Huge Arctic Ice Shelf Breaks Off 736
knarfling writes "CNN is reporting that a chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan has broken away from Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic. Just last month 21 square miles of ice broke free from the Markham Ice Shelf. Scientists are saying that Ellesmere Island has now lost more than 10 times the ice that was predicted earlier this summer. How long before the fabled Northwest Passage is a reality?"
The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day... (Score:2, Insightful)
The climate change proponents will probably try to make a bigger deal out of this than it really is. I take the stance that I'm not educated enough on Earth's climate to have a valid opinion on climate change, but I do find it strange that they never mention the tropics have been colder than usual these past few years. I live in Mackay, Queensland, and this year's winter was probably the coldest I've seen here (though I have only been here eight years).
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It realy is amazing that those who seek to deny climate change point to regionalized changes as an indication that "it's not getting warmer".
That's not the point. The point is that it is getting warmer on a global average and that some areas will be more affected than others.
The melting of polar ice caps to the extent they are will have impacts such as potential changes in ocean currents. The impact of that change will have even greater affect on regions where climates are moderated by the heat brought in or removed by those currents.
How it all plays out remains to be seen but it's likely to have dire consequences for some regions and relatively little affect on others.
Re:1906 (Score:4, Insightful)
But at least we can get our taiwanese crap even cheaper!
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The climate change proponents will probably try to make a bigger deal out of this than it really is. I take the stance that I'm not educated enough on Earth's climate to have a valid opinion on climate change, but I do find it strange that they never mention the tropics have been colder than usual these past few years. I live in Mackay, Queensland, and this year's winter was probably the coldest I've seen here (though I have only been here eight years).
I find it worrying that people say "I don't know enough, so i don't believe it" about climate changes.
I'm the first to admit that i haven't got the faintest clue if we are rapidly accelerating a climatechange. However I think it is better to err on the side of caution than hoping it all blows over
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we have our field days when so-called "sceptics" follow up every story that even remotely concerns climate with stupid non-sequiturs, and point to single points of "evidence" against global warming as if they somehow were relevant. Like when junkscience.com presents a "global mean temperature" with sharp differences between day and night and summer and winter, or some idiot on Slashdot points to the weather in fucking Queensland.
Re:1906 (Score:3, Insightful)
No, sorry. By then, our currency will have dropped in value even more. Our wages will be on par with the Taiwanese. On the positive, the goods we ship to our Chinese overlords will be that much easier.
Re:1906 (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it incredibly arrogant that people attribute symptoms that are several levels removed from the "cause" to a model like global warming.
This has nothing to do with whether or not I think global warming is real or not... as far as I know, the reality of CO2 retaining heat in labs is very well studied.
The thing is that before we paid much attention to this stuff, there was ONE real model that predicted a global temperature increase: global warming. It was not ignored before because "the man" was trying to hide science, it was ignored because there was NO effort to show an actual cause and effect relationship.
But eventually we got such sensational anectdotal information that the science of global warming was assumed. This becomes embarressing when things like the carbon retention of the Sahara are studied, as we discussed weaks ago, and suddenly billions of tons of carbon disappear from the air in our models, but the temperature hasn't changed at all.
I think it's one of the surest signs ever of our arrogance as a species that we had ONE well studied theory predicting temperature change, and when it did, we attributed it to that theory without much in the way of a causal relationship study.
The reason this worries me is that, while fighting pollution and emissions is never a bad thing, we could very well be ignoring the elephant in the room, simply because the global warming discussion has become so political, (and that's the activists faults, not the scientists). What if, although our carbon certainly doesn't help, most of this is due to cyclical sun output? No matter what we do, we would be screwed then, and we'd be focusing on the wrong questions.
You know what caused the onset of the iceages? North and South America connected at Panama, cutting of the Pacific-Atlantic currents, which cooled the entire Northern Hemisphere. I fear we may be missing something equally as subtle in our hunt to show how wrong those big, ugly troglodytes in the [insert commodity] industry are, and it's being enabled by our need as a species to vindicate ourselves at the expense of accurate information. (See: Bush)
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Global warming does not imply that all areas will be warmer, just that the world, on average, will be.
In fact, one of the reasons people are so concerned about it is because such warming could (and almost certainly would) alter current weather patterns, causing some areas to become much warmer, or colder, or much dryer or inundated by rain.
Much of that danger is sheer unpredictability. Places in the world that currently support major agriculture could dry up; dryer areas, or coastal ones, could be flooded or washed out.
Think of it this way: pumping more *heat* into the atmosphere is in many ways functionally equivalent to adding more *energy*. You shake up a system, you drive it harder, and it can change in surprising ways, amplifying some behaviors and damping out others. In a system as complicated as the entire Earth, the changes could be dramatic indeed.
Re:From TFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
The chunk that actually broke off was 10 times the size predicted.
They probably downplayed the size to keep getting their grant monies.
