Revision to temperature measurements doesn't change global warming

By Phil Plait | March 21, 2012 10:28 am

There’s a bit of climate news I want to clarify before the usual suspects start misleading people about it.

There are three big global temperature records used by climatologists. One is called HadCRUT (Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit Temperatures), and was recently revised by scientists at Hadley. This newly-revised database, called HadCRUT4, uses better measurements of land air temperatures and sea-surface temperatures than before. In the former case, more measuring stations have been added (giving better coverage) and have been standardized better. In the latter case, the revised database accounts better for measurement uncertainties from things like the method used to collect water (including, of all things, how the buckets used to scoop up water alter the temperature of the water collected).

The two most important things that have come out of this new database: 1) the Earth is still warming up, and at the same rate as has been determined before, and 2) (according to a BBC report) 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record. 2010 is.

Here’s the key plot (from the journal paper describing the database revision):

The new HadCRUT4 data is black. I know, it’s a bit hard to read, but the major points to note are that all the measurements follow each other — indicating consistency and accuracy in the measurements — and all show a sharp rise in northern hemisphere temperatures (the middle plot) from about 1970 to today.

Just to make sure there’s no misunderstanding, this is not a plot of temperature directly. The scientists took the temperatures from 1961 to 1990 and got the average. They then subtract that from the actual measurements to get a deviation from average (this is called the "temperature anomaly"). So, for example, if the line were flat and had a value of 0 to the right of 1990, that would mean the temperatures have not changed since 1990. If it were flat at 0.2, that would mean the temperature has increased to 0.2° above average and stayed there.

But what we really see is a line with a positive slope, which means that temperatures have increased and have continued to increase.

That’s bad. That’s global warming. It is this very simple graph that so many people are loudly and desperately trying to deny. The thing is, all they can make is noise. The data are pretty clear.

Now about that "hottest year" thing, where 2010 is now the hottest year and 1998 places third… I’ve covered this before. Nine of the ten hottest years have been since the year 2000. But as I’ve also pointed out before, these record-breakers are not much use on their own. It’s the overall trend that counts. The difference in temperatures between individual years is pretty small, so a minor change might swap two years in the standings (like how 1934 became hotter than 1998, but only by a couple of hundredths of a degree, a tiny amount). But that’s not the point: the point is that of all the hottest years on the record, most of them were in the past decade or so!

In other words, the planet is warming up. Now.

But we knew that. In every way we can measure it, the planet on which we live is changing, and changing more rapidly now in the past few years.


Related Posts:

- While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower (and a followup with me destroying an amazingly bad rebuttal of my points)
- New independent climate study confirms global warming is real
- Is it hot in here, or is it just me?
- 2011: The 9th hottest year on record
- New study clinches it: the Earth is warming up
- Climate change: the evidence
- NASA talks global warming

Comments (80)

  1. Jeff

    I grew up in part in Minneapolis, and it hit 80 deg. before the vernal equinox 2012,whereas pictures of me as a kid fifty years ago, I’m up a tall bank of snow;( I LITERALLY have that photo with a time stamp “March 1962″ on it, exactly 50 yrs. ago). I think anecdotes like that show us we’re really coming out of the Pleistocene epoch for real, and the “Holocene” title of curent epoch is apt , with the influence of man. I have no doubt AGW is real, and anyone who says otherwise is just plain using political think, not science.

    ARE you kidding me? watch this : http://www.kare11.com/news/article/968240/80/Twin-Cities-hits-80-earliest-ever-on-record

  2. Phil, thanks for this. Nothing to add, just, thank you.

  3. oldebabe

    It seems to me that there is little or no disagreement that climate change is occurring. That is a fact of this world, and has happened before, and will happen again.

    Isn’t the controversy that humans have anything to do with or have participated in the current acceleration of global warming, rather than that it may be occurring?

  4. Mark Schaffer

    Now what are people doing to address this in their daily lives? Here is my list: Installed low flow water fixtures starting in the late ’80′s and upgraded them as needed, added insulation to house, am sharing one car with my wife and buying a Toyota Prius C to replace our eleven year old Toyota Echo, put a small solar grid tied system on our roof in 2003, replaced roof when due with very light colored shingles, used desert landscaping, have mostly CFL’s that will only be replaced with LED’s when CFL’s burn out, use a clothesline in our garage to do most clothes drying, wash in cold water with appropriate laundry soap for such, make sure all personal hygiene products are fully used and stretched to get every last bit out containers, feedback to stores our desire to see more sustainable products and operations, always replace electronics with more efficient ones when appropriate, decided against having children, vote for informed politicians who will push uninformed companies forward, and the list goes on.

  5. Mark Schaffer

    Also, I pay for carbon offsets.

  6. Jeff

    #3 , yes, the controversy is over the human influence. But that is why the politics comes in. I remember a nice senate hearing on GW, was going well, until the sen. from Oklahoma showed up, and the meeting turned confrontational. Well, of course, it is simple to see where he is coming from , the oil and gas industry. Typical.

  7. MartyM

    That’s not what Rick Santorum said last night at his victory speech, er second place victory speech, in his PA HQ.

    The gall of that man calling climate change “political science”.

  8. Mark Schaffer

    Oldebabe, There isn’t any valid controversy over whether humans are causing the current accelerated warming if you ignore the uninformed press reports with their insistence on equal time for both sides. The science is clear and it is time for people to act in their own best interest.

  9. Meme Mine

    After 26 years of failed warnings, the fact that it’s cooling now does NOT prove global warming was a tragic exaggeration………
    Boycott the fear mongering climate crisis media!

  10. Daniel J. Andrews

    It seems to me that there is little or no disagreement that climate change is occurring. That is a fact of this world, and has happened before, and will happen again.

    There certainly isn’t any disagreement in the science field, but there are armies of bloggers and think-tanks not only saying climate change isn’t occurring, but even denying the laws of physics by claiming CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.

    And yes, climate has changed before, but now it is happening a million times faster than it has in the past. Also, human civilization wasn’t around during the past changes–this time we are.

    And Mark @8 is correct. Our emissions are causing the warming. Every other possible cause has been examined very carefully and over the years have been ruled out. There’s no scientific controversy there either. Some of the debate was how much of the current warming is caused by our emissions. A few years ago estimates went from 25 to 70 percent.

