Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:02 PM ET, 02/16/2011

Greenhouse gases led to increase in deluges, researchers say

By Brian Vastag

Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases helped trigger the increase in extreme rain events seen in North America over the second half of the 20th century, a group of climate scientists reported Wednesday in the journal Nature.

In a second Nature paper, another group reported that human greenhouse gas emissions likely contributed to the horrendous floods that inundated England and Wales in the fall of 2000. Those scientists ran sophisticated climate simulations across a network of tens of thousands of home computers that volunteers loaded with climate-modeling software.

"Human influence on the climate system has the effect of intensifying precipitation extremes," said Francis Zwiers, a climate researcher at Environment Canada in Toronto and lead researcher on the first study.

Zwiers and his team gathered 50 years of rainfall statistics, and compared those observations to predictions made by computer simulations of the 20th century climate.

Those simulations included the warming impact of the billions of tons of carbon dioxide human society has pumped into the atmosphere.

The study found that observed increase in deluges "cannot be explained by natural internal fluctuations of the climate system alone," said Zwiers. In other words, only the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere explains why the United States and Canada have experienced a dramatic increase in heavy downpours.

"Large [rainfall] events are becoming larger," Zwiers said. His work found that from 1951 to 1999, the probability of heavy downpours becoming even more extreme grew by about 7 percent, a figure he characterized as "really substantial."

Richard Allan, a climate scientist at the University of Reading in England who was not part of the study, called the method employed by Zwiers "very rigorous."

He added, "There's already been quite a bit of evidence showing that there has been an intensification of rainfall" events across the globe.

But until now "there had not been a study that formally identified this human effect on precipitation extremes," Zwiers said. "This paper provides specific scientific evidence that this is indeed the case."

The explanation is simple physics: Warmer air holds more water vapor. That means when rainfall gets triggered, the air contributing to the storm is holding more water than it did in the cooler pre-industrial world.

In the second study, Pardeep Pall from the University of Oxford led an international team that found "human [greenhouse gas] emissions substantially increased the odds of floods occurring in what was the record wet autumn of 2000."

The floods that inundated the United Kingdom that year were the worst since at least 1766.

Pall's conclusion springs from two sets of many thousands of computer weather simulations. The first set simulated the atmosphere in its real state - loaded with all the extra carbon dioxide humans have added to it. The second set simulated a parallel world where no extra carbon dioxide had been added to the atmosphere.

The odds of the massive floods occurring in the no-extra-greenhouse-gases parallel world were about half the odds of the floods happening in the real world, Pall said.

Tens of thousands of volunteers loaded climate-predicting software onto their home computers via the Web site climateprediction.net, Pall said, providing a vital boost in computer power needed to run the many thousands of climate simulations.

The climateprediction.net project has been running for several years. As of Wednesday morning, some 54,000 computers around the world were helping climate scientists crunch data. The donated computer time has completed 118 million years of climate simulations, according to the climateprediction.net website.

The research could not absolutely determine that the floods had been triggered by greenhouse gases, said the University of Oxford's Myles Allen, who contributed to the study. "It's important to stress there is uncertainty in this work."

With the number and intensity of extreme deluges expected to climb, climate scientists and meteorologist are rushing to build better flood prediction systems, particularly for the developing world. On Monday, The Post reported on one scientist's assertion that last summer's floods in Pakistan could have been predicted - and the populace warned - if available data had been heeded.

By Brian Vastag  | February 16, 2011; 1:02 PM ET
Tags:  climate change, flooding, greenhouse gases  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Vanishing cap and trade in Obama's 2012 budget
Next: U.S. urged to swiftly secure supplies of 'energy-critical elements'

Comments

My wife has been a grouch lately.. must be global warming.. my foot hurt last week, I think it was global warming.. it's been cold in Atlanta this year.. brrr.. Global Warming.. Floods in Australia.. Global Warming.. IDIOTS! Narcissists is more like it.

Posted by: redsky28 | February 16, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Those scientists ran sophisticated climate simulations
+++++++++

The Post should do a report on just how unreliable such climate computer models really are.

Posted by: moebius22 | February 16, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Your readers know better!!!! Shame on WaPo for running such rediculus nonsense.

Posted by: Jimbo77 | February 16, 2011 1:53 PM | Report abuse

When the weather is really hot, the environmental wackos cry "Man Made Global Warming".

When the weather is really cold, the environmental wackos cry "Man Made Global Warming".

When the weather is perfect, the environmental wackos cry "Man Made Global Warming".

Posted by: LibFreeWorld | February 16, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

People miss the point. You can pick apart studies depending on what questions are asked. Studies by their very nature make SOME assumptions. The point in the risk assessment is that the small chance that they are accurate is devastating. Secondly, why or if, given rising population densities and need for water, why haven't we begun addressing the problem? Where are the new reservoirs and new sophisticated water management? If we have both more reserve capacity AND storage capacity than we can better deal with floods AND droughts. If we retire the land for the project now, in the decades that follow, as people move out, we can begin the process without such a massive and catastrophic cost.

Posted by: NovaMike | February 16, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I see the Man-Made Global Warming fraudsters are back at it again.

There are actually more "scientists" who believe Global Warming is a scam. Remember also, "scientists" are people too, so some may do things out of ignorance, for greed, or for ideology. Remember East Anglia? Remember the UNCCC and their lies?

I just wish WaPo wasn't so biased and ideological.

Posted by: pgr88 | February 16, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse


Funny just a few years ago the boogey man was ‘global warming’ with the apocalyptic desertification of the planet and everyone’s eventual death! Then it was all the glaciers melting and no water. SCARY, SCARY!

Now it’s ‘climate change’ with more CO2 in the air for plants, warmer temperatures to extend growing seasons and more water for crops. Be very afraid they tell us, be VERY AFRAID!


More crops, more water for them, more CO2 to help them grow…..finally a boogey man that will maybe provide a future for the projected nine billion people in just a few years.

Now maybe we can move to a real issue like how can we get more energy for nine billion people. Even with new drilling technologies we will need more that we can get from fossil fuels. This is the real challenge of the future.


Posted by: bcarte1 | February 16, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

If there was a 1% chance that we were adversely affecting the climate in a way that would cover North America and Europe with a mile deep of ice, wouldn't it make sense to look into new technologies that cut down on the amount of CO2 we are producing?

Or does it make more sense to spend billions on figuring out if somebody has a box cutter in his underwear at the airport?

Narcissists think they know more than 99% of climatologists because it was cold the other day.