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You understand of course that extra energy in the system causes larger fluctuations right? The global average will increase, but so will the variance. Your colds will be colder, and your hots will be hotter. This might also change weather patterns so rain might no longer fall where expected, or might fall where it's not expected. All that ice is a hedge against huge and quick climate change. When ice freezes it releases heat into its surroundings. When it melts it's absorbing some of that heat. If it runs away, the system will race to a new thermal equilibrium which could take any number of forms we can only guess at. What we do know about the new thermal equilibrium is it will probably be drastically different to what we're used to, what we evolved to exploit, and it won't be interested in whether or not we find it suitable. I'll be dead before any such eventuality comes to pass so it's literally not my problem. I've no illusions about the universe's impression of my snowflake character. But if we can agree that it'd be a good idea for humans to avoid a massive selection event, then now is the time to start addressing some of that. While it's still a choice.
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Could you possibly explain how the weather in Queensland is more of a single point of "evidence" than an ice shelf breaking off?
Both are arbitrary anecdotes, which I believe was the parent's original point.
Re:From TFA... (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is, any scientist who tries to predict the outcome of a small event that is influenced by many, many, many large factors will more than likely miss something and be off.
This is a knock at climate scientists or scientists in general, I'm sure they tried to look at every factor they could think of. But after you look at all those factors (spent all that time and money) you are required to make a prediction whether you think it'll be close or not. You can't just walk away and say I'm really not sure. You make a prediction and if its wrong you say what you said.. well we must have missed something, get more funding and do it again.
Re:1906 (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree wholeheartedly with what you have written, you have to keep in mind that it would be somewhat impossible to directly proof cause and effect on such a scale as this. It would be better to error, I think, on the side of caution and simply reduce pollution. Pollution rates are something that we can practically control in comparison to other influences such as the sun are concerned. We should all just pray that we're not near any of the tipping points commonly talked about. Sometimes I really worry that we've all had it too good for too long and a much grimmer future is just over the horizon...
Re:Confused (Score:3, Insightful)
"Anyhoo, global warming is good - it snowed last weekend."
Did you ahve a point besides showing everybody your complete ignorance of global warming and it's effect?
Re:But Slashdot told me it would all be melted by (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, Slashdot *REPORTED* that the *NORTH POLE* *MAY* be ice free by September. Not that the entire area north of the Arctic Circle would be tropical. But sensationalist hyperbole is fairly common around here I suppose.
Re:What percentage is that? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is news because 70% of the arctic ice is one-year old, 1 meter thick, and this is very old, 130-foot thick ice. This is also news because it is permanent ice that broke off, not any part of the ice that melts and refreezes every year.
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly my argument for my anti-Godzilla policy proposals. Better safe than sorry!
-Peter
Science is never objective. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they need to eat and pay rent, scientists will follow the corporate line and rave about the emperor's new clothes just like the ignorant.
As a species we seem to love having these waves of hype up problems: SARS, Bird Flu, etc. Global Warming has been the biggest of these because everyone can relate to it.
Politicians love Global Warming because it stops people from thinking about other political issues. Many scientists love it because they finally get some of the spotlight and almost all scientific disciplines can be somehow linked to global warming. Just work GLobal Warming into your research title and it becomes trendy and "important".
Re:But Slashdot told me it would all be melted by (Score:4, Insightful)
May keep your heart healthy as part of a balanced diet.
Every time I hear that, the words may, keep, healthy, and as part of stand out. If you are unspecific enough, of course things'll come true.
I predict that someone, somewhere, within the next 200 years will die of choking on a mouse. Remember, you heard it hear first.
Re:Never, hopefully. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why the US government is doing everything it can to speed up the warming of our north. ;-)
Re:1906 (Score:5, Insightful)
Global Warming Industry
There's mad cash to be made in asking people not to drive their cars or run their AC so much. Telling people to stop spending money on energy is big bucks, man.
Re:Science is never objective. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From TFA... (Score:1, Insightful)
Ellesmere Island was once entirely ringed by a single enormous ice shelf that broke up in the early 1900s.
Martin Jeffries of the U.S. National Science Foundation and University of Alaska Fairbanks said in a statement Tuesday that the summer's ice shelf loss is equivalent to over three times the area of Manhattan, totaling 82 square miles -- losses that have reduced Arctic Ocean ice cover to its second-biggest retreat since satellite measurements began 30 years ago.
You are pointing out this is the biggest loss in the last 30 years, and the GP was pointing out that the loss in the early 1900s was even bigger.
So as the GP indicates, this is just a continuing trend and, yes, this is the largest loss in 30 years, but not the largest loss in the last 100 years.
The last 30 years together with the last 100 years continues to show a trend of global warming. Note that this is not proof or demonstration of man-made global warming. A reasonable person might draw the conclusion that this is natural global warming...and that, given historical warming trends, we might actually be on the verge (within a millenia) of entering a mini-Ice Age. Or worse.
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The warmest periods on earth supported gigantic creatures and even larger plantlife.
Why is this a bad thing? I love the cold and I really can't see a negative to seeing india and florida flood in exchange for bumper crops across the globe, or giant forests, or what have you.
Dinosaurs would be cool too.
Uh, cus I'm neither gigantic creature or plant? I'm just a homo sapien whose society and thus basic necessities rely on a huge network of interconnecting aspects that can get severely screwed by global climate change, like when fuel supplies get stopped by a hurricane hitting the gulf coast only bigger. I don't fancy starving to death because drought in the midwest has stopped the growth of crops and there's an extra couple hundred million people sharing my space and my food because coastal areas are flooded.