    However, at the recent American Geophysical Union meeting some were bandying around the idea that more than “100% ” of the warming was attributable to humans. What they’re saying is that based on all the factors at play (e.g. solar activity was in a minimum till recently) the earth should have been cooling slightly. So not only have our emissions negated the cooling, but actually produced warming on top of that.

  11. Blair

    Phil,

    It has been argued that while the 9 of the 10 hottest years have been since 2000 that there has not been statistically significant heating since 1998. I can’t tell from the drawing but it looks like this is no longer the case. Can you clarify?

  12. MikeC

    “…and changing more rapidly now in the past few years.”

    Is this an editing error? I see nothing in the body of text that even comes close to supporting or even discussing that claim.

    As well, I have read the paper and their only mention of anything “more rapid” is concerning the temperatures in the Arctic. Here’s a non-paywall version of the paper although it may be a final draft and not the exact one, I’m not sure: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/HadCRUT4_accepted.pdf

  13. Blargh

    @ oldebabe

    Isn’t the controversy that humans have anything to do with or have participated in the current acceleration of global warming, rather than that it may be occurring?

    There is no scientific controversy whether or not humans are causing global warming: we are. Period.

    However, the deniers have switched their attack target from warming itself to the cause behind warming (and even further, in some cases: “ok, there’s warming and we’re causing it, but we can’t do anything about it”).

  14. ctj

    one thing i always find troubling about these global temperature anomaly graphs is that they depict global anomalies. that’s fine, if the goal is to show net warming over the globe. but this smears out the much higher local anomalies, which can be dramatic (and can swing in both directions).

    not too long ago i saw Phil post an image of the global distribution of the force of gravity at the surface, projected onto a globe. i don’t think i’ve seen anywhere a global depiction of local anomalies. i think it’d be much more useful than just the hockey sticks in terms of demonstrating just how serious AGW is.

  15. Tony Mach

    Thanks that you help us against the misleading people! What’s next? Demands for a plot of temperature directly? Thankfully you don’t fall for that!

    And if you want to read about water buckets, don’t go to Steve McIntyre’s blog, that’s for sure!

  16. Mark Derail

    Recently it was stated that the extra CO2 would only account for a 1c change overall, yet we have more than a 1c increase.

    Airborne pollution restricts sunlight to the ground, there are more clouds and man-made from jets.

    What’s causing the temp increase?

  17. Wzrd1

    @17, Mark Derail, it’s not only CO2 that is a greenhouse gas. Methane is as well. Humans release several greenhouse gases in massive volumes into the atmosphere.
    Of course, I remember growing up and seeing smog and hearing news reports about how bad it was, whilst politicians claimed smog was harmless and a normal thing with industry…
    Today, it’s global climate change, with the same BS claims.
    But, one would think that by now, people would be able to ascertain when a politician lies. It’s remarkably easy: Their lips move.

    Now, if only our meteorologists could figure out this past winter!
    They’re talking about 80 degrees on Friday in Philadelphia!

  18. Ed Bala

    And those of you who are very concerned about AGW, or whatever it’s called this week have DRASTICALLY changed your lives how to address this issue? You have gotten rid of your fossil-fueled automobiles, right? You have moved into caves, right? You have stopped using any source of energy that comes from the use of fossil fuel, right? ……… I’ll begin to give a rat’s behind about AGW when you alarmists start putting YOUR money where your mouths are and stop running around crying about the climate.

  19. Chris

    @11 Blair
    It has been argued that while the 9 of the 10 hottest years have been since 2000 that there has not been statistically significant heating since 1998. I can’t tell from the drawing but it looks like this is no longer the case. Can you clarify?

    1998 was an El Nino year, which typically has warmer than average temps. Importantly 1998 was a blockbuster El Nino which heated everything up. What’s amazing is that now we are in La Nino, which is usually cool, and the temps are approaching those same levels. The weather moves up and down and we can’t make valid statistical judgements over small time periods. If you cherry pick which time you look at you’ll always find the trend you are looking for.

    An interesting way to look at this is the analogy of baseball. A player might only hit a home run every so often. Now imagine that player starts hitting home runs twice as often or more and his hits go further on average. You’d think he was on steroids. That’s what going on with the climate. Normally we’d expect a record year every so often, but the frequency and intensity of hot years is definitely predicted to increase as the globe warms.

    Right now it’s 81, average is 42. As I told my students “Welcome to your future!”

  20. Keith Bowden

    Thanks, Phil – always nice to have proactive measures for those who deny HIRGO. :/

  21. Chris

    @4 Mark
    I don’t have a car. All my transportation is done by bicycle or public transportation. Easy to do. Besides the environmental impact, also the savings from not having to pay for gas, auto insurance, a car, and maintenance. I recently got a flat tire. A new inner tube and a patch kit cost $10. Try fixing a car flat for that price! Also there is a $20/month tax credit for bicycle commuters. Check into it.

  22. Daffy

    I love the evolution of the denier’s arguments:

    a) There is no Global Warming. It is a conspiracy to wipe out capitalist society.

    b) There is no global warming. It is a conspiracy among scientists to get funding.

    c) OK, there may be some global warming, but it’s a natural occurrence.

    d) OK, there may be some global warming, and it may be man-made, but it is actually good for us.

    e) OK, there may be global warming, it may be man-made and it may be bad for us. But the Chinese are worse than we are.

    f) (See Ed Bala’s comment above): OK, it’s all real, but the liberals aren’t doing enough to stop it, so we don’t have to do anything at all.

  23. Steve Metzler

    Ed Bala (#19):

    Everything we can do to mitigate our personal contribution to the rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 concentration certainly helps, but it is a drop in the bucket to what is contributed by global energy generation and ground transportation. What we really need to do is change the way we generate electricity to primarily use renewables, and then use that clean electricity to power our ground transportation.

    Nice bit of uninformed fear mongering there. We noticed.

  24. tmac57

    Ed Bala said:

    I’ll begin to give a rat’s behind about AGW when you alarmists start putting YOUR money where your mouths are and stop running around crying about the climate.

    Understood….also understood is that this is the use of a classic tu quoque fallacy.
    The truth or falsity of AGW does not reside in the behaviors of the various sides of the issue.

