Average temperatures on the planet are increasing, ocean levels are rising, and storms are getting more severe. These are known facts, but some people--people who might even be your friends or family members--still believe anthropogenic climate change is a myth. Let's help change that.
Click to launch the photo gallery
We have selected some lovely items that will bring home the message that climate change is real, happening now and a serious problem. Click through the gallery to see some suggestions.
Gifts with a political message. The best kind.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a climate change denier)
Is this like giving recycle toilet paper to an ecology friendly, friend that is really recycled!
You may now say, EwwwwW!
This just in: Scientists have determined the most efficient method of burning money. They immediately incorporated this into their latest product, a $50 light bulb.
"Man, I wish I had a light bulb that costs more than the lamp it's plugged into!" - said nobody, ever.
So Rebecca Boyle, a Popular Science reporter, resorts to calling people names who disagree with her about a scientific hypothesis?
Did the editors actually read this before they posted it?
The case for anthropological global warming is far from proven. During the last ten years there has not been significant heating on a global scale, at least as measured by satellites, the most accurate of measures. (By the way using data smoothing and averaging is really not appropriate here, as some scientists seem to want to do.)
As to the theory, I am not a climatologist but I have considerable expertise in modeling systems, having taken many graduate level courses in non-linear and linear systems and modeling (I doubt Ms. Boyle has), and I am involved in systems design and controls professionally. I find the lack of accuracy of the current models quite telling, as well as the lack of verification of global warming for the past 15 years of scientific studies, including ice core studies that were done over ten years ago.
Ms. Boyle, there is a general warming trend that has been in place for the past 200 or so years (must have been started by all those SUV's that GM built in the 1800's), but that does not mean man made CO2, or Methane, is the cause.
Maybe Popsci should commit itself to actual science, rather than name calling.
qdmike - You must be new here. Popsci does not have editors.
Would you agree in the writing department of PoPSCi, they generate a lot of recycle paper or could some of the already used recycle paper, later become published PoPSCi articles, once again?
A better question would be; what to get a "reporter" from Popsci that suffers from LAGWS (Luddite's Anthropogenic Global Warming Syndrome) Hmm....I wonder.... Medication? a life? strait jacket? let her know that CO2 is not a magical gas and it CAN'T do all the "evil" things she thinks it does!! Well so many choices. Or, who knows, spit balling here, explain that scientists are like everybody else and they go where "the money" is?? Meanwhile in China "the big money" is going for science in the field of quantum computing (those backwards Chinese)not the cutting edge like "evil-white-people-wants-to destroy-the-world-because-that's-what-they-do science". you see, it even has a very long and exciting name.
Just curiosity!!! your deity, "THE 'BAMA" just said something contrary to "LAGWS". He actually managed to sound almost sane for once. How do you lot feel about that?
Excellent gifts that anyone would enjoy, even us so-called "climate deniers" (whatever that means). Alaska is beautiful, the Planet Earth Blu-rays are breathtaking, greenhouses are very practical, so are LED lightbulbs because they save electricity (and money, but we'll stick with our CFLs until the LEDs are cheap enough to be worth it). Here are a couple others:
-Composter: turn your food waste into really nutritious organic soil for your greenhouse.
-Rooftop photovoltaic array: pricey, but in the next 5 years they'll be cheap enough that you can offset your utility bills, reduce your dependence on the power grid, save energy, go green, feel smug and self-righteous--all at the same time.
Now for your high-strung global warming alarmist friends, some gifts:
-An hour of Shiatsu massage: help your friend relax.
-A day at a spa: more relaxing.
-An outing to a national park: breathtaking scenery for people who really need a break to relax and get some perspective (especially you city-dwellers).
Educational gifts to help your stressed-out alarmist friends see how silly their worries are:
-Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" (1776) on Kindle (free): learn how the free market system works; billions of humans seeking their own interests magically collaborate to make great things happen without any government programs (like CFLs, LED light bulbs, PV arrays).
-Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It" (2007) on Amazon or Kindle: an environmentalist explains how alarmists schemes to reduce greenhouse gases will cost trillions of dollars and accomplish virtually nothing.
How about links to websites that debunk the irrational claims of global warmists:
-wattsupwiththat.com: A former meteorologist maintains information and links to studies that refute the cherry-picked global-warming-biased studies. Lots of science here.
-climateaudit.org: A statistician does the hard work and digs through global-warming studies, graphs, data, and methodology to point out the errors and selection bias. You didn't know that the whole foundation of anthropogenic global warming rests on a few pine trees in Russia? On a flawed statistical method that produces a "hockey stick" even with random data? Warning: very intense statistical analysis here.