Posted by: 1cbdc1 | February 16, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

But my hero Sarah Palin says that every thing scientists say is a big lie meant to rip off the oil companies' record profits (some of which ends up in Palin's pockets), and oh, the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old and humans walked around with dinosaurs (this is proven, I saw this in a movie once).

Posted by: jjedif | February 16, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Obviously we need to end corn and farm subsidies, build more high speed rail, and stop subsidizing low MPG trucks and cars.

And stop providing naval lane protection to Red China to get oil and other cheap resources from Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries.

American taxpayers want the subsidies and tax exemptions for oil and such things to END.

Posted by: WillSeattle | February 16, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Call me Mr. Skeptical - if so, what's the big deal? What do you want people to do; stop living?

We were given a brain to use and people are working hard to find a way around the things that are ruining our planet.

However, what is the probability of those yahoos that did the studies of padding their data? Can you see them - they have spent years doing the so called studies and have nothing to show it - so, they pad the data trying to get rich like others who have cooked the books.

Now I ask you - what is the possibility of that?

Posted by: ramseytuell | February 16, 2011 2:13 PM | Report abuse

This is a, "I know there ain't no heaven, but I pray there ain't no hell" type of problem. Those that laugh at the concept will more than likely be at the front of the line for hand-outs if and when it is too late to do anything about it.

Posted by: jdman2 | February 16, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

For discussion by scientists of the facts of global warming see:
http://realclimate.org

Posted by: raschumacher | February 16, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The good news is that represenative Barton, the same - I work for corporations and F the common man - rep who apologized to BP for a "White House Shakedown" and then immediately said those whose unemployment benefits were running out could eat cake, has attached a bill to the repiggers scorched earth attack on the middle class that would bar the EPA from regualting green house gases. Rep Barton's plan allows corporations to pump as many toxins as they wish into the air unfettered. All of you middle class tards who keep voting for this minion of corporate America make sure you rush out and vote him back in the next chance you get. he's working so hard for you.

Posted by: red2million | February 16, 2011 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Even if they are at least partially responsible, and could do something about it, humans will never inconvenience themselves in any way to preserve the environment that sustains them. Nothing will change until and unless an environmental disaster thins their numbers. If a disaster does happen, people will ascribe it to divine retribution for failure to adhere to ritual with sufficient strictness, or inadequate hostility towards those they perceive as the enemies of their religion. Don't believe me. Look at the history of Easter Island.
Of course, there is the possibility that fossil fuels will be exhausted before any disastrous "tipping point" is reached. In this case, the resources will be inadequate to maintain current population levels. In which case, everybody left should have been paying attention to the way the Amish live.

Posted by: Capn0ok1 | February 16, 2011 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Once again a conclusion based on a model. A model is only as a s good as the variable you put in it and as of yet greenhouses gases are only assumed to raise the temprature of our atmosphere. No experiment to date has proven it. Its simply a re-hash of what we already know. Increased heat creates more water vapor. Increased water vapor increases the potentail for percipitation.

"cannot be explained by natural internal fluctuations of the climate system alone," It is important to recognized that this is the opinion of Zwiers and not a conclusion of the study. The study makes no attempt to refute any other explaination.

Posted by: akmzrazor | February 16, 2011 2:34 PM | Report abuse

i wouldn't have bothered posting had I realized that the propaganda has worked and all of you sheep have been brainwashed by people who work to screwyou, but I should have realized when all you foolatards ran out and voted for them. Hilarious. I think I'm going to be a republican from now on because now I get it. It's fantastic! Alarming report on green house gases. Republican solution: Pretend it doesn't exist. Don't like Obama? Not a problem. Tell yourself that he's not a legitimate president because he was born on Zebulon Five. You just have to love a political party that offers an alternate version of reality if the sheeple don't like the real one. repukes listen to politicians instead of scientists, and instead of economists, or weapons inspectors. Why listen to the experts when you can listen to someone who will tell you a lie you want to hear that is in their best interest, not yours. If Antartica doesn't melt you should all be sent their to have your own country and you can fight amongst yourselves and leave the rest of us sane people with functioning brains alone. They're leading you sheep right to the kool aid and instead of fighting to get out of line, you're fighting to cut the line. republican voters, the dumbest horde of mindless sheep in the history of the universe. bye now tards, I can't debate with you until you've seen Oz and collected a working brain.

Posted by: red2million | February 16, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

American taxpayers want the subsidies and tax exemptions for oil and such things to END.

Posted by: WillSeattle


You mean "liberal idiots" want the subsidies and tax emeptions for oil and such things to END, si"

Posted by: LostKenyanIdiot | February 16, 2011 2:40 PM | Report abuse

False climate change claims are absolutely essential for the Obama Administration to justify shutting down the coal industry and their failure to build any new oil refineries or nuke plants.

Meanwhile, we are helping to spread famine all over the world by using corn for ethanol. We are in desperate need for term limits in congress.

Posted by: alance | February 16, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Well England and Wales had record rains in 2000 like they haven't seen since 1766. So it's rained like that before the Industrial Age. Sounds like the climate is getting more like 1766. And since they're co-located what were Ireland and Scotlands rains like in 1766 and 2000?

Posted by: ronjaboy | February 16, 2011 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Fires, Flooding, Drought, Death's, Homeless, Rising temperatures and sea levels....and I'm talking about Arizona, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee. For poor countries, Global warming damages affects Millions of people. Send the Bill to the Oil & Coal Industry and the Koch brothers. When they try and bill the public, people will invest in clean energy and save trillions while creating millions of manufacturing jobs.

Fossil Fuel Lobbyists and investors: How is that Oil spill, Flood, Tornado, and Biblical Tropical Storms in Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee working out for you? How about that 1000 year flooding in Nashville and that Camp ground in Arkansas? Not to mention the hundreds of Coal Ash ponds seeping poisons into groundwater and the overflowing and destruction as a result of the Tennessee Valley Authority negligence with others soon to follow. Good times huh? Send the bill to the Coal and Oil industries and the Koch’s; between buying Yachts, Planes, Mansions and Castles they can afford it.

The Koch brothers are worth $21.5 Billion each and tied for the 5th richest persons in the World (Americans pay with their lives so Billionaires can get out of paying with their taxes)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/22/AR2010092206003.html

“Charles Koch, the 74- year-old chairman and CEO of Koch Industries Inc., tied for fifth with his brother David Koch, 70, with $21.5 billion.”

Posted by: Airborne82 | February 16, 2011 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Cynicism is a healthy component to critical thinking, but refusal to believe a train is coming until it's actually here goes a bit past that.

Posted by: Capn0ok1 | February 16, 2011 2:56 PM | Report abuse

To akmzrazor: Did you read the whole study and analyze it? The study does in fact conclude that natural variations in climate can not explain the increase in extreme rain events.