Look, the planet earth, and life itself, are going to survive. We could unleash any catastrophe, like if WWIII had occurred at the height of nuclear stockpiling, and life would go on. Humans might not. Especially not humans like me.
So yeah, I'm not ready to give the dinosaurs another chance at supremacy quite yet. :P
Re:1906 (Score:3, Insightful)
We also know that water vapor soaks up 25 times as much heat as CO2, and that there's a lot more of it, especially over the oceans.
Part of the warming effect of carbon dioxide is due to higher temperatures causing an increase in water vapor, which also then causes a warming effect. This is all already taken into account, and only acts to boost the effect of carbon dioxide. Please keep up.
Re:1906 (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how many copies of An Inconvenient Truth were sold...
When we ditched R12 there was money to be made with R134a. When we ditch oil, the energy will come from something else and there's always money to be made. There are new construction materials, hybrid cars, efficient appliances, etc.
There might not be a "Global Warming Industry" per se (excluding political lobbying, government grants and university studies I suppose) but change always brings about new industries and where there is new industry, there is money to be made. Combatting global warming requires change like those mentioned above. There are industries that will have to adapt, others that will benefit directly and others that will lose depending on which way legislation and the sway of society goes. That's just the reality of things.
The idea that every person who is reporting/informing/pushing/(whatever spin you like) the idea of global warming is altruistic and just wants to help by asking people to conserve a little is as absurd as it is naive.
About weather changes and global warming... (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's the truth:
We don't know.
Simple
Is human pollution a factor in the environmental changes we are facing?
I would say YES.
Is human pollution causing weather changes and global warming?
Who knows?
We are still very very new at this, the understanding of how the weather works, is etchy at best.
The pollution we create does damage the environment, no doubt.
And it never ceases to amaze me to think of all that oil we have dug, which was safe and non-pollutant, and now, burned and part of our atmosphere.
What is in place of that oil you ask? Uh... water and/or other fluid, to help push the oil up.
What type of consequences will come from that in the long run? That water is contaminated, that's for sure.
The oceans are plagued with "patches of garbage areas". That's pretty sick, and while it may seem far from us, the truth is, we get our fishes and seafood from there. Our waste is causing the oxygen levels to deplete, toxicity is spreading and plankton levels are dropping, which is of course, not a good thing, as it is the foundation of ocean food. And let's not even talk about the mercury levels from various industries, the estrogen levels from garbage and home, and all the other crap we keep feeding our *for the most part* untreated sewage water.
Obviously, our atmosphere was not designed to handle all these pollutants, I should say our biosphere is not equipped to handle this, thus the problems currently faced by wildlife and wildlife habitats, most of them endangered in some ways or another. In fact, some lakes in the US have estrogen levels so high, male fishes are mutating into female fishes!
So we can agree that we, the human race is undoubtably the architect for the demise of the environment around us, that is without a doubt true.
But is pollution the major factor in the weather changes, global warming and the poles to be melting?.
We don't know.
That's what I'm deducing from the myriads of conflicting reports and research out there.
And why we don't know? Because we can't compare our findings, we don't have a real test bed to work with/from and that is pretty much it.
It is theorized that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, so there could be cycles of weather pattern which may be involved which we have no real clue about. Let's face it, on a cosmic scale, we've not been around for very long, like.. a blip in time really in comparison to our planet's age.
So what to do?
Well, since we know the state of our environment is a direct result of how we have been neglecting it, we can always assume that some of the changes in the weather MAY be linked, but the remedy for fixing the weather, mmm, that's not something I believe we have the answers to yet.
But let's examine what we DO know.
Since we know all of that, then it's up to us to fix it.
Clean up our act!
We need to learn more about the weather, etc.., but we also need to take some very pro-active steps towards changing and adapting the way we use the environment for our needs.
Eco friendly cities, alternative energy use, recyclable water, better waste management, etc...
Anything that can be construed as "clean living" so to speak.
And, let's not forget this too: the weather knows NO jurisdiction, no barriers, no boundaries, so, it's not enough for any single country to do what it can, all countries have to work at it. Pollutants in the atmosphere from Europe, for example can float all the way to the US in a matter of weeks.
The trick here is that in end, money shouldn't be a factor. The "cost" of being eco-friendly, etc.. shouldn't be an impediment, because, without our Earth to sustain else, everything else is moot point.
And that's the truth here we must remember, in the end, all the money in the world can't fix our environment, but, we, as the human race, can work together and fix it.
Global Warming Basics (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is it's not getting warmer across the globe.
Climate scientists are indeed aware of this, and the phrase "global warming" doesn't mean strict increase at each point on the globe, but that the mean temperature across measured points is rising.
They're also aware of the argument that some large subset of points might be affected by urban heat islands, and apparently, even when you factor this out, it appears the mean temperature is still rising.
Check into it. If you put as much effort as you have into imagining a world where the vast majority of climatologists are essentially falsifying research for personal gain, you might find out that they have considered and provided substantial refutations of nearly every single popular climate change denial talking point.