  25. AlaskaHound

    The fundemental reason why many do not buy into the AGW notion is that the data does not and has not followed the computer models for doubling of Co2 and tropospheric temperature increase.
    Climate history did not start in 1979 (satellite era)and the warmers that have rewrote history to minimize the past warm periods aren’t helping their cause.
    It should be on the front of everyone’s mind, that climatology is an infant science category and the knowledge gained is minimal, especially when we cannot see the phsical & magnetic interactions between the troposphere and the sphereas above (Mesosphere, stratosphere, ionosphere, magnetosphere etc..)
    If past, present and future observations followed the computer models and general theory of a doubling of Co2, the scientists would not need a way or special voice to promote AGW. Because the planetary climate has not and will not follow the theory, man needs to look much closer at the other 326 I/P’s to the modelling (which they don’t & won’t use), which have been avoided in favor of Co2.
    When you jump to one theoretical conclusion right off the bat, you’ll most certainly have issues explaining why the models aren’t following the real conditions.
    We have more ice in our cryosphere than the mid 1970′s, yet no one reports it?
    The prospective sea level rise isn’t ocurring because the tropospheric currents are depositing the moisture on land and as several scientists speculated in the late 70′s; the planet will most likely warm to a tippiing point that is the beginning of the next glacial period, just like the planet has seen before when temperatures rose, followed by the increase in Co2.

  26. Chris Winter

    @Ed Bala:

    What Steve Metzler and tmac57 said.

    There is also this: Even those who, for whatever reason, don’t cut back their own carbon footprint can help lower global CO2 emissions by supporting politicians who understand the problem and will enact sensible policies. (Politicians of the type we in the U.S. don’t have too many of right now.)

    And as for your implication that doing anything about global warming would require drastic changes in lifestyle, to the point of giving up modern technology and living in caves — you’re wrong.

    That’s what really galls me about this whole business: the fact that you and your ilk (like “Meme Mine” above) continually call us fearmongers, when they are the ones raising the truly fearful prospects — saying that we want to “destroy the economy” or “curtail personal liberty”. Those arguments are nothing but straw men, intended to scare people into doing nothing to mitigate the effects of climate change.

  27. jem

    @14 ctj

    There are plots of global maps of temperature change around since the averages come from global data compilations. For example for the new HadCRUT4 reconstruction see the RealClimate.org post http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/updating-the-cru-and-hadcrut-temperature-data/#more-10784

    They show a comparison figure for HadCRUT3 & HadCRUT4 (taken from the Jones et al JGR paper), where you can see where there is data (better coverage in 4 but still gaps in South America and Africa) and what the regional variation is like (e.g. more warming in arctic Canada than continental US).

  28. Derek

    @26, Chris -

    You make a good point about the hypocrisy intrinsic to the fearmongering claims.

    Get over it, people. The science is settled. Global Warming is happening, and it’s a bad thing, and we need to be doing everything in our power to keep it under control.

  29. Buzz Parsec

    Did I get moderated? For pointing out Daffy’s omission with a very mildly bad word? Or for using HTML (bold tag)? Or for forgetting to remove a totally off-topic link (about the solar neutrino problem) from the “Website” field? I was snarky, but I don’t think I wasn’t nice :-)

    Or did my (I thought funny) comment just get eaten by the AGW denialists?

  30. amphiox

    I’ll begin to give a rat’s behind about AGW when you alarmists start putting YOUR money where your mouths are and stop running around crying about the climate.

    Already done, long, long ago. OUR money, in our political contributions, lifestyle choices, the very internet access we pay for to participate in blog threads on the topic.

    So why are you not keeping your promise in that first line then?

    Or are you actually lying about that?

  31. Gary Ansorge

    19. Ed Bala

    Oh gee, does buying a new car that triples my gas milage count? Or always turning off lights when I leave a room? Or replacing all my incandescent bulbs with CFLs and LED lights? Or growing some small part of my own food, or wearing heavy clothing in the winter, rather than heating my entire house or,,,

    Gee, I think I’m not only doing MY share,,,I’m also doing some of yours,,,

    Gary 7

  32. Ron1

    My, my, my, oh times have changed.

    It’s really nice to see people dealing with deniers for what they really are; self serving, ignorant #&*! Finally, the community is getting a backbone and is fighting back.

    Science 1, Ed Bala 0.

  33. ginckgo

    @19 Ed Bala, did you bother to read e.g. Mark Schaffer’s list @4 about what he’s done to reduce his eco footprint?

    Personally, we’ve got 1 car for a household of 4; walk most places like school; turn off most appliances at the wall over night; rarely turn on heating or cooling; 8,000 liters of rainwater tanks; grow a veggie patch; etc. Most of this cost almost no money, but our bills show that we’re using much less than the average household.

  34. Peter Eldergill

    @32 Buzz

    I think all links are automatically sent to moderation.

    Pete

  35. bad Jim

    I wonder whether the conservatives’ retorts (If you think global warming is a problem, give up your car! If you think taxes on the wealthy are too low, just send the government a check!) are rooted in a point of view that privileges virtue over results: what matters is the example you set or the values you espouse rather than anything you actually accomplish.

  36. llewelly

    And as for Ed Bala, I stopped driving 19 years ago, and he is still doing nothing.
    Not only is he a perpetrator of tu quoque fallacy, he is also a liar; there are millions who are doing what they can to cut down on carbon emissions, and he knows it; his lies have been shot down on other blogs and in other threads.

  37. jck

    Phil,

    You said that HadCRUT is one of three big global temperature records. What are the other two?

  38. The two most important things that have come out of this new database: 1) the Earth is still warming up, and at the same rate as has been determined before, and 2) (according to a BBC report) 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record. 2010 is. (Emphasis added.)

    Actually, I thought that according to NASA’s data 2010 had been known as the hottest year ever – equal with 2005 – for, well, years? (Or one and a bit year anyhow.) ;-)

    See the NASA press release linked to my name here – posted by them on the 12th of January 2011.

    Last year was the hottest La Nina year on record, the year before was the hottest year ever on record, almost all of the top ten hottest years occurred in the past decade, yeah not much sign of Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) there – NOT!

    BTW. I’m very curious to know when the last “top ten” *coldest* years on record was and what / when are /were they? Does anyone anywhere have a list of all the years of recorded climate data in temperature order either hottest to coldest or vice versa to share here? Please?