I know, I know, the websites may be a turn-off. Alarmists don't like facts and logic. They prefer fantasies about cuddly polar bears.
All great ideas but hopefully we can come up with something more meaningful soon. For example, a round-trip ticket to Mars on a SpaceX ship (don't tell 'em it's actually one-way).
It's a win for all! These pollution happy folk can't really mess up Mars, can they? With them gone, we won't have dead weight holding us back from fixing things before it's too late. Of course such a gift really would be for the Earth itself.
I suppose many of these deniers are faithfully waiting for the catastrophe promised to them. They may not want to go. It will take cold hard cash to make them see the light. Still, a good investment for the rest of us.
Something tells me that PopSci's going a bit too far with the "denier"-bashing it's been doing this season.
I agree with you. Any published science need to check, doubted and checked again from various sources. It is just good science and everyone learns in the process.
In the Sumerian history of 6000 years or so ago, they knew that the planets were round, the sun in the center and the order of the planets; they new about Pluto, Uranus and Neptune. They know the colors of Uranus and Neptune too.
As time passed and Kingdoms came and gone, somewhere in the process the Earth became flat and in the center of the Universe. Other kingdoms too, had other theories of our solar system and humanities place in it.
It took a very long time, for science to get the facts right again and yes, it is healthy to go back and reject them now and then, repeatedly from a fresh tools and fresh perspectives.
I'm sure that Ms. Boyle likes to think that she is enlightened and has an open mind. But as the old joke goes, "The problem with an open mind is that anything placed into it simply tends to fall right back out".
And for the Climate Change faithful, like Ms. Boyle, a tin foil hat.
Actually the only thing constant about the climate is that it is changing, as it has so since day one. So the tin foil hat is for those who have joined the One Holy and Apostolic Church of Global Warming (or cooling, change, weirding, anthropogenic global warming or whatever it is being called this week.)
I'm pretty sure this article was written for the intended purpose of drawing the trolls out of their caves...
You hit the nail on the head kungfu! I think PopSci is doing a study on just how many of the painfully ignorant troll this site. Most of them are just the typical poorly-educated, but many are the truly evil blatant liars like Bagpipes or qdmike. I've got news for you, there is literally tons of evidence to support anthropological climate change. A new study comes out almost every day on how these are the hottest years in recorded history, or how greenhouse gases have doubled and tripled since the Industrial Revolution. There is no debate here. There is science, and there is politically motivated denial. And of course PopSci will poke fun at these morons! All of us in the scientific community laugh at those who claim climate change is just a "hypothesis". It's not. It's a proven scientific theory. Since I know you trolls aren't actually scientists, I'll let you in on a tidbit of knowledge: a scientific theory is not the same as a lay theory, or "guess". A scientific theory is backed up with hard facts. So yes, we get a big laugh from the lunacy of the trolls who frequent this site. It's no different than when scientists made fun of people who believed the Earth was flat. Back in the 80's, Reagan and the GOP consistently denied humanity was causing acid rain. Even after every scientist proved how it happened, they continued to deny it. Even after the flora and fauna of ponds and streams started rapidly dying off, the right said it was "liberal media science". Finally Canada had to threaten us to get the GOP to finally admit it and do something about it. For those of you who aren't the disgusting sub-human trolls who get thrills off of blatant lies, I simply suggest you do some research. All of this is out there for anyone to study, and your self-imposed ignorance only fools ignorant others.
Well, it is Christmas time, troll la la la la...a la la la.. lol.
Hmmmm - seems odd that you would buy a coat for someone if you thought the world was warming (unless you were intending to be ironic, which this was not).
Good things to get the climate change alarmist:
(1) $700 - 1 ton of rice (in 50lb sacks on two pallets) for the comming food crisis
(2) $350 - A canoe or sea kayak to attach to their floating home for island runs
(3) $45 - A good life vest
(4) $10/lb - Seal meat (eat it before it is gone)
(5) $500 - A good hand crank desalinator
(6) $2 in the bargin bin - The move Waterworld, so that they can see that global warming is good (for fish and human evolution, if not for holywood studios or actor's careers)
(7) $ ??? a WMD - After all, the only real solution to anthro-caused anything is population control
(8) $ 1,700 a vasectomy (see reason #7). Can be done cheaper and more sustainibly with a $0.02 rubber band.
"Troll", "Denier", "Moron", "Liar"
Just keep this quote in mind:
“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” (Elbert Hubbard)
Lets just stick to the arguments and facts;
First, I asserted that there has been no significant global warming in the past ten years based upon satellite data.
I can only quote the link here www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures. Yes this comes from a PHD scientist that does not agree with the anthropological global warming hypothesis, but the data is valid and I am sure available from NASA as well.
