimity or vast majority?

Regarding climategate, you might be unaware that the scientists were exonerated. Unfortunately, if we can't trust the people who study this full-time, we're placed in the bind of having to trust the advertising of billion dollar industries spending millions to protect their billions.

From 2009:

"A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The authors contacted 10,200 scientists listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments and received 3,146 responses to their two questions: "have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?" and "Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments^*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent).

While respondents' names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory."

From 2010:

"About 97 to 98 percent of climatologists “most actively publishing in the field” support the view that human activity is causing global warming, according to a 2010 scientific review of academic studies. That view is summed up in the 2007 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which concludes with 90 percent confidence that human activity is responsible for most of the warming in the second half of the 20th century."

[goblue9280 33]

There is NOT a clear consensus amongst the scientific community, and I don't trust em anyway. ahem! climategate?

Two word answer: You're wrong.

And climategate? You mean the politically driven hit job that was shown to have taken snippets of emails out of context in order to mislead the general public into thinking there was a conspiracy amongst climatologists? That one?

[iceNsteel 0]

The problem with anthropogenic climate change is that the dispute of it is media/politically driven... amongst the scientific community, there is little dispute.

Also, if you're going to use the little ice age and medieval warming period as examples of natural climate change, than you should also acknowledge that the global warming seen since the industrial revolution is exceptional in comparison.

There's no accurate data going back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. However, no, so called climate change of recent years would hardly match the shift that took place between the MWP and the little ice age. But global warming tends to be a religious like belief, and reason matters little to zealots.

[goblue9280 33]

There's no accurate data going back to the beginning of the industrial revolution.

So the data showing the MWP and LIA is good enough to be used as examples of natural climate change, but not good enough to be used to show the exceptional-ism of the post industrial revolution climate trend?

But global warming tends to be a religious like belief, and reason matters little to zealots.

Except for the fact that climate change is a scientific theory based on observable evidence that can be independently retested and is subject to extensive peer review... while religious belief is based on blind faith. So yeah, they're nothing alike.

[iceNsteel 0]

So the data showing the MWP and LIA is good enough to be used as examples of natural climate change, but not good enough to be used to show the exceptional-ism of the post industrial revolution climate trend?

Except for the fact that climate change is a scientific theory based on observable evidence that can be independently retested and is subject to extensive peer review... while religious belief is based on blind faith. So yeah, they're nothing alike.

Remember the global cooling fad? The "scientific" community is as fickle as any mob.

The problem with climate change is the assumption of cause. There's not enough data to actually prove, or disprove, anything. A reasonable person would have to look at the whole picture. The climate on this planet has shifted many times, long before there were humans with cars.

[goblue9280 33]

The problem with climate change is the assumption of cause.

I think it's more a question of degree. Climatologists have a near unanimous opinion (see the above post by Jason Harris) that climate change is happening, and that man is a major contributing factor. So the question's should be to what degree is man contributing, what are the ultimate consequences if we continue with our current way of life, and what can be done to minimize or reverse these potential consequences.

My problem is that these groups with a financial interest in industries that could be negatively impacted by climate change fixes are politicizing and undermining that which the climatologists agree on... thus hampering/stalling efforts to answer the questions above.

[Chadd 916]

You can find data that will support or conflict with any position. The comparison to religion is unfortunately accurate in this case. Too often, people are using whatever data supports their position and ignoring the data that does not. There are frauds and zealots on both sides of the aisle on this one and they tend to devalue the people that are actually honest and legit. It wasn't that long ago that schools were teaching that we were on the verge of another ice age and now we're worried about the opposite.

I would have more confidence in the man-caused global warming theory if the projections were consistent or if the data bore out the predictions made several years ago. It's entirely plausible that humans do have an impact, and I feel that we should do what we can do to improve our use of natural resources, but we need to do so in a manageable way. It's unfortunate that special interests on both sides of the issue are controlling the debate.