  39. colonelharrumph

    I object to the stretching of the definition of denialist to cover people who don’t deny AGW, but seriously feel that stopping it is not possible for societal reasons.

    I think AGW is real and awful, but, with human psychology and world politics being what they are, there is very little we can do about it…I mean seriously, do you really, in your most sober moments, watching the news, think that our current world political system can negotiate and compromise enough to make the changes needed?

    Seems to me that the only real way to STOP AGW is truly omnipotent world government that simply orders people do do what is needed with no regard for freedom or choice. Which I feel wouldn’t last long even if it were put in place…shortsighted humanity would overthrow it so they could have their SUVs and hamburgers.

    I do not deny AGW is happening, but I think we should be making plans for whatever amelioration we can do to blunt the effects instead of wasting time passing multiple agreements that go nowhere because they can’t be enforced. Only after the effects start killing or displacing large numbers of people will efforts to slow it or stop it have any backing among the majority of the population of the planet. It’s an unfortunate reality, but I think we have to face it.

    Again, I’m not saying we do nothing, I’m saying we start making plans for dealing with the disaster that seems to be way past the tipping point. And who knows, when people start seeing the lifeboats being readied, maybe they’ll start paying attention to the state of the ship.

  40. mikel

    What are the other two?

    GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) which can be found at NASA’s website, and National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) which is run by NOAA. There is also the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) which is funded and run by AGW skeptics but still solidly corroborates the other 3 efforts. It can be found at berkelyearth.org.

  41. @11. Blair :

    Phil, It has been argued that while the 9 of the 10 hottest years have been since 2000 that there has not been statistically significant heating since 1998. I can’t tell from the drawing but it looks like this is no longer the case. Can you clarify?

    See :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=44&feature=plpp_video

    &

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm

    &

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

    Plus click on my name for another good youtube clip on the “no warming since 1998″ canard.

    In essence, no. That’ claim is out of date, based on words taken out of context and not correct.

  42. Ema Nymton

    Holy crap!

    Alaskahound is really stupid!

  43. brett

    Hadley revises its database, 2010 hottest year :-)

  44. @ 3. oldebabe :

    It seems to me that there is little or no disagreement that climate change is occurring.

    If only that were true. Unfortunately there are still some climate contrarians who insist Global Overheating is NOT occurring even today although its also true that many of them have moved on to deny its our fault (which science shows it clearly is) or that its bad (although its consequences are already proving negative in a lot of ways for a lot of people and the negatives will wa-aay outweigh the positives) or that its going to be more costly to fix than allow to happen. (Economists and scientists argue that’s not the case.) There are many “strains” of Climate Contrarian thinking but one major one still prevalent still insists the whole issue is a scientific hoax. :-(

    That is a fact of this world, and has happened before, and will happen again.

    Not quite. Earth has been through some extremes and hothouse and snowball eras before but never anything quite like this caused in quite this way. See this :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU

    Excellent youtube clip from Potholer54 that deals with that notion. This is NOT natural climate change. Part of an excellent series on this topic all of which are well worth watching in my view.

    Isn’t the controversy that humans have anything to do with or have participated in the current acceleration of global warming, rather than that it may be occurring?

    Not entirely as has been pointed out above – see also :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=45&feature=plpp_video

    as a good primer on what we do know.

    Plus I’d very strongly recommend watching this concise and clear and accurate clip here :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

    By the legendary broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough.

    Plus click on my name here for a link showing how the Arctic sea ice in particular is melting much faster than predicted – so if anything we are probably under-estimating the problem.

    Hope this helps. :-)

  45. LemonadeIcedTea

    someone once told me that it would require everyone making greener living choices and a decent portion of the worlds population to, uhh for lack of a better word, cease to exist for anything to actually improve and that it would only really benefit the future generations.
    Sooo i’ve always wanted to ask if that was totally off base or kinda right?!?

  46. ctj

    jem @28:

    thanks! perhaps not as pretty as i’d hoped, but i attribute that to the discrete sampling locations, and i was somewhat surprised at how few cooling spots there were (and not surprised at how the greatest warming seems to be in higher latitudes).

  47. Let’s get past the “is it happening or isn’t it happening” nonsense. A few people lowering their standard of living by driving crappy underpowered cars or pedaling around an urban village isn’t going to have a meaningful impact on CO2 emissions. Fact is we are going to have more people every year. Those people will continue to get richer and consume more material goods, food, and energy.

    What is the most cost effective way of dealing with AGW? Cap and Trade is just a wealth redistribution tax. It doesn’t really do anything to help and is incredibly damaging to the world economy. What technology will it take to create a giant thermostat for the planet? Might it be as simple as a few nuclear power plants shooting ocean steam into the upper atmosphere? Reflect a lot of the sunlight away. Cool down the earth.

    How about investing more in Artificial Intelligence so that we can move manufacturing and food production off of the earth? Let our new cars, ipods, McNuggets parachute into our back yards.

    A big part of the reason that small government supporters don’t trust the AGW claims is because of the proposed solutions. Increasing taxes and decreasing freedom hasn’t proven very effective at fixing problems. And the people who have always supported big government are now obviously hiding behind the green agenda. So how about a REAL solution to the AGW problem, not a political/social coup attempt.

    Hairy

  48. Muzz

    “Cap and Trade is just a wealth redistribution tax. It doesn’t really do anything to help and is incredibly damaging to the world economy.”

    Care to justify that casually regurgitated meme?

  49. lancem

    But can’t you see the public image problem you keep presenting? “Oh, you are having problems with our old data, well look, now we’ve changed it to match what we are trying to tell you.” Not that I disagree with you, but that is a perception. Another problem is people watch TV and see that the Sahara Desert goes from complete desert to lush tropical paradise every 20,000 years (and changes very rapidly over the course of 100-200 years), so there are obviously cycles and yet all the public hears is that “rising temperature spells complete doom for our planet.” It is not a science issue, it is a public perception that the scientists need to change if you want people to care. You can’t just keep shouting louder “we’re right, we’re right” and expect people to listen. You need to change the image.

  50. Messier Tidy Upper

    BTW. Trio of other news items of possible interest here :

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/8433528/greenland-icesheet-vulnerable-to-warming

    Via ninemsn Aussie online news site – Greenland may be more vulnerable than we thought.

