Join an online chat with SA's David Biello, who has covered the energy and climate beat since 1999 and will answer your questions about the science behind this week's heat wave in the eastern and midwestern U.S.
TheRealKamerman
I think we broke Twitter.
Robin Lloyd
Ha ha. Always an aspiration of mine.
dbiello
I do what I can. Happy to answer further questions another time. Stay cool!
Matt Cosad
We're just getting warmed up (pun intended).
Peter Dimitriou
thanks Robin, Fred and Greg!!!
See what we're tweeting about
ChristiansenJen What makes some graphics better than others? Neat summary of @amandacox (NYT) keynote at @openvisconf by @kissane. http://t.co/uhwK7424SH
JenLucPiquant Craigslist Khaleesi Seeks Robb Stark To Bang On Iron Throne: "A Stark in the streets and a wildling in the sheets" http://t.co/BsomAwhliu
DrJudyStone via @ProMED_mail #Plague warning from squirrel on Palomar Mt, California
http://t.co/r8y0xvFbyx?> #zoonoses cc @phylogenomics
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
21 Comments
Add CommentNo thanks. This isn't a science discusion but a getting together of global warming cultists to cherry pick evidence 'to prove' an agenda....the very antithesis of what science is all about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSave Fox News viewers, and those that make their livelihoods from the status quo - The Climate Change issue is pretty much settled. We're warming the planet. Period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the storied Economist Magazine now is covering the man-made warming issue extensively.
If, Jellyroll, you do care about a true science discussion, and are not simply a troll/shill for Fox, then at least you should tune in, and give the moderator and participants the benefit of the doubt, rather than pre-judge.
Many of the deniers are funded by folks that would profit from continued reliance on drilling, cracking, mining, polluting, burning, spilling and trashing.
I'm not sure many scientists are going to get rich putting it all on the line to basically continue to prove what's been said for 20-30 years now.
The scientists have true, verifiable measurements. Greenland (although its ice melt has slowed) is still challenged, and the northern icecap has receded by a significant (and verifiable) amount.
I for one, will miss the snows of Kilamanjaro... but I suppose, as long as your ilk has cheap gas for their SUV's... its all worth it.
The Scientists have facts.
The deniers have a profit motive.
Actually, Jellyroll, never mind.
We'll fix the place without you.
The antithesis of science is an obviously irrational claim unsupported by evidence. Only anti-science types pretend that every national science institute, every university and every research organization on the planet are all either colluding in a worldwide conspiracy or all making the same mistakes. Anti-science is whining about the currently accepted scientific consensus without ever offering an alternative scientific (i.e. falsifiable) theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntellectual cowardice would be to rush around to any online story or article on climate change and deny, deny, deny without ever offering an alternative explanation that can be rationally evaluated.
There is no global conspiracy of scientific institutes or scientists. Climate change is real, it not only a falsifiable scientific theory backed by reams of evidence, it's measurable and detectable in the real world by *anyone* who invests the time and effort to test the data and/or the theory.
Einstein's relativity didn't become the accepted consensus because 30,000 scientist signed a petition saying they thought Newton was wrong. It became accepted science because it fit the evidence. ACC/AGW is accepted because it fits the evidence, and no amount of shouting and crying by any number of cretins will ever change that.
@pokerplyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know it will seem weird to you, but just saying there is no scientific consensus about global warming doesn't make it so, even if you say it with utter conviction and caps locked.
Still, I don't begrudge anyone an opinion, informed or not. What I do require is that if you have formed this opinion, you will be held personally, financially, and ethically liable for damages an deaths resulting from climate change should it occur and you and your ilk make enough noise so that we don't do anything to mitigate it. If you value your opinion in this so far above those who have made it their life's work, put your money and your sacred honor where your mouth is.
Similarly, I and others who have studied the issue and conclude that there is a danger and are recommending changes to combat them should also be held personally, financially, and ethically liable for any loss to the world economy that results in expenses to rationally mitigate climate change.