You also state that the conclusions are based "only on a computer model." Well, how else can anyone try to anticipate what the future climate will be like? A time machine? Hand calcualations on an envelope?

Posted by: BrianVastag | February 16, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Industries Buried Internal Findings: Climate Wording Cut From Public Report

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403331.html?nav=emailpage

“A group funded by fossil-fuel-dependent companies that argued for years that human-generated greenhouse gases were not driving global warming was advised by its own scientists that this was the case, according to documents submitted as part of an ongoing lawsuit between auto manufacturers and states seeking to regulate vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions.

The Global Climate Coalition, a group of representatives of the oil, auto and coal industries, spent years telling the public that the link between human activity and climate change was too uncertain to justify U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 treaty aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. In 1995, however, a "primer" on the issue produced by the organization's own scientific experts concluded that "the scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied." “

Posted by: Airborne82 | February 16, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Duh....men are from mars, women are from Venus, wait a minute, we're all going to be from Venus-clouds, rain, fog, torrential rain, hurricanes, cyclones hitting the Pacific Coast, California superstorm, lake effect snow for three weeks in a row, etc etc etc. Duh....But at least government will be smaller because it will all have gone away because the two political parties checkmated each other so nothing got done on climate change until it was too late. But don't worry, the fish, or something else adapted by natural selection to a more watery atmosphere will survive.

Posted by: mesondk | February 16, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

These so-called "scientists", who got caught lying about their "Global Warming" Myth now want everyone to be stupid enough to beleive their outrageous claims of "Greenhouse Gas" causing more rains.......what a load of garbage. Only the truly stupid and Obama believe this tripe.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 16, 2011 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Global warming also causes droughts. It causes cold weather and warm weather. It causes more hurricanes and less hurricanes. They even say global warming has changed the magnetic North Pole. It causes male pattern baldness, too. Seriously, I know it has caused one thing for sure, though. My grain farming family is making one whale of a lot more money because of the ethanol scam, er I mean, program. Corn prices have doubled. Soy beans are going through the roof. Farm values are skyrocketing. The farm bank account has swelled. I love global warming.

Posted by: beachbum09 | February 16, 2011 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Good riddance to the badly mismanaged '00's.

Those thinking about long-term recovery, know the environment will be a big winner in the conversion to biofuels & biopower.

- Balkingpoints / www

Posted by: RField7 | February 16, 2011 3:11 PM | Report abuse

This is a, "I know there ain't no heaven, but I pray there ain't no hell" type of problem. Those that laugh at the concept will more than likely be at the front of the line for hand-outs if and when it is too late to do anything about it.
======================
@jdman2

Ok, I have to assume that you mean that when a flood happens, they will be at the front of the line for emergency supplies. The overall effects of a "global warming" would be gradual over the next half a century. Second, just about any other compentent study that uses stasticial analysis to coorelate CO2 with global warming also concludes that even the most extreme proposed measures taken to recude non-biological CO2 emmmsions would not produce any measurable effect on climate for at least 20 years.

What's the big F'n deal about a study that effectively changes my chances of me personally getting hit by a natural disaster from 1 in 10000 to 5 in 10000, does not alter my prepareness level.

Posted by: akmzrazor | February 16, 2011 3:11 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Administration granted BP permission to drill deeper than ever before. They failed to inspect the drilling operation - granting waivers whenever asked. They then covered up the magnitude of the environmental disaster and authorized deadly Corexit dispersant chemicals to be dumped in the gulf.

The Democrats keep authorizing funding for farm subsidies and the corn for ethanol program. Let the world starve.

Posted by: alance | February 16, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse

When are the 'stupid governments of the world' going to wake up and realize that this is the end game they are ignoring?
If they keep ignoring this worldly problem the earth will be on a path of no return in about 50 years, if not sooner.

Posted by: JimW2 | February 16, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

@ pgr88
"There are actually more "scientists" who believe Global Warming is a scam."
________________________________________

Wrong! You embarrass yourself.
Global warming is a real phenomena, it really is happening. You can stick your head up your "$$$", you can submit your critical thinking skills to the lowest common denominator, you can make up your own facts, but it won't make it go away. Many of you really need to get out in the world more and see what's going on.

Posted by: morphylius | February 16, 2011 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Oh goody! It's getting hotter and raining lots more! We can shower outside and save on our hot water bill!

Posted by: laboo | February 16, 2011 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Hey! Today is not April 1 is it?

Posted by: Lynne51 | February 16, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Remember, righties, don't sail away to the East. You will fall off the edge.

Posted by: LifeBeforePrinciple | February 16, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Reading the comments section here is like reading the applications for village idiot. Surprise, you all win!

Posted by: 44fx2901 | February 16, 2011 3:32 PM | Report abuse

@BrianVastag

Where? What page? Where in study does it conclude that there can be absolutley no other explaination than man-made effects?

Yes. Computer models. I agree with you. Its the only way to predict future events. However that still doesn't change the fact they are only as accurate as the data you feed them. If the base variables are originate on an assumption then the outcome can not be conclusive until you prove your feeder data is correct. That is an undisputable property of mathmatics.

Posted by: akmzrazor | February 16, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

akmzrazor: Get back to me after you study and fully understand figure 2.

Posted by: BrianVastag | February 16, 2011 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Another socialist one-world government conspiracy.

Posted by: LifeBeforePrinciple | February 16, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Wow..! so utterly amazing how people are so ignorant of basic science.

Posted by: NoCoffee | February 16, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

To all those commenting here denying the role of human activity in global warming: The results are available for everyone to read in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature, the Journal of Geophysical Research, the Journal of Atmospheric Science, and Science. These should be available either in your local public library or in your local university. If you're unfamiliar with the techniques used by the researchers, you can sign up for the relevant mathematics, physics, and chemistry courses at your local university.

I've been conducting research in software reliability now for over twenty years, and I'm appalled at the level of fundamental ignorance displayed in many of the comments here - they demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of how research is conducted, and many of those seem to demonstrate an unwillingness to learn. Ignorance can be dealt with, but only when it's not coupled with pride in being ignorant.

Posted by: apn3206 | February 16, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Wow - after embarrassing themsleves to the world with their Global Warming Hoax, these fools are still trying to con the world. Why haven't these people been arrested and tried for this obvious crime of fraud.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 16, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Right. Unless it causes drought, which might be related to the hot weather, or maybe the frigid cold snaps and big falumphing snowfalls. How long before they get it that the environment is much too complex to adequately model? Anthropocentric climate change isn't a hoax, it's just the result of hubristic, funding-crazy scientists who think they know a lot more than they do. Doesn't anybody wonder why the studies whipsaw back and forth like palm trees in a super hurricane? Bah. www.granitesentry.com

Posted by: granitesentry | February 16, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I see the forums are lively with the meager thoughts of the climate change deniers. That is because these folks never took a science or math class that they passed without cheating. Duh! Science! My Brain Hurts!!!!