[AfftonDad 88]

If we were to be honest with ourselves, I think we would all admit that there are fields which attract people having certain "world views". I would think that for the most part people who work for the NRA for example would tend to be more conservative and/or pro gun than most. I would guess that for the most part the defense industry would not attract a lot of "pacifists." I believe "The Arts" tend to attract people of a more liberal leaning. Similary, thinking back to college, the persons who I knew that were into the "natural" sciences, i.e. geology, meteorology, climatology, etc. were generally what I would loosely call of a "green" persuasion. It is my opinion that climatologists would therefore have a bias that could quite possibly influence their work. I am not saying that I do not believe there is climate change occuring. I think there probably is. I don't however, know if 1)It is part of the natural climate changes that happen or 2) If not, that there is anything that we can do about it, short of removing the root cause (us), that can impact it in a meaningful way in a timeframe that will make a difference.

[Jason Harris 31]

But global warming tends to be a religious like belief, and reason matters little to zealots.

What's funny is I tend to look at it from the opposite view. I think that deniers tend to have a religious like belief, and reason matters little to zealots.

I don't know your job but, generally speaking, you and I have to assume that just about everyone on this thread knows far less than the people who've undertaken the study of the planet's climate as a career, correct? What's in it for them to so overwhelmingly believe that the climate is changing negatively, and that our lifestyle has an impact on that? We could that argue that climatologists have undertaken a conspiracy, whereby they tacitly understand that the only way they get hired and retained is to lie that they believe the climate is changing. But does it really make sense that a guy would be willing to spend 60 days a year camping in the tundra to measure ice caps, then return home with fudged numbers just so he gets to go on his two-month vacation the following year? And wouldn't a portion of them still keep their jobs even if the climate wasn't changing?

One argument I've seen raised is scientists' computer models aren't proving to be accurate enough. How could they be? The weather forecast for my area has already proven to be wrong from just last night; how could we possibly expect computer models to be correct with a prediction going out one hundred years on possibly the most dynamic elements on our planet? But let's say their forecasts are 100% inaccurate. Would that have any bearing on whether climate change is occurring? No. They're independent of each other. All it would mean is scientists would need a better model of using today's measurements to predict future weather patterns.

Regarding the Medieval Warm Period, the National Research Council, at the request of Congress in 2006, convened six different research teams using documentary evidence, tree rings, boreholes, glacier length, etc. to try to reconstruct mean surface temperatures going back 2000 years. Their conclusion was: "It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies....Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified....Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods."

However, while they couldn't conclude with 100% accuracy the comparison between the MWP and today, if you dig deeper into the report (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=1), the presumption is two-fold: 1) there were areas of the globe that measured warmer, while there were also areas of the globe that measured colder; 2) the average of those areas is presumed to be less than today. But here's the more important question. Does the fact that there was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age have any bearing whether the climate is changing today and human activity has affected it? Of course not, they're independent. I know people like to say, "But there was human activity then.....", but trying to compare 1/20 the amount of humans who used candles and campfires to today's society is ludicrous.

Finally, we know that human activity led to air pollution in major cities. We know this because is was human intervention -- catalytic converters, unleaded gasoline, "add ons" to smoke stacks -- that measurably lowered the particulates in most cities over the past 30-40 years. If we were able to cause, then decrease, the pollution in the air via human activity, why is it so inconceivable to assume that our actions could have led to detrimental affects on our climate, especially given China and India (2.5B people between them) are joining the Industrial Age?

[doodman 0]

Theres 1000s pages of debate on this topic, there's nothing new here. You do a good copy/paste job.

The smartest people here are the ones that acknowledge this is a political issue and the science is there to support either side.

I don't see the point in spending trillions of dollars and turning over unprecedented power to government to keep the earth at the ideal temperature, whatever that is.

At any rate, until Al Gore decides to sell of 6 of his 7 mansions, ride a bike and stop flying in his private jet..I don't feel so bad about leaving the porchlight on too long

[Jason Harris 31]

The smartest people here are the ones that acknowledge this is a political issue and the science is there to support either side.

I don't see the point in spending trillions of dollars and turning over unprecedented power to government to keep the earth at the ideal temperature, whatever that is.