    &

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3454652.htm

    Climatologist Mike Mann is interviewed on the Lateline Aussie TV news program; transcript and video.

    Plus see :

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-14/phillips-rising-tide-of-climate-change/3888038

    For an opinion piece by Sara Phillips about Australia’s leading science body the CSIRO’s report on the state of the climate and the nature of the Contrarian claims & pysche via an Aussie ABC online news site.

    Hope folks find these interesting / useful /enjoyable. :-)

  51. TheBlackCat

    @ AlaskaHound: The current measurements are well within the range predicted by the computer models. Denialists like to just use the average, conveniently failing to point out that the models were intended from the very beginning to produce a range.

    To be fair, there are some cases where the measured is outside the range predicted. However, in all of those cases it exceeds the predictions, which means we are underestimating the effects of AGW.

    And scientists have looked at all the other known forcings, all of the other forcings combined do not come close to accounting for the warming we see, while human greenhouse gas emissions accounts for almost all of it.

    It is absurd in its face to claim that scientists are not looking at any other inputs or outputs besides CO2. The models would produce a temperature of absolute zero if sunlight was not included. Heck, the Hansen model that denialists love to attack so much includes a single volcanic eruption (based on the average rate of volcanic eruptions).

    And climate science is not new, it dates back to the 1800′s.

  52. Gary

    Two points: 1) the planet has been “warming up” for a couple of hundred years, 2) the HADCRUT4 homogenization does not improve “accuracy in the measurements” as you claim. The historical measurements still have documented inaccuracies and imprecision. Furthermore, the four data sources are “consistent” because they get the majority of their data from the same sources. Phil, you’re overreaching here trying to make your AGW case. I notice you didn’t mention the flat trend for the last 14 years. How come you accuse others of not telling a complete story when you don’t do so yourself?

  53. tonylurker

    @ Gary: Are you claiming there has been a statistically significant flat trend in the temperature data over the last 14 years?

  54. Scott

    What it *doesn’t* show (despite the bold and emphatic qualifiers at the end of the article) is acceleration. Any chartist will tell you, stare at a chart long enough and you’ll start to see whatever you *want* to see. The last ~12yr avg actually looks flat. What about the avg *decline* from 42-78? Despite the strong industrial expansion of that time?

    No, there is no clear corollary between increase and human activity. That is *assumption*.

    Cycle with this level of detail back at least 5000 years, and we *might* be able to filter noise for human influence, but it’s far from inarguable at this point.

  55. TheBlackCat

    To everyone saying that nobody denies the world is warming, I present Gary.

  56. Scott @ 58: The plots do show acceleration. The two right-hand-side panels show the speed of warming (‘C/decade) for the whole 1901-2010 data-set, and for 1979-2010 only. The latter has a higher speed of warming than the former – that means acceleration.
    And why do you pick 12 years – because you have a positive spike there, giving you less net warming in that particular period? But the longer a period you look at, the more statistically significant the derived trend will be. That is basic statistics.
    The decline between 1942-78 has been found to be caused by aerosols, classic pollution, from burning dirty coal – the stuff that also caused acid rain. That has largely been cleaned up in the West, but China is now producing more of the stuff. That will provide cooling too, masking the underlying increased greenhouse effect, but I don’t know by how much.
    On top of the exponentially warming trend we also have a slight 11year oscillation from the solar cycles (visibly, small, accounted for, and has nothing to do with the observed exponential warming that follows our emissions of CO2), and the stronger circa 5yr oscillation of el Nino/La Nina cycles.
    It is all accounted for and that is what makes anthropogenic climate change such a robust result. And I am sure I am not the only one who wished that wasn’t the case. All the climate scientists I know of, wish they were wrong!
    With hopes for humanity,
    Regner Trampedach

  57. TheBlackCat

    @ Scott: Even if you are right, which you aren’t (there is a trend over the last ~12 years, for example), you completely ignore that AGW is not a curve-fitting exercise, it is based on fundamental physical principles.

    Beyond the physics, there most certainly is a correlation between the warming and human greenhouse gas emissions (greenhouse gas emissions specifically, not just industrial expansion in general). Not only that, we can tell how much of the warming can be accounted for human greenhouse gas emission.

    You apparently think “slope” and “corrolation” are based on guesstimates from a brief glance at a plot. They aren’t, they are specific quantitative results from mathematical analysis. You can’t get them just be eyeballing a single plot.

    You also apparently have never heard of aerosols. Hint: the reduced warming up to the 1970′s is well understood, there is no mystery there as you would know if you did 30 seconds of research.

  58. Buzz Parsec

    (2nd attempt)

    Daffy @ 23:

    You beat me to it, but you forgot

    g) OK, it’s real, it’s human-caused, it’s bad, really really bad — Why the hell didn’t anyone warn us about this before it was too late?

  59. Messier Tidy Upper

    @52. Muzz :

    “Cap and Trade is just a wealth redistribution tax. It doesn’t really do anything to help and is incredibly damaging to the world economy.”
    Care to justify that casually regurgitated meme?

    I recently re-read NASAs leading climatologist James Hansen’s ‘Storms of My Grandchildren’ book (Bloomsbury Publishing,2009.)where he has almost a chapter dedicated to assessing the possible solutions and he very heavily criticised “Cap’n'Trade” and argued instead for a Fee-and -divedend alternative system. Chapter 9 titled ‘”An Honest, Effective Path” pages 209 -222 and thereabouts in my copy of that book.

    Personally, it seems clear that the same science and technology that got us into this mess is probably our best chance of getting out of it and that we’llhave to start looking at building many more nucelar reactors – hopefully safer and better models and perhaps terraforming our own planet aka “geoengineering” aming other technological mitigation and preventation projects.

    It is clear that one of the major forces holding us back and preventing us from responding better is the anti-nuclear “green” lobby and a lot of the answers that they’ve put forward will not end up working or being implemented in anything like time. International treaties such as Kyoto and summits such as Copenhagen have so far failed miserably to make any significant change.

    Thing is, its time we started arguing over and acting creating and working on which solutions – and we’ll no doubt use more than just one or two – we adopt rather than bickering over whetehr we even have a problem which the experts and observations show us beyond reasonable doubt we do have. Step 1 is agree and admit thatwe have a problem, step two -a separate one is work out what we’re going to do about it.