Re:1906 (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest problem is the very inconvenient truth that the climate is constantly changing, sometimes getting warmer, sometimes cooler. Right now, it seems to be getting warmer, even though there are reports about the ice in the Arctic covering more area than it has in decades. And, the most inconvenient truth is that we don't know why, although some people think we do. Frankly, I think we should be spending money on learning more about how the climate changes instead of just assuming that CO2 is the One True Answer. Until we have a computer model that can start from 20 years ago and predict today correctly, we won't know enough to say that we understand what's happening. And, I might add, it's not a good idea to make drastic changes until we do. I will agree, however, that an open-ended experiment of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is probably not a Good Idea.
Re:1906 (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you that naive? Let put it to you this way if you were a college professor and wanted a grant for the study of the breeding habits of say, pigeons... I guarantee you if you append the application with 'and the effect of global warming on them' you're far more likely to get a grant.
And BTW, there is mad money to be made promoting laws which force people to replace the air conditioners instead of repair them in homes and rental complexes to 'improve efficiency' when the size of the units in the complex do not not warrant such a change. The AC in my condo cost me a good 300$ more in 2006 than it would have in 2004.. all for a 900 sq foot condo with new windows..
Re:1906 (Score:4, Insightful)
Aaaargh! Mission Accomplished! You WiN! (Score:2, Insightful)
I have NO idea what the heck is going on with the planet anymore.
There's too much conflicting information. The waters have been successfully muddied to death. I am ready to curl up into a comatose ball and watch re-runs of mindless TV shows and will allow you to inject me with whatever 'vaccine' you want, and my phone calls will be mumbles which I no longer care if you tap. You WIN!
Actually, I'm just kidding. -Because while the messages and science are claiming this and that, Global Warming, Global Cooling, Sunspot Minimums, Oceanic Saline Maximums, Gulf Stream, Greenhouse Gas and on and on. . . It all adds up to one thing and one thing only. . .
Ice Age.
And that, my friends, is the only thing which counts in the end, and it's what The Powers That Be are having to plan for. Having everybody on the planet paralyzed with confusion just helps keep them. . , well, paralyzed so that the various plans can move forth without complication.
-FL
Re:Never, hopefully. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, half of Canada's defence is sheer size and extreme cold. Any idea how difficult it is to navigate ANY kind of ship in the North. This problem effectively eliminates about 90% of navies.
Second, Canada is a far, far richer and able country than many give it credit for (even some Canadians). Particularly those of us in the U.S., where the parochial media makes it all USA all the time, ignorance of Canada's collective will as a nation, ability in war, and industrial potential is profound. Fortunately, there are also great numbers of Canadians and friends of Canada in the U.S. (as well as MANY Canada Studies programs) and these people have great influence over many aspects of U.S. policy. Not to mention that nearly everyone in Canada is related to somebody in the U.S..
Third, Canada's defence of the North is ongoing, active, aware, and more capable that some think. It already knows what ships are where, when, and why. It wouldn't take much to recover any fees owed though levies on countries that try to jump the turnstiles. This includes the U.S.. Planning on reducing dependence on Middle East oil? Then Canada is your very best friend. Don't piss her off.
Re:What percentage is that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently it's not "permanent" ice. The presumption that we humans know what is "permanent" is mind-boggling.
Well given it's 130 feet thick I'm guessing it's been around a couple years.
Re:1906 (Score:2, Insightful)
Why are alternative ideas labeled conspiracy theory only when in relation to global warming and 9/11?
Fuck off and quit being such a tool.
I'm not validating this guy's theory, and probably has no basis in fact, but I haven't read scientific papers, and I haven't analyzed this guy's theory. It's just a goofy theory like half of the other shit on Slashdot. When you trash people with the label conspiracy theory ONLY when talking about certain controversial subjects you expose yourself as a tool
Re:From TFA... (Score:3, Insightful)
In a weird sort of way you're right. If people didn't live in areas that were going to be flooded, or weren't depending on food being grown in areas that will be turned into deserts, then it wouldn't be a problem.
But when the waters rise, the people who live in the areas due to be flooded aren't going to take drowning lightly. They'll kill you to stay alive. And these days that can get pretty scary. It's easy to imagine someone in that kind of a situation saying "Well, I'm due to die if I don't do something, and this bug will kill off 90% of everybody, so if I live through it, there'll be room for me."
Not many people will react that way, but it doesn't take many. And any local government that would be supposed to stop them is going to be a bit busy...even if they wouldn't be sympathetic, which they might be.
Afterwards, things will eventually return to normal, say in a century or two. Nothing serious at all, from the perspective of someone who doesn't need to live through it.
N.B.: This is just one of many dire scenarios. And it's far from the worst.
P.S.: Try to guess how much the sea level will rise. It's likely to be somewhere between 2 meters and 300 meters, depending on exactly what goes. I'm not sure of the time scale though. The modelers always seem to refuse to believe the dire scenarios until the evidence is unavoidable. 30 meters within a century wouldn't surprise me, but it's far from the consensus...or was the last time I checked. (I'm not part of "the consensus". It's not my profession, and I'm not even a talented amateur. I just read popular science magazines.)
Re:1906 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it more worrying that people use their backyard thermometer a proof that global warming is or isn't happening. That's meteorology, not climatology.