By the way, do you see what I did there? I have a much safer position than you since the overall costs to mitigate climate change are quite small compared to the losses you will face if it is real. Also, a rather large number of things that will mitigate climate change are good ideas in and of themselves, and will benefit the economy regardless of if you think climate change is happening or not.
Are you going to set up the escrow account, or shall I?
Kübler-Ross pioneered the understanding and practices in relation to bereavement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHer ideas, notably the five stages of grief model (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance), are also transferable to personal change and emotional upset resulting from deniers confronted with facts.
Many deniers have reached the bargaining stage..."yes it's warming, but most of it is cow farts, or Sun Spots, or you-name-it cycles, or the coming Apocalypse...
I myself have no doubt that all these things contribute, but that they mean little in amount for the present warming trend compared to burgeoning population, burgeoning release of CO2 and other gasses previously stored in the ground and deforestation sea water warming and increased ocean surface area...
We can argue about whether the Apocalypse will leave us a cold rock circling a cool dwarf or there will be a roasting before that...but that will be billions of years after we are gone if we go on as now...
Geojellyroll and pokerplayer are right in being skeptical but beyond that...
"The cultists 'again' are equating a regional heat wave as evidence of 'gobal warming'."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you even know the difference between science and the popular press? Your ignorance of the scientific process and your unsubstantiated claims do not affect evidence based science. Never have, never will.
"There was a survey of climate scientists by Yale earlier this year and I do not have the link on this computer but the only thing that there was a consensus on was the basic concept of AGW and not on the rate of warming or the consequences"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what does a popularity poll have to do with the evidence or the science?
While you're busy cherry picking (and conveniently leaving out citations) whey don't you mention the other sorts of Harvard articles on climate. Try looking for this one (since you don't do cites)
"Harvard economist Martin Weitzman published an important analysis last year in which he explained why conventional economic analyses of climate change are “arbitrarily inaccurate.”"
"If you spend 100 billion"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's that I hear? Hard pressed for resources? Really? Just the top 6 oil companies make $38B in profit every quarter. The USA pumps $60B annually into tax breaks, direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuel industry. $100B doesn't even register in the scheme of things. $100B is less than 10% of the total annual spending on defense and pointless wars.
Completely false dichotomy you present in the first place since you treat all the money spent on renewable energy (i.e. mitigation) as "lost money" somehow but then count all the fossil fuel subsidies and money spent on wars to control the fossil fuel sources as "effective spending".
China is already kicking our ass in hardware and manufacturing, and several other countries (Germany and Spain come to mind) are as well. Not spending a trivial amount of money to develop the technology and manufacturing for the power supplies of the future is beyond idiotic, it's national suicide.
Peak oil has already happened, but you completely leave the rapidly increasing prices for oil in the near future in your scenario. Remember Capitalism 101 and all that supply and demand stuff? Your "plan" is to put the country/world square in the middle of that disaster.
I'm not even an economist and I can poke a dozen holes in your arguments without even resorting to a web search.
I am amused that the AGW deniers - the ones originally and rightly accused of the fallacy and crime of cherry-picking - have now, parrot-like, picked up on the pejorative term and, with reckless abandon and disregard for the meaning of the term, regularly return it in the direction whence the barb came.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe above commenter is a prime example. He/she invariably waits for a climate related article then drops a drive-by comment that has nothing whatsoever to contribute to the subject, but merely satisfies the desperate need of a curmudgeon to be heard.
@pokerplayer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo comment on whether we should hold you and other deniers personally, financially, and ethically liable if it turns out to be true?
For someone claiming to be an economist, you seem remarkably uncreative in thinking of monetary solutions. I myself am only an engineer by training and a business improvement specialist by vocation, but I could come up with more than a "it must be too expensive" argument with hand-waved numbers.