Posted by: kschur1 | February 16, 2011 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Climate change is science, so you will never get the right-wingers to talk about it.

Posted by: PoliticalPrisoner2012 | February 16, 2011 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Let me sum up. If human induced climate change is eventually found to in fact be a myth, but we act on on the assumption that it is true in the meantime anyway, then some rich people get richer by developing and selling climate friendly technology to the rest of us, and we'll have a cleaner environment and a more efficient energy supply system. OTOH, if human induced climate change is in fact a valid phenomenon, and we act on it, then some rich people get richer by developing and selling climate friendly technology to the rest of us, and we'll have a cleaner environment and a more efficient energy supply system, and WE DON'T DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN. So either way, rich people get richer and we have a cleaner environment. So please tell me how the two paths are fundamentally different, except for that whole 'save the world' bit at the end?

Posted by: MichaelWaters | February 16, 2011 4:15 PM | Report abuse

THE CRIPPLING EFFECT OF GREED OUT CONTROL. SIGNALS THE END TIMES ON BIBLICLE SCALE OF RAINS FLOODING THE WORLD AN NEXT COMES THE EPIC VOLCANOES ERUPTING KILLING MULTI MILLIONS. THE WINDS WILL COME TO THE LIKES WE PEOPLE HAVE NOT EVER SEEN. PRAY AROUND THE WORLD PEOPLE OUR LORD GOD IS COMING. ITS THE END OF THIS WORLD AS WE KNOW IT. GREED HAS DEPICTED THE END THAT THEY WON'T ADMIT TILL ITS TOO LATE.

Posted by: JWTX | February 16, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

The trigger is from all the bul-sh-t being thrown around by so-called researchers and scientists and then blown out of proportion by JurnoLists who have nothing better to do but stir the pot of discontent and conflict in order to increase reader interest and ensure that their over-the-top egos are massaged and their weighty salaries can be justified.

Posted by: JAH3 | February 16, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Gee, if our basic skepticism (which might otherwise be understandable) becomes inflated into total disbelief AND if we can blame everything we are inclined to deny on a nefarious world-wide leftist conspiracy(!), it's EVER so much more fun! And we get to impugn the motives of those who disagree with us, not simply argue the science with them, because (obviously) they're just a bunch one-world-government collectivist ba$tard$ and tree-huggers! [great satire, LifeBeforePrinciple]

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | February 16, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Isn't more rain and warmth a good thing for crops?

Longer growing seasons might solve the worldwide food shortages and revolutions happening.

Everyone, let's all jump in our SUVs and do donuts in parking lots for about three hours and we will save the world!!!!!!

Posted by: NyallsStJohnSmytheIV | February 16, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm copying and pasting NovaMike's post because it was the one that hit the mark best:

"People miss the point. You can pick apart studies depending on what questions are asked. Studies by their very nature make SOME assumptions. The point in the risk assessment is that the small chance that they are accurate is devastating. Secondly, why or if, given rising population densities and need for water, why haven't we begun addressing the problem? Where are the new reservoirs and new sophisticated water management? If we have both more reserve capacity AND storage capacity than we can better deal with floods AND droughts. If we retire the land for the project now, in the decades that follow, as people move out, we can begin the process without such a massive and catastrophic cost."

Posted by: HookedOnThePost | February 16, 2011 4:44 PM | Report abuse

shut up, redneck scientists

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/science/earth/22carbon.html

Posted by: johng1 | February 16, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

By the way, Michael Mann is going to go to prison for his fraudulent work.

Posted by: NyallsStJohnSmytheIV | February 16, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

BrianVastag wrote: "Well, how else can anyone try to anticipate what the future climate will be like? A time machine? Hand calcualations on an envelope?"
------------------------------------------
BrianVastag, you're right, your well-conceived arguments have me convinced.

We ought to rely on computer models to anticipate future climate events. We just need to ignore that they suffer from that inconvenient age old problem of GIGO.

And doesn't history tell us that one of Noah's sons came up with some climate models that subsequently prompted the building of the ark?

Yep, good job BV! You got me on board!

Posted by: bryanmcoleman | February 16, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I see the ignorant hucksters are out in force today.

Posted by: thrh | February 16, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

You say that Wales in 1766 had the same weather as now and ask how is that bad. The point you're missing is that there are now 7 billion people on the planet now, where there were only 1 billion in 1800. Unlike birds on a wire who don't mind budging over to make room for a neighbor, men have turf wars when they're short of space.

Posted by: HookedOnThePost | February 16, 2011 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Oh Brian, by the way, do the models take into account sun spot activity, axis-wobble, and annoying things like atmospheric volcano ash? How do they eliminate those factors so as to narrow down just anthropologic causes?

There must be some really sophisticated modelling going on in them there computers.

Posted by: bryanmcoleman | February 16, 2011 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Republicans think that by reducing the number of jobs and economic activity you can increase the number of jobs. Republican math is, in effect, that 2 – 1 = 3.

Republicans will reject the data regardless what it is, the same as they reject the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution.

Posted by: Provincial | February 16, 2011 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Call me Mr. Skeptical - if so, what's the big deal? What do you want people to do; stop living?

We were given a brain to use and people are working hard to find a way around the things that are ruining our planet.

However, what is the probability of those yahoos that did the studies of padding their data? Can you see them - they have spent years doing the so called studies and have nothing to show it - so, they pad the data trying to get rich like others who have cooked the books.

Now I ask you - what is the possibility of that?

Posted by: ramseytuell | February 16, 2011 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I love that one of the frequent arguments seen here against the validity of global warming is that it seems to cause contradictory effects. I urge those who can't seem to cope with that concept to keep two things in mind: warming doesn't mean the end of winter because the basic cause of winter is a change in the amount of sunlight. What warming will cause is a change in weather patterns. A wetter weather pattern in one area doesn't imply that another area can't experience a drier pattern. Generally speaking, the weather is a lot like baseball. The number of hits you get is not directly related to the number of runs you score, but the more hits you get, the more runs you are likely to score. Weather is the same: the more heat you add to the atmosphere, the more energy it contains and the more powerful and extreme the weather effects can become.