Climatological has been showing a pronounced warming trend. Just because it is cold in your backyard doesn't mean the rest of the planet is not warming up. On top of that, a warming planet doesn't mean it's going to warm up everywhere (it's not).
If you have a choice between believing the world scientists or your own opinion in regards to climate change, I would suggest listening to the scientists. They know ALOT more about it than you do.
~X~
Re:1906 (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that this is unacceptable to the Climate Change movement. Any heretics are branded "deniers" and derided as backwards, retarded, and ignorant. Either that, or they simply continue redefining carbon dioxide-- which makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere-- as a pollutant, even though it is beneficial to green plants.
Re:1906 (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also a nice way for bossy people to tell other people how to live their lives.
Does banning those plastic shopping bags in cities (the new environmentalist trend in hip cities) actually stop any pollution? At all? They're already pretty much bio-degradable, and as somebody who gives not one crap about the environment, I can say that those are the *only* things in my entire house that I ever reuse or recycle. (The supposedly-better paper ones I just throw away. In the trash.) I seriously doubt it.
But if you're the kind of person who enjoys telling other people what to do, this is great for you! You can make their lives more annoying while pretending to be fighting for some vague cause! It doesn't matter whether you can actually prove it makes a difference or not, bossiness is its own reward!
It's just the 21st century version of Prohibition, and I'm sure it'll end just as well.
Re:1906 (Score:5, Insightful)
Recycling (except for aluminum cans and papers) uses more energy and costs more than creating new material. It is bad for the earth and bad for the economy.
Re:1906 (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, it seems to be getting warmer, even though there are reports about the ice in the Arctic covering more area than it has in decades.
[citation needed]
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Could you possibly explain how the weather in Queensland is more of a single point of "evidence" than an ice shelf breaking off?
Both are arbitrary anecdotes, which I believe was the parent's original point.
The ice shelf breaking off is more than just a "single point of data" because the forces that caused it have been acting consistently for several years. It takes many years of warming to weaken and melt an ice shelf. The decay of this ice shelf indicates a trend being exhibited at a single point over several years. The trend exhibited at that point is also indicative of a broader trend of arctic warming.
The Queensland temperature for one particular season is not indicative of a trend. It is just the weather for one place during a single season.
How is Global Warming still a controversy? (Score:5, Insightful)
When international summit [royalsociety.org] after international summit [pik-potsdam.de] after international summit [nationalacademies.org] all recognize global warming and the human influence how can you still deny it? When from every article [sciencemag.org] in a referred scientific journal about climate change from 1993 to 2003, there isn't even ONE that disagrees with the consensus that that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities, how is it not obvious? When even international panels like the InterAcademy Council [interacademycouncil.net] and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [bbc.co.uk] can agree on the human impact, what "controversy" is there?
It is so painfully obvious that we do make a difference, that CO2 concentration is much higher than ever seen before, as shown by the Keeling Curve [wikipedia.org]. And I can only hope most people understand that high CO2 levels lead to high temperatures and I don't have to spell that out.
It's not a debate. There is no "maybe." There's no confusion. The entire world's academic and scientific community have come to a consensus on it, but apparently some people here just don't get it.
Its at the point where both U.S. presidential hopefuls have made it both policy and goals to cut down on emissions, its not even politically dividing.
Global warming is real, it does exist, we do contribute, and if you think otherwise you're honestly in denial.
Re:1906 (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't expect absolute proof. I do, however, expect some proof that a computer model works before I base my actions on it.
One thing I would like to know, though: if it is true, as you think, that humanity is causing the climate to get warmer, how did humanity cause the Early Medieval Warm? Things were much warmer then (As they possibly were in the time of Caesar and Augustus, I might add.) so if we're warming the environment now, they must have been doing it then.
Re:1969: The SS Manhattan (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US resumes that path, and there's no evidence they will right now, it'll lead to a fundamental change is the perceived "special relationship" between Canada and the US. Americans would be surprised at the change in attitude that would result.
Judging by the results of polls asking Canadians their views on the US, there has already been a large change in attitude over the past eight years and I'm not sure Americans have even noticed.
The US has shown it's ability to abuse the power difference in our relationship before (softwood lumber is an excellent example). I don't have any reason to believe they would behave differently over this issue. In fact, I'm fairly sure it already is the US position that the NWP is in international waters. So US officials clearly don't agree with your arguments.
Re:1906 (Score:5, Insightful)
In terms of energy, you may be right. But in terms of net environmental impact, you're dead wrong.
Re:1906 (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you that naive? Let put it to you this way if you were a college professor and wanted a grant for the study of the breeding habits of say, pigeons... I guarantee you if you append the application with 'and the effect of global warming on them' you're far more likely to get a grant.
Actually, he could make a huge fortune if he added "and proof that there is no man-made Global Warming".
Re:1906 (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that, or they simply continue redefining carbon dioxide-- which makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere-- as a pollutant, even though it is beneficial to green plants.
Non-sequitur alert. Just because something exists in small percentages, it doesn't mean it's not bad to increase that percentage.