Second, I asserted that the ice core studies did not support CO2 as a cause of global warming. The reason is that the rise in CO2 preceded the rise in temperatures, and the temperatures dropped while the CO2 was still rising. This is clearly a contra-indicator. However, as usual, the advocates of this theory continued to cling on.
Third, I asserted that the models have not worked. I will let you look up the data, but we are now on our fourth iteration of a climate model. I could comment more on the hazard of using a model very dependent upon curve fitting vs. a theory defined model, but I leave that to later.
As you your comments (exclusive of the insults and name calling)
1. Yes, there are studies every day on global warming, but most of this are either
a. the evidence the earth is getting warmer
b. Assuming the earth does warm, what is the effect on the ecosystems and social systems.
c. Assuming CO2 and other gases are the cause, what is the heat distribution and effect.
None of the above 3 types of published article really gets at the root cause of global warming.
As everyone knows, it is well established that the earth cooled and warmed long before man was present. Obviously those factors are still in place.
By the way, I am a graduate school educated engineer with a background and advanced training in complex systems and control theory. I have the mathematical skills to understand these theory's. I just don't agree with them.
And, I even like some science fiction - syfyguy. Probably something we have in common. So lets not call each other names.
My creditials.... I read PoPSCi, lol. ~ Robot
The ultimate gift for a denier is a new ice age. They are fervently praying for one as you read this. Of course they have no concept of time scale. The Earth is only 6k years old after all! They have banded together and vowed to leave their freezer doors open for as long as it takes.
Something alien and from above the Sumerians wrote in their history some 6000 to 10k years ago.
Now read this article to see its effects.
I'm a nuclear physicist, not a climatologist. I do believe you qdmike when you say that you have read such things, because there are a few anti-climate change scientists who post false results. In fact, with the increasing frequency of faked papers and results coming from anti-climate changers and "creation scientists", it can be difficult for many to understand what is fact and what is make-believe. The answer to this is: go with what 90% of scientists say. It is our job as scientists to experiment and produce results unbiased by opinion or desires. I've had several hypotheses proven wrong over the years, but they were proven wrong using SCIENCE, not opinion.
So yes, you wrote what you believe to be true, but the reality is that you simply latched on to an article that fit what your hypothesis was. Satellites do not measure temperature at all. They measure radiance, then take that data to INFER temperatures. They are certainly not the "most accurate" method of climate measurement. You're also quoting information found by a single NASA satellite, while all other satellites show a warming trend for the past 30 years. But the real question here is: how can you use satellites to measure climate change since the industrial revolution when they did not exist then? You can't.
And the Arctic ice cores further proved CO2 contributes to global warming, not disprove it as you say. At least, that's what the overwhelming majority of scientists have found. I'm guessing you're quoting the one single scientist in 1989, Idso, who said the data showed otherwise. There was another study on the cores in 2003 by Caillon, who said "CO2 is not the force that initially drives climate change during deglaciation". They still confirm that CO2 does warm the Earth, it is simply not the main factor in ending an ice age. Well, we are not in an ice age, so this evidence has little value to us today.
I love how you deniers like to name-call and bash PopSci, then get upset when people call you out for it. The worst I think though is when you guys give your opinion as if it were fact. Instead of saying "During the last ten years there has not been significant heating on a global scale, at least as measured by satellites", you should have said "according to one satellite...". And for the ice core, you should have said, "while MOST scientists say this, a COUPLE of scientists instead say this..."
I understand that politics drives belief, and the conservative right has a lot of money to lose from climate change, just as they did with acid rain, but that is no excuse for ignorance. In science, things may not always work out to what you want them to be, but instead of jumping on rare, obscure articles that support your view, be honest with yourself, and others.
I love ya man, big hug, squish!
And as far as the models, you're just simply wrong about that. Climate change models going back to 1896 all the way to the present are consistently proven CORRECT. When they are usually wrong are in the amount of temperature increase. They all estimate the temperature WILL increase, but they are often off about the exact number. CO2 content has more than doubled, which was predicted by several models. Do you think proponents of climate change just came up with an idea one day to piss off corporations?
syfyguy, temperature predictions since 1896 did not all predict increasing temperatures; some predicted cooling. But even if they all did predict warming, they had a 50/50 chance of getting it right. Great prediction. Anyone who knows that the earth cycles through glacial/inter-glacial periods could predict a long-term warming trend for the next hundred years and probably be right.
And what "increasing frequency of faked papers and results coming from anti-climate changers" are you talking about? I don't know of any science journal that would publish something from a creationist or notable "anti-climate changer". You must be talking about the increasing frequency of not-necessarily-climate-science-related faked papers that reputable science journals have published. Those are from "real" scientists, not creationists, and I haven't heard of any that purported to refute the global warming paradigm.