Posted by: jdnathan | February 16, 2011 5:50 PM | Report abuse

There must be some really sophisticated modelling going on in them there computers.
----

Yeah, there is.

Posted by: ozpunk | February 16, 2011 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin can see the rain from her front porch. Does that make her a climate change expert in teahadist la-la land?

You betcha!

Posted by: Garak | February 16, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I have had it with these types of alarmist studies that only are made to generate more money for more studies.
I bet the models never included the natural solar induced warming trend we have seen both here on Earth and on Mars.
Both planets have experienced elevated temperature trending; but there are no humans on Mars to add to CO2 levels, or any other greenhouse gas.
Now I'm not a climate scientist, but as I understand it; warmer water evaporates faster than colder water. Could that be the real reason for increased rain amounts? Of course that would reduce the amount of money we waste on statistical studies that only prove the point of the grant recipients.

Posted by: nosuchluck | February 16, 2011 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I find it unlikely that any one or even a series of climate events can be pinned down to global warming.

The fact that the earth is warming however is hard to deny. To do requires either a willful disregard for the evidence, or willful ignorance.

Even if we can ignore the obvious effects of global warming however, it is entirely rational to worry about having clean water to drink, and clean air to breath. One doesn't have to be an environmental kook to be concerned that the children of world are becoming burdened by the crap our generation tosses into the air and water with abandon.

I understand people are worried about jobs, the economy, and the deficit. In all this worry however, lets not toss common sense out the window, allowing corporate greed to rewrite the rules to make us less safe and our environment dirtier in the name of economic growth.

Posted by: reussere | February 16, 2011 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Before you believe what these scientists say, find out first who funded their studies, and their political leanings. The whole of humans causing global changes is a hoax, spread by those who will profit from it. After so many decades of delusion, does Wash Post really believe most readers believe this double talk?

Posted by: rimantas1 | February 16, 2011 6:24 PM | Report abuse

ramseytuell asks about the possibility that climate researchers are cooking the data. That's very unlikely. Researchers will make mistakes that are corrected either in peer review or in subsequent research, but it's nearly impossible to cook data and not be caught. For example, look at the case of the South Korean scientist who was caught fudging data on his stem cell research. Although the fudged results were initially published, the fraud was quickly caught by his peers and he was disgraced. Now imagine how unlikely it would be for tens of thousands of researchers to attempt this kind of data manipulation on a large scale.

I'm not sure what you mean by scientists getting rich. Most senior people who stick with a career in research do reasonably well, but still have to work for a living. In the meantime, for researchers in the physical sciences, the intervals they spend as low-paid (e.g. $40K/year) post-graduate researchers has been significantly increasing over the past few years. In addition, a larger percentage of people receiving PhDs in the physical sciences have gone into other careers over the past several years, giving as a reason that they can't afford to remain in research. There have been a number of surveys about this in the journal "Nature" over the past few years - you might be interested in reading those.

Posted by: apn3206 | February 16, 2011 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Computers are stupid machines. They give whatever answer they have been programed to give based upon the imputs. It is all in the programing.

Posted by: jdonner2 | February 16, 2011 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin can see the rain from her front porch. Does that make her a climate change expert in teahadist la-la land?

You betcha!

Posted by: Garak

Exactly what does Sarah Palin have to do with this discussion?
Now; does your comment make you and idiot.... you betcha. Because it was Tina Fey that said she could see the USSR from her front porch, not Sarah Palin in a SNL spoof. If you are going to use quotes to make inane points, try using the correct quote.

Posted by: nosuchluck | February 16, 2011 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Aren't these environmentalist every going to give up.

I wonder if they are aware that......Get this.....HUMANS breath out carbon dioxide. Oh my gosh

Posted by: frankn1 | February 16, 2011 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I looked in the comments to see what another scientist might have said in rebuttal. But, all I see is obvious non-scientists whinning about concepts they have zero comprehension of.

If you want to dispute the science, bring a background as a scientist and compare your data with everyone elses.

If you failed science in high school or barely got by...don't waste precious oxygen yammering about why science sucks.

Most of you don't want to understand because that might take effort and that would mean you'd have to do something about it, god forbid.

You clowns think that science is just politics and you get to pick and choose what side your on. DUMMIES!

You either pick Science or you pick Superstition. If you pick Superstition, then your just betting that your luck somehow holds out. All the better to keep on doing your humdrum everyday, oblivious.

If you pick science, then you are a rational person who understands what the word "data" means. Really means.

You either pick Knowing or Not Knowing.

Comfort each other with your disdain for more intellectual pursuits, if you'd like. Complain all you want about the messenger who is bringing you the bad news. It doesn't change what the news is.

Posted by: joecairo | February 16, 2011 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Science is the process of crash testing ideas; real scientists don't coddle their theories, or design tests that supposedly prove their theories are correct. Real scientists ram their theories into a brick wall head-on at 60 mph, and knowledge is gained by examining the pieces. If the theory is solid, the pieces are from the wall.

Real scientists come up with theories that make testable predictions. They make the predictions, and see if they pan out. If they do, then the theory is solid.

Fake scientists come up with theories that make no predictions, then claim that ANYTHING they observe supports their theory.

Fake scientists claim global warming will make snowfall a thing of the past and when a you get a winter with lower-than-normal snowfall, they say, "Aha! That proves our theory is true!" And then when you get winters with much-higher-than-normal snowfall, instead of discarding their theory, they say, "Aha! That ALSO proves our theory is true!"

REAL scientists come up with theories that make testable predictions, and when their predictions don't pan out, THEY THROW AWAY THE THEORY. Science is NOT the process of finding evidence to support your theory. It is the process of creating a theory, putting it up against a wall, and seeing if it can survive having rocks thrown at it.

Posted by: gilbertbp | February 16, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Joe - you said it all!

These guys are like Bernie Madoffs. They love USING science to make life better for them, the way Maidoff USED accounting to keep his house of cards up. But science to them, as accounting to Maidoff, doesn't have any integrity, and they wouldn't like it if it did (does). They want what they want.

Posted by: 925architect | February 16, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I have an idea. Let's do nothing about climate change and hope it goes away. Pardon me while I put my head back in the sand.

Posted by: paul6554 | February 16, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I appreciate the honesty of the writer by including this one sentance paragraph: "The floods that inundated the United Kingdom that year were the worst since at least 1766."

I do question the scientific accuracy of using 54,000 home computers. Where are these computers? Who owns them? Where do they stand on climate change? What oxen do they want to Gore?

Posted by: herlick | February 16, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Were any of the program inputs based on Michael Mann's work or the CRC's bogus data?

In the future every scientific report should contain such a disclosure so one can ascertain if the results were based on real science or just wishful thinking.