Yes, green plants like CO2, but they can only handle so much anyway. If we were to increase the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere to 0.5%, there's no way green plants could handle it, and we'd all almost certainly die (note: we're nowhere near even approaching that kind of level and it's nearly impossible that we ever could get it that high even if we tried, but I just wanted to point out how ridiculous your argument looks)
Just because something can be good, it doesn't mean it's not ALSO capable of being bad. Your statement that carbon makes up less that 0.04% of our atmosphere is correct, but in NO WAY does that imply ANYTHING about whether it's a pollutant or not.
Re:1906 (Score:4, Insightful)
If the carbon dioxide makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere (which it is), increasing it to 0.05% won't make a difference in the water vapor.
If the alcohol makes up only 0.04% of your blood, increasing it to 0.05% won't make a difference in your soberness.
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:3, Insightful)
"err on the side of caution"
The problem with that policy is deciding how to err on the side of caution. You appear to believe that it means reducing emissions "just in case", while many of us believe it means not crippling the US's economic and military power. You say tomato, I say foodstuff ...
Back to reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Glancing over the comments one can see yet another re-run of the same old arguments about why global warming isn't happening and why it isn't our fault anyway; and I wonder - does it matter what we think, in the long run?
Scientists are without a doubt those best suited to evaluate what is going on, and what they have to say makes more sense to me than all these denials. That is the whole point of science: the results stand up to close scrutiny, whether we like them or not. It is silly to imagine a conspiracy amongst climate scientists; the only conspiracy is the conspiracy to only accept research based on the scientific method.
The sad fact is that the climate is changing, that we are causing it and if we want to do anything to avoid a major cataclysmic breakdown, we have to swiftly take radical action. The habitual gluttony that we embellish with names like "consumerism" or "capitalism" is coming to and end, one way or another; the only question is whether we want to exert some influence over how it is going to happpen. If we do nothing or too little, too late - then we will have resource wars, starvation, epidemics and a general breakdown of society, even in Europe and America.
You may call this sensationalism, but that is the thing about looking at the fact objectively: you don't have to like me or my opinions - just check the data, the numbers are all there for you. And then form your own conclusion - but lay aside all the dreams about "we will find a way to continue our gluttony" because we haven't done so yet; which is why there is so much resistance against acknowledging the facts about climate change. Our whole way of life depends on the assumption that we are able to produce cheap energy and pollute without consequences for ever; that there will always be economic growth. We have always known this assumption to be false, and now we see it looming over us. Are we going to panic and hide under our blankets until the bogeyman goes away?
Re:1906 (Score:3, Insightful)
so if we're warming the environment now, they must have been doing it then.
And how does that follow? This seems like a pretty bad straw-man argument. Just because natural warming happened in the PAST doesn't mean we can't cause it NOW .
Things have changed since then, as you may have noticed. There are a few more people around since Caesar, producing a wee bit more pollution. It is true that the models are incomplete, but they seem to give a decent indication that at least part of the warming may be caused by humans.
But if not? We have a cleaner and healthier environment. Damn!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1906 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How is Global Warming still a controversy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, because rich countries have birth rates well below replacement rate and they're more in danger of underpopulation in the long run perhaps?
So basically, you can't lose (Score:3, Insightful)
And the climate models are bullshit, since they have not been empirically tested (CO2 emissions have only occurred in significant numbers in the last 50 or so). As you have said yourself, temp change can only really be measured over hundreds or thousands of years. That means your models must be empirically tested (as all theories must be) over hundreds or thousands of years. So get back to me in 4008 after your models have been properly vetted.
Re:1906 (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that we do not know what happened 70 million years ago, but that we don't even know what's happening today ! Both statements ('the ice age started because of oceanic currents changing', and 'current warming is caused by CO2') are equally speculative.
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You appear to believe that it means reducing emissions "just in case", while many of us believe it means not crippling the US's economic and military power.
Bush is doing quite well crippling the US's economic and military power. As for reducing emissions meaning crippling economic power what many don't or won't see is that it could actually increase the US's economic power. Businesses developing alternative energy sources would mushroom creating well paying jobs then the technology can be exported. Even Texas Oil Billionaire T. Boone Pickens has proposed a plan. Saying [forbes.com] "Don't get the idea that I've turned green. My business is making money, and I think this is going to make a lot of money" he's planned on investing $10 billion on wind power. Environmental Engineering [wikipedia.org] is a growing field as well. How many jobs has NanoSolar created? Whether it being solar, wind, or another area renewable energy jobs are being created today, even in installation.
Falcon
Re:1906 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How is Global Warming still a controversy? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish I lived in such a black-and-white world.
1) there seems to be ample confusion about the data (for example, there is more arctic ice coverage this year than last), there seem to be different trends in temperature data, and some persuasive discussions about urbanization and data collection. The moment you say 'well, one year's not a trend' you're hurting your own argument - I'd argue in the same vein that climatologically the IPCC measure of 200 years, or 500 years, or even 1000 years is almost meanininglessly small in terms of climate change; the variation we're seeing is far, far below the nearly-random chaos static in the data. The longer-term data we use, the weaker the AGW argument appears to be.
2) the AGW crowd seem to shift effortlessly between two distinct arguments - AGW is NOT conclusively proven, while there is much more apparent evidence that there is global warming in general (whatever the source). Conflating the two is unhelpful and smells of a weak argument in favor of AGW.