So to answer your challenge: what things should we do anyway that would decrease global climate change? Here are some that will be net positive...
-Increase fuel economy (benefits: reduce shipping dollars to our friends in the Middle East, more money in our economy, less driving force for multi-trillion dollar crises and political entanglements)
-Increase energy efficiency (see above: for short-term investment, a long-term payoff. ex: low-loss power transmission, tax breaks for more energy efficient homes)
-Increase renewable energy R&D and manufacture (we need to reclaim being the world leaders in the research, development, and manufacture of wind turbines, hydro, tidal, geothermal, geo heat pump, thermal storage, etc. All existing tech, all can be made better/cheaper and it ought to be the US doing it and making money at it.)
-Longer term, move to distributed power generation, rather than monolithic central distribution. This reduces transmission losses while maintaining single-point efficiency of generation.
-Reclaim leadership in electrical battery technology R&D. However power is generated, it will need to be stored. We should be making that money.
-Increase nuclear power generation using mixed oxide breeder reactors. Sorry folks, but AGW is much much more dangerous than nuclear accidents (and quantitatively so).
I believe the ball is in your court?
@pokerplyer Why would I respond with anything of substance to a vacuous bit of flame bait? Oh, wait, that's right, when you post "somebody somewhere once did some poll on something and it proves there's a global conspiracy", you consider that "substance"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd say it sounds more like substance abuse than substance.
Speaking of substance, let's discuss your other lie: "In fact- There is NO consensus in the science community regarding the rate of warming associated with additional CO2 and there is NO consensus regarding what areas of the planet will benefit or be harmed."
You invented the random requirement that there be consensus on those points, that doesn't make them requirements (or even rational) in the real world. All climate science comes down to a range of potential outcomes, always has, always will.
Your specific claim is yet another of the many retreats we see from the anti-science claim that "there's no scientific consensus on climate change".
An unspecified poll of unspecified topic of scientists of unspecified discipline taken at Harvard is "hard evidence" in your book, but a specific Harvard study by a specific Harvard economist can be ignored or dismissed out of hand. My how flexible your standards of evidence are!
I love it when the little clown car with the "Wii H8 Science" bumper sticker on it is *always* the first to arrive at any story even vaguely related to climate or weather. It's funny how they all fall over each other trying to be the first to deny or throw red herrings or the first to put up a straw man.
You keep planting those straw men, "expensive", "ineffective", "wasted" etc. I'll keep waiting for you to cite any hard evidence for any of those claims.
Meanwhile, please do that thing again where the car backfires really loud and it makes the other clown's pants fall off! That one is soo funny!
@SteveO - if you want to shortcut the troll and his cherry picking of statements, simply visit yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/05/scientific-concensus-stronger-than-scientists-though/ for a rational analysis of the poll results and links to the actual polls and questions. Or just take the shortcut to http://visionprize.com/results which visually exposes his idiocy about consensus on CO2 levels etc. Less than 5% believe CO2 levels won't exceed 550ppm until after 2100CE and the other 95% (guesstimated by eyeballing the chart) believe it will happen before 2100.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, this is more garbage from AGW believers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA few corrected points. 2 days is not a Heat Wave. look it up. By all normal definitions it is at least 3 days or longer exceeding 90 degrees in the NorthEast of the US.
Pick any other global defintion and they almost all have 3 to 5 day minimum.
Next, Extreme COLD kills more people than Heat. It is not even close. Look it up! 2X as many deaths by COLD vs. Heat.
Yet another false claim is the "higher than normal temperatures nation wide" perhaps you should learn to read the graphs on the NOAA site? 19 States were below average for Spring. Alaska is in the grips of continued below average temps.
When will the Warmista learn to stop lying to promote their agenda?
@fujidave:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems noaa thinks differently:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/extremes/201205.gif
My guess is that you need a lesson in statistical analysis, as counting states does little to prove your point.