  60. Messier Tidy Upper

    @51. Hairy Buddah :

    Let’s get past the “is it happening or isn’t it happening” nonsense.

    Yes! For pity’s sake, yes, indeed we must start doing that and stop sticking outr heads in the (growing ever hotter) sand whilst our backsides are getting increasingly sunburnt! ;-)

    A few people lowering their standard of living by driving crappy underpowered cars or pedaling around an urban village isn’t going to have a meaningful impact on CO2 emissions. Fact is we are going to have more people every year. Those people will continue to get richer and consume more material goods, food, and energy.

    Or will they? If something cannot be sustained it cannot be sustained and we may find that the economists refusal to accept ecological reality is pretty disastrous costing us many more things than just money.

    We may – if we’re not smart and don’t act strongly now – be headed for a major crash in both population and standard of living.

    What is the most cost effective way of dealing with AGW? Cap and Trade is just a wealth redistribution tax. It doesn’t really do anything to help and is incredibly damaging to the world economy. What technology will it take to create a giant thermostat for the planet? Might it be as simple as a few nuclear power plants shooting ocean steam into the upper atmosphere? Reflect a lot of the sunlight away. Cool down the earth. How about investing more in Artificial Intelligence so that we can move manufacturing and food production off of the earth? Let our new cars, ipods, McNuggets parachute into our back yards.

    See my comment above #63 (22nd March , 2012 at 10:35 pm) I doubt it will be that easy but yeah, we’re going tohave toapply our intelligence and our technology and the greens plans suchas tokenistic lifestyle changes, internationaltreatie sand cap’n'tradee are unlikely to be anywhere near enough. I think a mixture of approaches is going to be needed.

    A big part of the reason that small government supporters don’t trust the AGW claims is because of the proposed solutions. Increasing taxes and decreasing freedom hasn’t proven very effective at fixing problems. And the people who have always supported big government are now obviously hiding behind the green agenda. So how about a REAL solution to the AGW problem, not a political/social coup attempt.

    I don’t think we’re seeing a politico-social coup attempt or a secret envirnomentalistconspiracy to return socialism to world power or anyof thatsport of conspiracy theory rubbish. :roll:

    Thing is, the longer we wait to take effective action, the worse the situation will get and the more extreme and drastic the measures necessary to reduce and mitigate the HIRGO problem will become.

    If you want to minimise social economic and political upheaval then you need, I think, to push for action now not delaying tactics and ignring the issue because if the sooner we take serious actions and start doing things the better off we’ll be and the less severe the situation and counter-measures against it are going to be in the future.

    But we’re already committed due to thermal and climate inertia to a lot of Global Overheating to come and the sooner we start applying the metaphorical brakes the better and slower the impact will be.

  61. Muzz

    @63. Messier Tidy Upper Says:

    “I recently re-read NASAs leading climatologist James Hansen’s ‘Storms of My Grandchildren’ book (Bloomsbury Publishing,2009.)where he has almost a chapter dedicated to assessing the possible solutions and he very heavily criticised “Cap’n’Trade” and argued instead for a Fee-and -divedend alternative system. Chapter 9 titled ‘”An Honest, Effective Path” pages 209 -222 and thereabouts in my copy of that book. ”

    The specifics of any trading scheme probably decides its effectiveness and they vary quite a bit from one region and government to the next. None the less these systems have worked in other areas in the past and are doing so now.
    My point was, I think you’ll find our hairy friend would say the same thing about any sort of government market intervention regardless of the details. And the preposterous meme that ‘it will destroy the world economy’ is oft repeated with no detail what so ever. I don’t think Ive ever seen anyone make even the most cursory explanation as to how that would happen. Mostly it’s brainlessly rote anarcho-capitalist notions behind it all like “Govt=bad! Taxation=bad! Taxation kill Freedom! Market delicate! Market not like Taxation!” and not much more than that. It’s a stupid truism in other words and I’d love to see someone defend it with actual facts and reasoning for a change.

    Personally I’m all for every option being looked at; scrub the air, capture the carbon, put up solar shields, alternative energy galore. Do it all.

  62. sHx

    “In other words, the planet is warming up. Now.”

    In other words, the Pope is Catholic. He was a Catholic before, he is a Catholic now. Anyone who disagrees with that proposition is a denier. 97% of scientists and priests say the Pope is Catholic. Why are there so many people out there who still deny the basic fact that the Pope is Catholic?

    That was for fun.

    What is more worrying is that Phil the ‘skeptic’ posts the graphs alongside an image of the planet burning. Does the latest HadCRUT adjusted and averaged global ‘data’ prove in anyway that a planet ravaged by fire is what we should expect in the future?

    A dash of science in the post doesn’t make Bad Astronomy’s involvement in climate doomsday cultism any more acceptable.

  63. Mike Torr

    I wrote this a couple of years ago, and it seems like a perfect time to revisit the idea…

    There was once a time when I thought that free-market capitalism could solve scientific problems as well as technological and economic ones.

    Now I understand that progress is a beast ascending a slippery slope on a mountain. As its feet fall, science prepares the way by finding flat stones to support its weight – but sometimes this only happens just in time, and it would only take one unprepared footfall to precipitate a screaming plunge to the bottom, where we would all have to start again.

    Climate change represents a mini-slide that has just begun: we have the science to fight it, but our stone path in this case takes us downward for a while and around to another face of the mountain. In its unthinking lust to ascend, the beast has preferred to continue blindly uphill, has chosen not to set its feet on the stones provided, and is beginning to slide, faster and faster, downhill, all the while thinking it is still climbing, as the scree clatters smoothly past like a river.

    Unfortunately, when that happens, we have to throw a rope around its neck for a while and pull it back on course. At that point my free market ideals take a back seat.

  64. Steve Metzler

    Interesting. This thread isn’t as heavily infested with teh stupid as it normally would be. Are they all on holidays/conference together? Or, perhaps the dog whistle malfunctioned in some way?

  65. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ Steve Metzler : Or, who knows, perhaps some of them are finally, finally, learning and understanding and accepting the scientific reality is just that -reality. Or do you think that’s too much to hope for? ;-)

    (Hey, I was a climate contrarian once myself.)