3) using sea-level rise as one example, there is ABUNDANT evidence that within recent climatological history, the world was substantially warmer, and sea levels were higher; witness medieval towns such as Acre which were bustling ports but now are km inland? To claim today that the impending, alleged rise in sea level (which ranges from a predicted 2cm to a hysterical 2m over the next century, already a sign that the data's hard to read) is 'catastrophic' is just dumb; it's the equivalent of humanity building cities on a tidal flat and then complaining when the tide inevitably rolls back in.
4) more history - even widely-agreed data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record) points to a couple of facts:
a) that historically the trend varies wildly
b) that there are small cycles and big cycles
c) that in the recent history we're actually COOLER than the probable 'earth norm', so warming is more likely than cooling over time
5) the tendency to simply throw a number of experts at it (as you do - look at all the reports agreeing!) is feeble, without refuting the more commonsense points listed here. I'm no expert, but one can easily download raw icecore data from paleoclimate sites, and plot the numbers on a graph in moments with excel, and see that the results do NOT show a discernable recent warming trend (I did it using Greenland and Alpine core data).
I recognize that to the AGW proponents, it's just so much simpler to point to the public and whine "But you're all so STUPID! Why can't you SEE it?" Frankly, this sort of petulant insistence is what most of us said about everything when we were teenagers, certain that we knew everything about everything. But people (even non-college-educated people) aren't as stupid as you'd like to think. Certainly, it would be more convenient if we were, we'd just have to 'go along' with the experts. Well, experts have motivations too - and the AGW proponents shifty tactics of attacking anyone who even slightly disagrees (his wife's brother's girlfriend's cousin works for EXXON!!) likewise suggests to an objective observer that the argument isn't so much about fact as about politics, philosophy, and quasi-religion.
Aside from this, there's the 'cry wolf' phenomenon. Most of us in our forties have heard our ENTIRE lives about how and why the world is in imminent danger of disaster: we're going to run out of food, fresh water, land, oil, landfills, animals, oceans; how the climate is going to be too cold, too hot; how DDT is thinning eggshells, how nuclear power is going to kill us all, etc, etc, etc. Already, "global warming" has become "global climate change" based on the numerous refutations of specific 'facts' of global warming (doubt it? Count how many times an Inconvenient Truth mentions Global WARMING vs. how many times Mr. Gore mentions global CLIMATE CHANGE...), which itself is a darn convenient switch - now any weather event can handily be twisted to 'show' what you want....
While it's obviously true that eventually a cry o
Correlation is not causality (Score:5, Insightful)
What this assumes, of course, is that finding a possible answer is the same as finding the correct answer.
Since there's evidence of multiple cycles of warming and cooling on the planet, another reason might be that cycling warming and cooling is a normal pattern for our planet.
I'm not against taking preventative action in the event that the current theory of global warming (greenhouse gases) is correct, but I think that some healthy skepticism is warranted.
Because a lot of it is propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
"When international summit [royalsociety.org] after international summit [pik-potsdam.de] after international summit [nationalacademies.org] all recognize global warming and the human influence how can you still deny it? When from every article [sciencemag.org] in a referred scientific journal about climate change from 1993 to 2003, there isn't even ONE that disagrees with the consensus that that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities, how is it not obvious? When even international panels like the InterAcademy Council [interacademycouncil.net] and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [bbc.co.uk] can agree on the human impact, what "controversy" is there?"
Because the statement of a scientific consensus is, among other things, propaganda. And furthermore, a number of climatologists have been caught making specious claims for what appears to be publicity's sake. The findings of the IPCC have also been called into question, in peer-reviewed journals.
So, let's go through some of the list here...
First, the "hockey stick" graph was discredited a few years ago when two Canadian mathematicians tried to reproduce it, and found that the data used had been cherry picked - only the lowest data points were used for the Medieval Warm Period, and only the highest data points were used for the 1980s onwards. For more information, see http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354 [climateaudit.org]
That, however, is nothing compared to how the "hockey stick" got into the 2007 IPCC report. That verged on fraud: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html [squarespace.com]
The IPCC report itself was based on faulty mathematics. Christopher Monckton, a physicist, decided to examine the climate model used for the 2007 IPCC report, and found that the math was wrong, and that the impact of CO2 on climate had been overstated by anywhere from 500-2000%: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm [aps.org]
Looking away from the science for a moment, why is it that Al Gore got a Nobel peace prize for a documentary that either misled or got a large part of its science wrong ( http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html [scienceand...policy.org] )? Why is it that the skeptics who point at the problems with climate science suffer from ad hominem attacks, while the skeptics themselves are just looking at the science? Shouldn't the argument be in regards to the data - and for that matter, isn't the ad hominem attack usually used by the person whose argument is weakest?
The climate is changing - it always has been. In fact, the last eight years have been very abnormal due to the fact that the overall surface temperature of the Earth hasn't actually changed during them (the only measurement station noting an increase in temperature is from NASA, which relies on ground based thermometers which have been overrun by urban centers, which raises the local temperature anyway - sorry, but I don't have the link for this data on hand and I'm running out of time, so you'll have to google for this information yourself). And while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is a very minor one. Climate-wise, we have been on an upswing for some time. But how much of that is our fault?