Actually, the smartest realize this was never a political issue until the past three years or so; virtually every proposed solution had Republican support until that time. For instance, "cap and trade" was invented during the Reagan Administration, Bush 1 made it part of the Clean Air Act of 1990, Bush 2 proposed it in an amendment to the Clean Air Act, McCain and Palin campaigned for it in 2008, and Gingrich supported it in 2007.

I could copy and paste, but I'll save you the time in reading.

However, the truly smart are the ones who are able to separate the politics from the science. In other words, there are two questions: the first question is does the science suggest our lifestyle is causing the climate to change unnaturally; and the second question is what do we as a species propose as solutions? Those are totally unrelated questions, but somehow a large segment of our population has a tough time distinguishing the difference. As a result, when they hear "climate change," instead of thinking "scientific measurements" they fall prey to the spin of the past three years and hear "cap and tax," even though just three years ago, leaders from BOTH sides of the aisle were proposing it as "cap and trade."

However, that said, cap and trade is just one political solution. For there to be healthy discussions about different ways to mitigate the adverse affect to our planet, we first have to remove the politics and admit the scientific evidence is mounting.

[doodman 0]

So..suppose we stop the earth heating up, and actually reverse the trend and cause...GASP...global cooling! Are we then going to be forced to spend trillions of dollars and give even more government power to heat the earth? Are you seriously going to set an 'ideal earth temperature' like a thermostat? Are we going to have to stop riding our bikes and drive gas guzzlers and get those factories cranking out CO2 to heat the earth?

This is the problem with you people, you haven't thought this through. You're like the dog who chases the car and actually catches it, you don't know what to do with it.

[Chadd 916]

I don't see the point in spending trillions of dollars and turning over unprecedented power to government to keep the earth at the ideal temperature, whatever that is.

Not ideal, simply the current temperature. What is ideal for one plant/animal/orgamism, isn't ideal for another.

If you want reductions, legislate reductions. Cap and trade is essentially going to end up as a way to enrich those with the right connections.

[danno25nh 3]

I don't know your job but, generally speaking, you and I have to assume that just about everyone on this thread knows far less than the people who've undertaken the study of the planet's climate as a career, correct? What's in it for them to so overwhelmingly believe that the climate is changing negatively, and that our lifestyle has an impact on that? We could that argue that climatologists have undertaken a conspiracy, whereby they tacitly understand that the only way they get hired and retained is to lie that they believe the climate is changing. But does it really make sense that a guy would be willing to spend 60 days a year camping in the tundra to measure ice caps, then return home with fudged numbers just so he gets to go on his two-month vacation the following year? And wouldn't a portion of them still keep their jobs even if the climate wasn't changing?

This is actually a very good reason to question these scientists. Their income is dependent upon research grants. These grants would disappear completely is they came back with the opinion "Nothing to see here. There is no evidence of climate change outside of what we expect to see from natural phenomenon."

These researchers absolutely must come back with results that require further study in their area of expertise.

Having been involved in a couple of outside funded research projects I can state without hesitation that research is done by people attempting to prove or disprove a hypothesis. If they are unsuccessful they have difficulty gathering more funding.

If a scientist obtains funding to prove man made global warming, he damn sure better produce results showing that man does indeed create global warming.

Regardless of fact surrounding a warming trend, there are many billions of dollars to be made by proclaiming global warming exists. This means regardless of fact it will be stated as truth that global warming exists.

[Jason Harris 31]

I have no doubt that some people would stretch their numbers to continue to receive funding, but most people would agree that the oil, gas and coal industries -- all multi-billion dollar industries -- have far more reason to muck up the science than a coordinated effort by thousands of scientists working for thousands of separate organizations.

Wouldn't we have to assume that a large percentage of scientists, people who grew up looking for empirical evidence, would stand up and say that oodles of other scientists are committing fraud? That's one thing we haven't heard much in the climate change issue. We've heard other scientists state that they don't agree with the conclusions or modeling, but we haven't heard John Smith publicly accuse Jack Brown of lying about his results. (And before anyone claims "Climategate," bear in mind that the original accusers were the ones who ended up being suspected of fraud.)