Bogus data in - bogus data out.

Oh, and I really liked how the report received a "very rigorous" stamp of approval from a coreligionist.

Posted by: krankyman | February 16, 2011 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I have extensively reviewed available data:
I believe it to be the prudent thing, to look for ways of significantly reducing carbon emissions.

I have extensively viewed available data:
I think it entirely imprudent to arrange for liberal leadership.

Posted by: primegrop | February 16, 2011 7:16 PM | Report abuse

It isn't surprising that global warming would create more water vapor and the water cycle would speed up in response. However, since much of the world is short of fresh water, even here in the western US, more fresh water is a good thing.

Posted by: edbyronadams | February 16, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

How long can people ignore overwhelming evidence? Until we are extinct, I suppose, or suffer severe population decreases due to starvation. I sure am lucky to be nearly 70, since that means that when the sh*^& hits the fan, around 2050, I'll be long gone. Good luck guys. Did any of you ever hear about planning ahead?

Posted by: samsara15 | February 16, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh said Global Warming is a hoax who should I believe?

Posted by: waxtraxs | February 16, 2011 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Last year they told us it was the cause of all the droughts we were having.
This happened before between about 900-1300 a.d.
That medieval heat wave initiated exploration and the great trading of ideas and commerce that brought an end to the dark ages.

Posted by: kesac | February 16, 2011 7:42 PM | Report abuse

The usual climate change deniers here in comments have been informed by the various astroturf organizations funded by the oil industry that it is their duty to disbelieve any actual evidence that displeases the industry. Fortunately, given the deniers general hostility to science and their fearful desire to avoid thinking about the possibility of any scary changes in their resource-wasting lifestyles, they're ready and willing to angrily stamp their feet and shout down actual data.

Posted by: ozma1 | February 16, 2011 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Joe Romm and all his freakin' fools from Climate Progress are out here in full force.

They are just teed off because they have been exposed as frauds through the ClimateGate emails and all the lies from the UN IPCC which have brought disgrace to their "cause."

Why do you think Al Gore can't be found? Because he's hiding in a hole in shame.

Climate change is a massive money grab by the government and the Wall St. banks that want to engage in a new derivatives market trading carbon credits.

It's worth trillions of dollars in profit to them.

It's a scam meant to steal more money from the middle class and enrich the power elite.

Posted by: NyallsStJohnSmytheIV | February 16, 2011 8:15 PM | Report abuse

To all the people here braying, "Look at all the evidences!" I just ask you to make ONE testable prediction based on the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

"Testable" means a prediction that, if incorrect, would invalidate the theory. Here's a hypothetical example: Say I have a theory that predicts that if you drop a fresh egg off the top of the Washington Monument, it will always break.

Now, if I repeat that experiment successfully ten thousand times, that doesn't prove my theory is valid - maybe one egg in a million won't break. But if that happens, my theory has been proven to be invalid. On the other hand, if ten thousand eggs all break, then I can say with a high degree of certainty, just short of absolute certainty, that it will always happen. There is very strong evidence that my theory is valid.

That's what real scientists do. Real scientists don't sit there and say, "Well, looking at all the models we've created and tweaked so that our models line up with the admittedly incomplete data we've collected, OMG, there's global warming!"

Fine. If your models are so good, if you've tweaked them so nicely, make a testable prediction with them, a prediction that can be judged valid or invalid. That's what real scientists do. Until you do that, you're not real scientists; you're just statisticians.

I'll be sitting here, waiting.

Posted by: gilbertbp | February 16, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

This is soooooooo cute!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by: bschaper | February 16, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

This is soooooooo cute!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by: bschaper | February 16, 2011 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Aren't these environmentalist every going to give up.

I wonder if they are aware that......Get this.....HUMANS breath out carbon dioxide. Oh my gosh

Posted by: frankn1
---
Would you put a bag over your head to prove your point?

Posted by: jdman2 | February 16, 2011 8:37 PM | Report abuse

I'll be sitting here, waiting.

Posted by: gilbertbp |

Great stuff. These George Soros/ Goldman Sachs/GE/All Wall St Bank funded kleptocrats can't give you an answer.

Because they are full of Shipp with a capital T.

Give it up Joe Romm....you lost.

Posted by: NyallsStJohnSmytheIV | February 16, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

pgr88 pulled out of his you-know-what:

"There are actually more "scientists" who believe Global Warming is a scam."

Only in universes where 3% is more than 97%. The latter is the portion of scientists who are currently researching this who agree that the earth is warming and that we are primarily driving it:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm


"Remember also, "scientists" are people too, so some may do things out of ignorance, for greed, or for ideology."

Do you understand what the concept of peer review is? It's the same process that produces the medical treatments you may have already relied upon to save your sorry life.

"Remember East Anglia? "

Yes, I remember that ridiculously overblown cherry-picking fest by the denial crowd. I also recall that three separate independent investigations concluded that the emails contained no evidence of scientific malfeasance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

"I just wish WaPo wasn't so biased and ideological."

I just wish right wingers weren't so deep in denial about the biggest crisis facing humanity in this century.

Posted by: B2O2 | February 16, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Is this the climate scientists who screwed up the UN Report a couple years ago, or the group that NASA said had made conclusions that were impossible?

It snowed a lot, rained a lot, thundered a lot, got cloudy a lot, got cold, got hot, humid and dry....even Al Gore's weight gain - ALL because of global warming.

Posted by: swrr88 | February 16, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Climate "science" is so full of fraud it's unreal.

Read this stuff and find out the real story-

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Posted by: NyallsStJohnSmytheIV | February 16, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

@ 1cbdc1, just because someone is a scientist that studies climate doesn't mean they are spilling out the Gospel. Their own reports say they are just nearly sure that this is the cause. They have made a ton of mistakes in recent years with stupid assumptions and conclusions that other scientists have had to show them. Stop being the typical liberal and assuming everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

The problem with always crying wolf is eventually no one will listen.

Posted by: swrr88 | February 16, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey, it seems like the entire George Bush fan club is here on this comments page for their annual science-bashing squaredance and BBQ.

As usual when climate change is the subject.

Your knowledge of science can be gauged by the fact that most of you are still denying evolution. In fact, you'd still be denying that the Earth goes around the Sun if your pastors told you to.

Your skill at estimating risk can be judged by the fact that according to y'all, the greatest threat so far of the 21st century was completely non-existent fabricated Iraqi WMD.

Posted by: kenonwenu | February 16, 2011 9:13 PM | Report abuse

These people aren't scientists, they're hacks.

If temps had fallen one degree over the last century they'd be blaming that on humans, too.