I don't know. But so long as the "science" that is being spouted on this is based on discredited graphs, cherry-picked data, and faulty mathematics, I don't think I'm going to find out any time soon. This "scientific consensus" is propaganda double-speak, and what's needed is honest science where theory is based on data, and not the other way around.
Re:Science is never objective. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Science is never objective. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not unusual for major groundbreaking work to be dismissed during the lifetime of the discoverer and only embraced one or two generations later.
Can you give some examples from the last 100 years?
Re:1906 (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it turns out that we CAN measure the effects of the solar cycle, and they aren't nearly enough to account for the changes in temperature on Earth. The solar cycle accounts for the changes in temperature on other planets, but not on Earth. Weird, huh? Almost like there's something different about Earth.
Re:1906 (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope your wrong (especially since I'm about to become a grandad) but GW is just one of many signs that we are racing toward a global population crash of biblical proportions.
Even without indicators such as GW, anyone who cares to think about the situation the global population is in can clearly see that we're headed for a large die-off.
... , in essence we can support more life than before only because we have a source of fuel with a large net gain of energy. Fossil fuels artificially increase the Earth's 'carrying capacity' for human life. Looking in the indefinitely long-term future, fossil fuels are a limited quantity. Eventually, and the science isn't in yet with a reliable prediction of when, we will run out of these fuels. When that happens, the carrying capacity of Earth will go back to the normal level. We will no longer be able to produce food or to shelter as many people as before, and people will die until the population decreases enough.
If you look at the historical trend of global population growth [wikipedia.org] you can see that the global population has exploded in the recent past. One major cause of this population growth is the use of fossil fuels; using fossil fuels it is possible to produce more energy burning the fuel than it takes to retrieve the fuel. This energy allows us to produce food further from where it is consumed, to power farm equipment and produce more food with less farmers, to heat more homes with less raw materials,
Looking at another potential cause of a large die-off, one needs to only look at population density. Population density and disease rates are directly related. An area with a dense population will support the spread of disease more easily. See 'the black plague' for an example of what happened when Europe's population density hit that level.
Re:1906 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:From TFA... (Score:3, Insightful)
It all depends on how you estimate probabilities before acting.
If someone is threatening you, and you estimate that there's only a 30% chance that they'll maim you for life and less than a 5% chance that they'll kill you, do you ignore the threat? It's quite improbable.
You estimate not only the probability of danger, but also the costs of acting or not acting. Or at least you ought to. (People are generally very bad at figuring these odds. Instead they tend to have stereotypical reactions preprogrammed to handle situations similar to those that they've previously encountered...which works faster in most common situations, and tends to fail disastrously in uncommon situations.)
Re:Science is never objective. (Score:3, Insightful)
First, Darwin's theory was not widely denounced. It was accepted and championed by at least as many as denounced it. Second, you have some very serious misconceptions about evolution, and about science in general.
Evolution does not need to be proven. Repeatable observations are simply fact, and evolution has been observed. Mutation has been observed. Speciation has been witnessed in the lab. Evolution is simply a name for the observed facts, like gravity is a name for the observed fact that things fall.
Evolution is not a theory. The theory is called natural selection, and it explains the observed fact of evolution. But natural selection is also not a theory of origins. As far as natural selection is concerned, it doesn't matter if life came from primordial goo, was created by God, or got sneezed out by a giant space goat. Evolution only concerns itself with how life changed after it was formed.
Theories can never be proven, but that is unimportant. What is important is whether the theory makes useful predictions. For example, Newton's theory of gravitation has been shown to be incorrect, yet it still makes useful predictions. It makes them with less math than relativity, so it is the theory engineers use in most circumstances.
Natural selection makes useful predictions. For instance, it predicted the existence of a mechanism that has all the characteristics of DNA before DNA was ever discovered.
The real question about global warming is, does it make useful predictions? Turns out, it does. It is a useful theory, but not nearly in the same league as natural selection, which honestly has almost as much supporting evidence as does the theory of gravity.
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:3, Insightful)
>A dictatorship of scientists?
That is the sort of politically charged comment I am talking about. How on earth am I suggesting this?
Submissions are made to the UN and other international organisations. Independant research needs to be done.
The papers are currently quoting "experts" with no experience in the field as authorities and swaying public perception of the scientific consensus.
NASA scientists are being supressed/fired for having a valid scientific opinion. (reports suggest a MAINSTREAM scientific opinion also??)
People are laughing at the issue based purely on the fact that they are "anti-green".
Turning it into a "I am green" and "I am not green" issue is not helpful.
If global warming IS a problem to the extent that people are saying, then it will not be a "green" issue. It will be a human survival issue - and I would expect the anti-green crowd are not a bunch of suicide psychopaths?!?!?
Re:1906 (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes you can be a pedant and say that there is slightly more ice than the same time last year, but that was NOT my point. My point is how on earth does your cherry-picked factoid lead you to claim that "the build up of ice is likely going to continue"? There is no "build up of ice", this years data point is pushing the trend even further into the negative and if you have even a basic grasp of statistics you can use your linked graph to confirm that.