And those ice-cores? They don't prove CO2 increases global warming. We know that theoretically more CO2 should increase atmospheric temperature logarithmically in a closed system. But we don't have data to show it's actually happening. The ice cores show that CO2 increase LAGS warming by hundreds of years, which implies that CO2 is a result of warming, not a significant causal factor.
Article on CO2 lagging temperature based on an article from Nature:
To any of my generous warmist friends reading this - the Alaska cruise, please! And just in case I somehow fail to be convinced, I'm quite prepared to go again the following year. Better start saving your pennies. ;)
Nice. Another way for Popsci to show it completely disregregards the fact that anthropogenic climate change still hasn't been "proven." Just because Al Gore says "the science is settled" in order to boost sales for his "green" investments doesn't make it so, although the hype from all his "activism" (brought to you viael-uzzling jets)has made him a very rich man...
Maybe you should read both copies of the IPCC report to the UN; the one claiming no substancial evidence exists for anthropogenic climate change and the last minute revision that says it does. All without changing a single fact in the report.
This science is only settled in the minds of those too shallow and narrow-minded to imagine that there still exists two valid scientific views on the subject.
I suppose it is a little too much to ask that Popsci stick to actual science and stop inserting its own political skew?
Facts are troublesome little things.
1. The temperature measurements are from 11 different satellites. I don't know where you are getting your information, possibly you can identify a link. I gave you the source of the information I quoted - did you even check the link.
And by the way, yes the satellites measure radiance and through radiance calculate average gas and surface temperatures. All devices that measure temperature which we use in modern life measure temperature indirectly. Do you know of a device that measures gas temperature directly - it is not a thermometer, It is not a thermocouple. Since you claim to be a nuclear physicist, just what is that device.
The satellite data is important because it is the most accurate data we have that can readily measure global temperatures. If the models do not accurately predict the data, then the model is not valid.
2. The rise in CO2 lags by several centuries the rise in temperature in the ice core studies. Cause-effect Right? Since you are a nuclear physicist I need not discuss partial pressures here.
3 The models have trended off the last several years. Just what model to you have that accurately reflects the lack of global warming for the past decade.
$. Perhaps you have a source for the statement "And the Arctic ice cores further proved CO2 contributes to global warming"
One fact you cannot contest is that the models just don't work. Inevitably, after four or five years, they fail to accurately track global heating.
Finally, I find that science is not advanced by surveys of how many scientists are in favor of this or that.
And one more thing, I don't know who you are talking about, but I don't call people names. I don't lump people together into groups. I don't make unfounded assumptions about the source of information people have. And I respect people who are factual and respectful in their opinions and respectful of people whom they disagree with.
I think the world is a little better that way.
Lol, I wonder sometimes if you guys even read the things you write. Thank you democedes for posting the link to the article about why CO2 lags. I suggest you all read it. It says over and over how CO2 INCREASES warming. It's not the cause of course, and no one has ever said humanity caused it. CO2 accelerates warming. This is a fact that is constantly corroborated by the scientific community.
I'd really like to see a source for 11 satellites. The only one I ever heard of was a NASA report put out that they have since gone back and said their findings were based on flawed information. Here is just one of the many links to articles that talk about it: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/#.ULgLu6ysXKc
And again, there are tons of articles about the ice cores that prove CO2 contribute to GW. Here is just one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080514131131.htm
If you'd like more, I know of at least 6 more I can get to without having to look.
I don't know where you got your engineering degree, but you should know that a thermocouple does indeed measure TEMPERATURE. Usually, you have two conductors of a precious metal, like platinum, and the temperature difference between creates a voltage variance. So yes, it is able to measure the temperature of a gas or fluid directly.
As for the name calling, I was just lumping you with the other trolls of your like mind who haunt this site. While you did not name call, you addressed the author of this piece directly, and made the claim PopSci does not print science. I was incorrect to group you with others such as Bagpipes or gizmowiz or Aldron. You in fact just created your account yesterday in order to troll this article and criticize the author. Well done!
Folks like yourself love to try and take the high road, but your comments always shoot you in the foot. You can't come on a SCIENCE site, deny science, state your opinions as fact, and criticize the journalists without someone coming back at you with reality.
That's sad that you and so many others think this is something up for debate. You say you don't judge science by surveys in favor of this or that. That's not what we're talking about. This isn't the debate on whether the Grand Canyon is millions or hundreds of millions of years old, where you have large numbers of scientists on both sides. There is NO survey. It is 95-98% of climatologists who say humanity is increasing GW. This isn't a "my opinion, your opinion thing". This is hard science.
But hey, what do scientists know? It's just there job to know.