Their "simulations" would "prove" it.

These morons must think that the temperature of the Earth remains constant.

Thank God their political wing was thrown out of the Congress last year. And hopefully out of the White House next year.

Posted by: corco02az | February 16, 2011 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Interesting article. Pitiful comments by creationists and other science deniers.

Posted by: starbuck2 | February 16, 2011 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Interesting article. Pitiful comments by creationists and other science deniers.

Posted by: starbuck2 | February 16, 2011 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Your skill at estimating risk can be judged by the fact that according to y'all, the greatest threat so far of the 21st century was completely non-existent fabricated Iraqi WMD.

Posted by: kenonwenu
________________________________

Dude, the fraudulent UN IPCC report, East Anglia ClimateGate and GISS make George Bush and company look like the combination of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

Posted by: NyallsStJohnSmytheIV | February 16, 2011 9:23 PM | Report abuse

@ corco02az
"
These people aren't scientists, they're hacks.

If temps had fallen one degree over the last century they'd be blaming that on humans, too.

Their "simulations" would "prove" it.

These morons must think that the temperature of the Earth remains constant.

Thank God their political wing was thrown out of the Congress last year. And hopefully out of the White House next year."

________________________________________

corco02az, you are an absolute total imbecile. When they handed out stupid you were without question in the front of the line. You're and embarrassment to yourself, I won't say an embarrassment to the human race, because cretins haven't evolved to that level. I doubt if you're capable of even passing basic Science 101. With idiots like you in the world, global warming is the least of our worries.

Posted by: morphylius | February 16, 2011 9:29 PM | Report abuse

This is the site of the man that completely destroyed Michael Mann's "hockey stick chart."

Mann might go to jail for fraud.

http://climateaudit.org/

Posted by: NyallsStJohnSmytheIV | February 16, 2011 9:30 PM | Report abuse

corco02az, you are an absolute total imbecile. When they handed out stupid you were without question in the front of the line. You're and embarrassment to yourself, I won't say an embarrassment to the human race, because cretins haven't evolved to that level. I doubt if you're capable of even passing basic Science 101. With idiots like you in the world, global warming is the least of our worries.

Posted by: morphylius
____________________________________

This dude must work for Joe Romm, John Podesta and George Soros at Climate Progress.

When bereft of facts, immediately go for the personal attack.

You are intellectually bankrupt.

Worse, you know you are a shill and on the downside of what was a parabolic rise in climate alarmism. You and your propanga machine are toast.

Good luck finding a new job, there isn't much of a market for demagogues like yourself.

Actually, I heard Al Sharpton was hiring.

Posted by: NyallsStJohnSmytheIV | February 16, 2011 9:35 PM | Report abuse

★★★★★Something unexpected surprise

welcome to: http://www.shoesforking.com/

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

3 free shipping

competitive price

any size available

accept the paypal

90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$

jordan shoes $ 32

nike shox $ 32

Christan Audigier bikini $ 23

Ed Hardy Bikini $ 23

Sm ful short_t-shirt_woman $ 15

ed hardy short_tank_woman $ 16

Sandal $ 32

christian louboutin $ 80

Sunglass $ 15

COACH_Necklace $ 27

handbag $ 33

AF tank woman $ 17

puma slipper woman $ 30

90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$

Believe you will love it.

welcome to: http://www.shoesforking.com/

Posted by: zhenge225 | February 16, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

They're still trying to run this scam.
I guess Al Gore is not selling any carbon credits.

Posted by: thejames1225 | February 16, 2011 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Here is something fun. More fraud from James Hansen at NASA-

Controversial NASA temperature graphic morphs into garbled mess

Posted on February 15, 2011 by Ryan Maue

What happened to that image? Back in 1999, Dr. James Hansen of NASA penned a report on surface temperatures still located on their servers. However, the critical figure for the report, a GIF image, has mysteriously become garbled. Steve Goddard has the back-story at his blog Real Science: “Data Corruption at GISS“

In 1999, Hansen wrote a report which was largely inconsistent with his current claims. Twelve years ago he understood that the US climate was hotter and more extreme in the 1930s. He also knew that 1934 was the hottest year in the US.

Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit discussed part of the issue with GISS data adjustments back in 2007 with a post here at WUWT, see:

............

Data Corruption At GISS
Posted on February 15, 2011 by stevengoddard

[At reader's request, I am sticking this to the top of the front page. Look below for new articles.]

[12:54 Mountain Time : NASA has fixed the graph. See update ]

[14:05 Mountain Time : New graph is not the same as the original graph - more soon]

I’ve reported on this before, but here is a more in depth explanation.

In 1999, Hansen wrote a report which was largely inconsistent with his current claims. Twelve years ago he understood that the US climate was hotter and more extreme in the 1930s. He also knew that 1934 was the hottest year in the US.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/data-corruption-at-giss/

Posted by: NyallsStJohnSmytheIV | February 16, 2011 9:41 PM | Report abuse

ROFL, our deficit will kill America long before a mathematical model will...

Posted by: thejames1225 | February 16, 2011 9:43 PM | Report abuse

And for everyone that forgot about climate scientists engaged in fraud, here is a link to every last email and scandal......it's chilling.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

The links to the stories on the site-

WUWT Stories in chronological order, newest first:
When Results Go Bad …

U-CRU

Telegraph’s Booker on the “climategate” scandal

“Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google

Mann to be investigated by Penn State University review

Understanding Climategate: Who’s Who – a video

The Curry letter: a word about “deniers”…

How “The Trick” was pulled off

The Australian ETS vote: a political litmus test for cap and trade

An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science

Zorita calls for barring Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf from further IPCC participation

Climategate protester pwn3d CBC on live TV

UEA Climate Scientist: “possible that…I.P.C.C. has run its course”

IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence”

McIntyre: The deleted data from the “Hide the Decline” trick

Climategate: Stuart Varney “lives with Ed”

Climategate: Pielke Senior on the NCDC CCSP report – “strong arm tactics”

Warwick Hughes shows how Jones selections put bias in Australian Temperatures

Climategate: CATO’s Pat Michaels and Center for American Progress Dan Weiss on Fox News

Quote of the week #23 – calls for resignation in Climategate

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Climategate: “Men behaving badly” – a short summary for laymen

Statement on CRU hacking from the American Meteorological Society

Climategate: hide the decline – codified

Must see video – Climategate spoof from Minnesotans for Global Warming

The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole…

Government petition started in UK regarding CRU Climategate

CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA GISS

The appearance of hypocrisy at the NYT – Note to Andy

Nov 24 Statement from UEA on the CRU files

Nov 23 Statement from UEA on the CRU files

Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation

The CRUtape Letters™, an Alternative Explanation.

CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story

Video: Dr. Tim Ball on the CRU emails

Pielke Senior: Comment On The Post “Enemies Caught In Action!” On The Blackboard

Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues

Spencer on elitism in the IPCC climate machine

CRU Emails – search engine now online

Release of CRU files forges a new hockey stick reconstruction

Mike’s Nature Trick

and the post that started it all…

Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

Posted by: NyallsStJohnSmytheIV | February 16, 2011 9:45 PM | Report abuse

It's a law of the Internet that every time a story about climate change appears, the denialists are the first ones to jump on it.

Physics aren't a matter of public opinion.

Posted by: fishellb | February 16, 2011 9:56 PM | Report abuse

It's a law of the Internet that every time a story about climate change appears, the denialists are the first ones to jump on it.

Physics aren't a matter of public opinion.

Posted by: fishellb
_________________________________

You have no physics on your side.

Posted by: NyallsStJohnSmytheIV | February 16, 2011 10:00 PM | Report abuse

"Sarah Palin can see the rain from her front porch. Does that make her a climate change expert in teahadist la-la land?"

Sarah Palin couldn't tell you what causes climates, or how clouds form, or what water is, or why humans need it. But hey, Sarah Palin is God's, self-appointed chosen savior for mankind; she doesn't need to know anything.

Posted by: jjedif | February 16, 2011 10:01 PM | Report abuse

"Cynicism is a healthy component to critical thinking, but refusal to believe a train is coming until it's actually here goes a bit past that."

True enough. But the fact is that although a small percentage of humans have amazing intellectual abilities, most humans are little more than sheep walking around on two legs instead of four.

Posted by: jjedif | February 16, 2011 10:08 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing how brainwashed some conservative are that no matter what the evidence they hide their heads in the sand and only believe what they want to believe. All these scientists are liar and it is all a scam. Pathetic. Please come back to the reality based community

Posted by: exbrown | February 16, 2011 10:15 PM | Report abuse

OK, climate-change skeptics, I have a reading assignment for you. One of the 5 largest insurance companies in the world is Munich Reinsurance, you can go to the climate change section of their website at

http://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate_change/default.aspx.

They are convinced that this is a real and growing problem. This is a company that relies on *real* science.

Posted by: Udo1 | February 16, 2011 10:22 PM | Report abuse

So, globull warming makes it hotter AND colder, wetter AND dryer, more snow AND less snow. Is there ANYTHING globull warming can't do? Thank you Owlgore. This just shows the dedicated stupidity of the watermelon types.

Posted by: Fiftycaltx1 | February 16, 2011 10:29 PM | Report abuse

OK, climate-change skeptics, I have a reading assignment for you. One of the 5 largest insurance companies in the world is Munich Reinsurance, you can go to the climate change section of their website at

http://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate_change/default.aspx.

They are convinced that this is a real and growing problem. This is a company that relies on *real* science.

Posted by: Udo1 |
_____________________________

You must have ridden the short bus to school as a kid. Insurance companies want "cap and trade" passed for two reasons.

1. They can charge higher rates.

2. Carbon credit derivatives trading.

Posted by: NyallsStJohnSmytheIV | February 16, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

On the climate issue, today's tea partiers remind me of the Catholic Church of the 1500s, ready to torture Galileo again for telling them the sun and not the earth was the center of our solar system.

Folks, the melting glaciers don't *care* that you know how to link to a dozen denialist web sites. They really don't. Sticking your heads further in the sand (or up your you-know-what) will help exactly as much as denying that a family member is an alcoholic will help with that problem.

Posted by: B2O2 | February 16, 2011 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Modern conservatism isn't a rational position, it's a religion where one must adhere to the dogma regardless of the facts.

For example, climate change must be denied or Rush Limbaugh will look silly for his denial of the opinion of the world scientific community since 1989.

And believe that the world scientific community is just a conspiracy to make conservatives and ignorant rubes look bad, e.g., all the advances over the past 300 years are fake and airplanes and electricity don't really exist.

Posted by: Miss_Fedelm | February 16, 2011 11:50 PM | Report abuse

So, globull warming makes it hotter AND colder, wetter AND dryer, more snow AND less snow.

=====

Exactly.

And when Rush told you that a two degree average world wide temperature increase could be felt by holding out your hand, he was just rube fooling you.

And this temperature increase has been confirmed by satellite data.

And so far the models have been right and Limbaugh has been wrong.

And that's why the rube fooling on this subject has been getting more and more outlandish. But recall it's just the Fox News audience that has to be made into idiots here.

Posted by: Miss_Fedelm | February 16, 2011 11:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm amazed at how easy it is to con the rubes and goobs into believing that those with vested interests in the debate, such as the oil and coal companies, and people like Limbaugh who 20 years staked his reputation on on one side of the debate, are right, and the world scientific community, who doesn't have a dog in the fight, is wrong.

Rube Logic: Those who gain by denying the scientific evidence should be believed, and those who don't gain by denying the objective evidence should be mindlessly demonized.

Posted by: Miss_Fedelm | February 17, 2011 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Huge swings in extreme weather. 100 year floods every 5-6 years? Bigger hurricane, longer droughts. Increases in extreme weather is the prediction of the models.

Believe what you want. Physics and Chemistry doesn't care. Above 350 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and The Change is coming.

Or we can pray.

Posted by: thebobbob | February 17, 2011 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Brian V, good post. I read the two Nature papers today, and I have nothing to add. Too bad this comment thread is such a cesspool of irrelevance, though.

Posted by: imback | February 17, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

I see the climate cranks got up early today.

The US Navy is extremely worried about global warming. Two top reasons: 1) Their bases are at sea level.
2) If the Arctic is ice free - which at the current rate it soon will be - 2016 at the latest - then regular navy ships can pass north of Canada.. You know like a Chinese or North Korean one.
Think about that one crackpots.

Posted by: KenG1 | February 18, 2011 8:34 AM | Report abuse

In case anyone is wondering why there are so many comments from climate cranks - it's becuase they are PAID BIG OIL SHILLS.

Posted by: KenG1 | February 18, 2011 10:21 AM | Report abuse

@akmzrazor..

"Its simply a re-hash of what we already know. Increased heat creates more water vapor. Increased water vapor increases the potentail for percipitation. "

except you forgot the part about rising Co2 levels increasing heat...

this is why education matters.

Posted by: JoBcause | February 18, 2011 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Thank you!!!!!
This just saved me on a science report that is due tomorow xD

Posted by: ecolone | February 21, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company