EXACTLY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThats all you have? He said Nationwide. that would include all 48 continuous states? yes or no?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my state we are more than 3 degrees below normal.
How about the other 2 blatant lies?
Obviously you did look them up and found out he lied!
That is the basic problem with Warmistas, they think weather is climate when it suits them, and then they lie about many related factors. We have to keep calling them on this B.S.
Now, how many days above normal temps in the North East since the purported 'heat wave' ? survey says ...
It has become Junuary with lots of rain.
you are a complete drone for believing this garbage.
@cm1701
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand now you can be called on your BS just like the author.
http://www.eturbonews.com/21762/snow-slowly-building-mount-kilimanjaro
Turns out your claim of missing the snow on Kilamanjaro is more warmista hype.
Get an education and stop with all the hand wringing
@fujidave:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point, the one you missed, is that internal political boundaries (an arbitrary reference in this context) can, in no way be used to represent the basis of any argument for or against warming. Did you read the link I posted (from NOAA; the same institution you referenced)?
By your motto, if Rhode Island and Connecticut had cooler springs than Texas, you would lead people to believe that there was an average cooling between the three because two states cooled and one did not.
Further (a bit of a tangent), I will quote you so as to not misrepresent:
"That is the basic problem with Warmistas, they think weather is climate when it suits them, and then they lie about many related factors."
In your reference to Kilimanjaro, your article only stated that it snowed (a weather event), AND it stated that the glacial layers are thinning (due to changes in climate). . . .
The pathetic thing is that I only had to go to the article you referenced to point out that you have just done what you accuse others of doing. I would be willing to wager that you did not even read the article you referred to; just looked for a handy title for the purpose of promoting your own bullshit.
@moss boss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, very fair and good points. The idea that we can somehow make judgement on something like the climate based on arbitrarily drawn state and country borders is a bit of a stretch. I was only responding to the article that used such a method. And when someone claims 'all' or 'the entire XXX' and it is not true, they set themselves up to be shown as incorrect.
I agree with your point on my link. Actually if you take a few minutes to realize why I chose that particular link you would see that you have proven my point entirely. This Scientific American article is an example of what we both are pointing out. If you take a snippet here or there and try to push the agenda, it is dishonest.
For the real story on Kilamanjaro, It is indeed Human activities causing the Glacial decline. It is NOT Warming from GHG, it is land use impact. I would post a few well written articles on that too, but I know you can find them yourself.
For the record, I agree there is a warming trend in some non-tropical regions. the concept of Global Warming is silly. Use your own example above RI&CT vs. Texas.
I agree that we need to find alternate energy sources. We should make all efforts to clean the air and water. However, the link of CO2 to a large increase in global warming is hogwash.
LMAO! Meanwhile, as we read the cherry picked arguments of the usual drivel against climate warming, over a thousand temperature records were broke this last week on the opening days of summer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose in denial seem oblivious to the egg on their faces, but at least now they admit there is change. That is progress considering just a couple of years ago these same people all insisted there is no evidence at all of this impending disaster.
The argument has now turned to the economics of minimizing the damage that they all now agree is happening. Suddenly these budding climate experts who can't see the forest because the trees are in the way, are now all economics experts. Ask anyone of them.
There is more BS degrees degrees on this forum then high school diplomas among the denial crowd, and I don't mean Bachelors of Science.
@fujidave:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate your honesty, but CO2 is the primary culprit. Many would say that it does not "force", it merely follows changes in climate, but that would be wrong. Many others say that H2O is the primary greenhouse gas, so it would follow that CO2, in its relatively minute concentration, could not have an impact. That is also incorrect.
The truth is, although it has produced an incomprehensible benefit to mankind, industrialization, the way it has come about (or evolved), has been, and will continue to be our biggest downfall.
I am in the middle of my life, but would give anything to have both the experience of my past and the ability to live longer than my life expectancy (as would anyone, for a multitude of reasons), just to see how this experiment works out.