    @65. Muzz : Fair enough. I get what you’re saying and broadly agree.

    I think its clear though that some schemes which we have been trying – such as the Kyoto accords – haven’t been working and others that need trying such as new forms of nuclear power (eg. thorium reactors) are being hypocritically knee-jerk opposed by people too boud up in green ideology to think clearly – just as others are too bound up in right-wing ideology to do the same. :-(

    Neither socilaism in either its soft European form or hard Marxist one nor completely laissez faire Free Marketeer capitalism is always right and has all the answers to everything. We need to find a balance between those ideological and econo-social extremes.

    @49. LemonadeIcedTea :

    someone once told me that it would require everyone making greener living choices and a decent portion of the worlds population to, uhh for lack of a better word, cease to exist for anything to actually improve and that it would only really benefit the future generations. Sooo i’ve always wanted to ask if that was totally off base or kinda right?!?

    Well its a long story and somewhat of a side issue but broadly speaking the less people there are on the planet the better for the environment.

    Our current population -let alone an ever larger one -is probably ecologically unsustainable and is contributing badly to a huge range of ecological problems including HIRGO and if we don’t reduce our numbers voluntarily then nature is going to do it for us via the usual horrible ways – famine, disease, war.

    We don’t necessarily need to adopt China’s 1-child policy globally but educating women and giving them more control over their reproduction and a lotof other measures aimed at lowering fertility rates and perhaps even increasing death rates (eg. more widespread use of capital punishment) may be a good idea.

  66. sHx

    #69 MTU
    “(Hey, I was a climate contrarian once myself.)”

    Do you mean to say you used to deny the fact that the planet was warming up? Or, in other words, the fact that the Pope was Catholic?

    And now you believe in HIRGO, which means what? That we are heading towards a climate doomsday if we don’t repent our sinful carbon-emitting ways?

    I’d say you’ve signed up to a cult, and that’s a change for the worse for you. And I’d say, tsk, tsk, tsk. :D

  67. sHx

    Also, I believe the image of the planet on fire, which usually accompany Phil the skeptic’s Bad Astronomy climate doomsday posts, is totally false and ought not be used again.

    Climate Scientists have always said that weather extremes are what we should expect from a changing world climate. That means the planet may indeed burn in the future, but it also means that it may be flooded or even be snowed deep.

    These things will happen if we don’t stop emitting CO2. We should do something about it.

    For sake of scientific accuracy, I demand that henceforth Bad Astronomy use images that show the planet burning, flooded and generously covered in snow.

  68. Steve Metzler

    sHx (#71):

    These things will happen if we don’t stop emitting CO2. We should do something about it.

    That… doesn’t sound like you. Has someone stolen your nym? :-)

  69. Steve Metzler

    Oops. See what happens when you take a single sentence out of context, like the deniers do?

    I should have read the stuff around it, and the post above it more carefully. Nope, nothing has changed there. Same old sHx. Was wishful thinking.

  70. Messier Tidy Upper

    @70. sHx :

    #69 MTU – “(Hey, I was a climate contrarian once myself.)” Do you mean to say you used to deny the fact that the planet was warming up? Or, in other words, the fact that the Pope was Catholic?

    Sadly yes.

    I’ve told my personal story of arguing this issue before but since you’ve asked nicely I’ll tell relate it one more time below.

    ***

    My personal experience here is as follows :

    I’ve been interested in this issue for ages – growing up in the late 1980’s I initially felt concerned and alarmed by the Greenhouse Effect (Global Warming) issue.

    Some years later – after some of the over-hyped predictions from then hadn’t quite materialised – I encountered the geologist, skeptic and AGW denier Prof. Ian Plimer. I attended a few of Plimer’s lectures against the reality of AGW – some through an astronomy group. I spoke with him in person – and he came across very well as a good, sincere bloke who is genuinely committed to science with a valid if un-orthodox perspective. I read Plimer’s book ‘Heaven + Earth’ which, I can assure you, seems very scholarly and convincing. Thus, yes, I did become very strongly convinced by Plimer’s case there that AGW is bunk.

    With the zeal of a convert, I then argued this case to others – incl. & esp. here on the BA blog. In doing so, I had to argue with a number of people who of course, disagreed vigorously and provided evidence against what is was saying. There were a number of passionate arguments with a number of posters over a long time. Very gradually, painfully, I found that what I was now convinced was true wasn’t so much.

    I was convinced that 1998 being the hottest year alone (which okay is what I then thought – 2005 was almost certainly slightly hotter) just about ruled out the notion of dangerous Global Warming on its own – that we had, in fact, been cooling down over the past decade. I still think it is a major point against AGW and will be happier when we have a much hotter, much more recent record hot year but I’ve had to accept that, yes, it is possible for 1998 or 2005 to have been record hottest years but yet the trend is still going upwards.

    Plus that the selection of 1998 as a starting point is misleading and doesn’t provide the full picture, that 1998 was an outlier and that a decade by decade comparison shows that the last period has indeed been unnaturally hot. Eventually, I had to accept that and acknowledge that the ‘1998 = hottest year thus no AGW’ argument while initially highly convincingly is misleading and wrong.

    I’ve argued it was a natural process, a natural cycle and not caused by humans – that it’s our Sun or Milankovitch cycles or lack of volcanic eruptions etc .. NOT us. But when you look at the evidence you find that these have been taken into account by the climatologists. That they don’t add up to the full picture.

    The Sunspot cycle explains and follows our climate pattern to a large extent but then at a point in recent decades the relationship breaks down. The Sun should be causing the climate to cool but instead it warms. Why? The Milankovitch and other natural cycles say we should be cooling down – but the upwards trend is still there. Why?

    I still think there may be a natural component or two – that some factors may explain a small part of Global Warming. But it is now clear that these cannot explain *all* or even most the warming. That some natural factors, (eg. the solar cycle) are out of synch with rising planetary temperatures and cannot be the cause of them. That, when everything is taken into account – & it has been by the climatologist’s involved – natural processes and cycles are insufficient to cause the warming we have experienced. So I’ve had to acknowledge, slowly and painfully, that yes, Humanity is behind at least a very large percentage of the Global Warming we’ve undergone.

    I’ve also had to acknowledge that the climatologist conspiracy theory doesn’t work. That all these individuals aren’t frauds or charlatans but genuine scientists who have trained and understood the science aren’t all just working a con to gain grants and drive a political agenda. That the climategate emails can be explained as being taken out of context and misinterpreted. It has been very hard to convince me that things like “hide the decline”, “we can’t find the warming and it’s a travesty we can’t” & “don’t tell them England has a Freedom of Information request” don’t have the obvious negative readings they seem to have. That these don’t add up to a disproof of the science of AGW & a proof of conspiracy. I’ve had to face the reality eventually that the science is solid despite some nasty leaked emails. The words used by a few have been overblown, cherry-picked and taken to mean things that they just don’t.

    I still wish there was an enquiry or two more – and more visible independent from the bodies involved with more clearly neutral judges. I still think some of the content of the emails is disturbing and that the CRU scientists are far from above reproach. For instance, I think the “change the meaning of peer review” attempt – which I now get was NOT actually successful – was still a deplorable and disgraceful thing to say that reflects very badly on the individuals involved. That the threat to delete emails and the loss of raw data is very worrying.

    I am a huge believer in science needing to be open to scrutiny and that information should be made public and available for everyone to see. But I now accept that this doesn’t invalidate the whole science itself. That the rising temperatures, the melting glaciers, the biological indicators all point conclusively to undeniable evidence that our planet is indeed warming.

    I’ve also, perhaps most painfully had to accept that Ian Plimer’s book is NOT an entirely valid and comprehensive and conclusive disproof of AGW. A couple of posters here have pointed me to a number of reviews that show instead that it is badly flawed and not what it seems. Plimer isn’t telling the whole story at best. He comes across as very sincere and armed with compelling evidence all well sourced and cited but a lot of things in the book are wrong or misinterpreted. A lot of the studies he cites don’t mean what he claims they mean & the arguments made in his book don’t actually stand up to further scrutiny – as I’ve noted in the paragraphs above.

    There’s more I could say, these are just some of the main points.

    (First written circa August 2010.)

    ***

    And now you believe in HIRGO, which means what?

    Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating. Because “warming” is a deceptively mild sounding word for what’s happening and “anthropogenic” is a technical weasel word.

    That we are heading towards a climate doomsday if we don’t repent our sinful carbon-emitting ways?

    Repentence won’t do anything. Taking action may reduce the scope and severity of the problem. Our ways aren’t “sinful” – the concept of “sin” doesn’t exactly apply here – but they do have predictable negative consequences. Because that’s what the science and observable evidence is showing us.

  71. Messier Tidy Upper

    (First written circa August 2010.)

    BTW. The original version of the above account can be found here :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/08/03/new-study-clinches-it-the-earth-is-warming-up/comment-page-5/#comment-287735

    Comment # 152 published on August 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 pm and see also below there and here with some examples of comments (#188- 190) that helped me rethink this issue :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/08/03/new-study-clinches-it-the-earth-is-warming-up/comment-page-5/#comment-288074

    & I’d strongly advise you look at a range of other sites and sources providing info on this HIRGO topic such as Potholer 54′s series on youtube starting here :

    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8

    among others.

    Hope this is interesting and helpful for you. :-)

  72. Messier Tidy Upper

    @70 & 71 sHx :

    I’d say you’ve signed up to a cult, and that’s a change for the worse for you. And I’d say, tsk, tsk, tsk.

    You keep calling climatologist “cultists” and classifying as somehow quasi-religious or even outright mythological the idea that observed evidence methodically and carefully taken and considered by scientific experts shows that the additional greenhouse gases added by human means to our atmosphere are causing our planetary climate to shift in ways that will have severe negative consequences for us.

    What, please, sHx is your rational basis for doing so?

    Please tell me what other “cult” publishes peer reviewed papers in scientific journals and constantly examines and re-evaluates observable, tangible physical data using the scientific method?

    (#71.) Also, I believe the image of the planet on fire, which usually accompany Phil the skeptic’s Bad Astronomy climate doomsday posts, is totally false and ought not be used again.

    I don’t think it was ever meant to be taken as other than a visual metaphor. I very much doubt anyone considers that to be an actual photograph taken from space showing real flames! ;-)

    That picture, like the defiant “Doomed” mouse sometimes armed with a rocket launcher and the man witha burning head saying “Teh Stoopid it burns!” which we have’;t seen in a while iare clearly intended for humour or artistic efefct and ar enot supposed to depict literal reality.

    Climate Scientists have always said that weather extremes are what we should expect from a changing world climate. That means the planet may indeed burn in the future, but it also means that it may be flooded or even be snowed deep. These things will happen if we don’t stop emitting CO2. We should do something about it.

    Correct. Note the word “Scientists” (caps original) NOT cultists which is also an accurate use of terminology. At some level you must surely know climatologists are scientists doing science and 98% of them reaching the same worrying conclusion based on that science they are doing right?

    For sake of scientific accuracy, I demand that henceforth Bad Astronomy use images that show the planet burning, flooded and generously covered in snow.

    Plenty of photos showing such extreme events exist and sadly plenty more are going to come.

  73. Gunnar

    I can’t help but notice that once again, the AGW (or if you prefer, MTU, HIRGO) contrarians have resoundingly lost yet another debate, having been unable to come even close to countering the overwhelming evidence presented supporting the fact of AGW. I (and I suspect, the vast majority of climate scientists who accept the fact of AGW) dearly wish that the climate contrarians were right, but they simply are not, based on the overwhelming evidence so far available. The sooner humantity accepts that fact and takes effective steps to counter it, the better off we will be and the less it will ultimately cost us to ameliorate the problem. And it cannot be too often repeated and stressed that many of the proposed solutions to the problem will have certain indisputable economic benefits and help solve other significant problems as well, even if AGW turns out not to be as problematic as feared. The idea that improving energy efficiency and learning to make more effective and widespread use of renewable resources will somehow be economically disastrous is total, self-serving nonsense put out by those whose wealth and power depends on promoting continuing addiction to our rapidly shrinking supply of fossil fuels and wasteful lifestyles.

  74. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ Gunnar : ^ This! Exactly. Well said & seconded by me.

  75. Gunnar

    Thank you, MTU! :)

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »