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?"
Artic! (Score:4, Funny)
I hope it wasn't abstract artic, or else we're all doomed.
Re:Artic! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Artic! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Icy Relationship (Score:4, Funny)
sorry (Score:3, Funny)
Re:sorry (Score:5, Funny)
From TFA... (Score:3, Informative)
Ellesmere Island was once entirely ringed by a single enormous ice shelf that broke up in the early 1900s. All that is left today are the four much smaller shelves that together cover little more than 299 square miles.
So this is a process that has been going on for ~100 years now? And that means it is indicative of, or news because... ???
;) )
Nothing to see here... (except my dwindling karma...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And that means it is indicative of, or news because... ???
It's faster and more extensive than ever before, and faster than expected.
That's pretty much it.
Re:From TFA... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
"These changes are irreversible under the present climate and indicate that the environmental conditions that have kept these ice shelves in balance for thousands of years are no longer present," said Muller.
During the last century, when ice shelves would break off, thick sea ice would eventually reform in their place.
"But today, warmer temperatures and a changing climate means there's no hope for regrowth. A scary scenario," said Muller.
Re:From TFA... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because it is not reforming as ice. Over the last 100 years, pieces of the shelf would break off and then other ice would reform and take its place. But over the last few years, ice is breaking off and it is too warm for other ice to form into the shelf.
One of the effects is that fresh water environments were formed on the shelf. When the shelf breaks off, salt water rushes in and kills all the organisms that grew there. Some haven't been studied well, and the chance to study them has been lost.
Another affect is more political. If enough ice breaks off, there will be a NorthWest passage where ships can sail around the North of Canada.
On July 30 of this year, scientists predicted that a chuck of ice would break off. The chunk that actually broke off was 10 times the size predicted. Not sure why the big difference, but that is a bit scary to me. What is it that these scientists missed? Were temperatures warmer than expected? or did they just make a bad judgement with the info they had?
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: (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. B
Re:From TFA... (Score:5, Informative)
"can sail around the North of Canada."
nope, they will sail in Canada, not around.
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.
Those shrieking sounds you hear... (Score:3, Funny)
...are the screams of millions of spelling nazis.
Never, hopefully. (Score:5, Interesting)
The day the NWP is a reality is the last day of Canada as an independant country.
I'm not ready to give up my home and native land that quick. But how am I to stop US forces, or worse, Russian or even Chinese, should they set their eyes on the NWP?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All is going according to Alaska's plan:
1: Join forces with the USA (check)
2: Wait for NWP to open up (almost there)
3: Annex Canada!!!
Re:Never, hopefully. (Score:5, Interesting)
This simply is not so. Have no fear my friend, because the NWP represents enormous value to Canada. Those who want to use it will pay handsomely, and this in turn will pay for Canada's defence of her Northern sovereignty. Those who argue that it is an International waterway will be the first to cry for help from Canada when their oil tanker hits an iceberg, and it will be Canadians who will be left with with another Exxon Valdez disaster. So Canada will mightily defend her territory, and it is in the best interests of the U.S., Russia, China and others that Canada be happy, well paid, and a willing participant in the movement of goods through the North.
As for the manifest destiny bluster from the South - ignore it. The U.S. has neither the time, massive resources, or manpower to have a prayer of ever annexing Canada. What they gonna do? Put one cop in every town 500 miles apart? They can barely manage tiny Iraq, let alone the second largest country on earth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why the US government is doing everything it can to speed up the warming of our north. ;-)
Re:Never, hopefully. (Score:4, Interesting)
If the U.S. really wants to send ships through the Northwest Passage without Canada's say-so, it won't have to ask nicely. The same goes for China.
Uh, not at all the same situation for China. It's a little bit like a lot of families. They might squabble with one another, but they'll visit real fury on anybody else outside who attacks a family member.
If China -- or even Russia -- tried this, nothing would make the U.S. and Canada resolve their differences faster.
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.
The Northwest Passage is open (Score:5, Informative)
How long before the fabled Northwest Passage is a reality?
From what I read [sciam.com] the other day, it is open now...
And The Award Goes To.... (Score:5, Funny)
...we're looking at ecosystems on the verge of distinction.
I know almost nobody reads TFA, but apparently no one edits them, either.
Oil! (Score:5, Funny)
"How long before the fabled Northwest Passage is a reality?"
And when can we start drilling for oil up there?
NW passage is open (Score:3, Informative)
I read about it here [slashdot.org].
1969: The SS Manhattan (Score:5, Interesting)
From http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/01/30/DefendNorthwestPassage/ [thetyee.ca]:
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.
However, I believe things are quite a bit different now compared to 1969. We have Russia making macho territorial claims all over the place and Canada (plus Denmark) are in the best position to legally defeat those claims, not the US.
Also, there might be some recognition in Washington that treating the NWP as the high seas could easily result in an environmental mess of biblical proportions because, for example, dumped oily bilge water in the cold Arctic water doesn't disperse like it does in warmer climates. A large oil spill up there would be an unmitigated disaster.
Finally one would assume the US would like to know, via Canadian tracking of ships in it's territorial waters, who's going where. Canada would have some rights to actually board and inspect ships which is much superior to what the US could find out if the passage was international waters in which case they would be limited to satellite, radar, or airborne tracking.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, 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
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:1906 (Score:5, Informative)
YES! How long until it is 1906 again?
The 'fabled' northwest passage is a shipping route linking east to west, navigable by normal cargo carrying ships.
The northwest passage, which obviously existed since well before it was first crossed in 1906 by Amundsen, and still to this day, is a hazardous journey requiring an expedition and specialist ice breaker ships to cross.
Should enough ice melt that it actually becomes usable as a shipping route, then at least the 'fabled northwest passage' will be reality.
Re:1906 (Score:4, Insightful)
But at least we can get our taiwanese crap even cheaper!
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Europe can get their Taiwanese crap even cheaper -- at closer to the same price North Americans enjoy now.
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:1906 (Score:5, Funny)
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 becau
Re:Science is never objective. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Politicians love Global Warming (Score:4, Informative)
Not in the US. Many Republican politicians deny, or belatedly acknowledge, Global Warming. Mike Huckabee, I think but I'm not sure, speaking at the convention intimated Obama wants people to make sure their tires are properly inflated.
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".
That can work both ways, one groups of scientists getting big study grants for saying how bad Global Warming is while another group can get big grants also for disproving Global Warming. I haven't seen many of the later though.
Falcon
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: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: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: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, Interesting)
. Any heretics are branded "deniers" and derided as backwards, retarded, and ignorant.
Perhaps I've meet a different gaggle of global warming supporters than you, but I've never been branded as "backwards, retarded, and ignorant" for at least doubting the anthropocentricity of global warming (note the term "doubting" over denying). I've actually had insightful conversations based on the possibility of being certain of long range trends, as it relates to the global warming issue.
I doubt that you find much of what you describe in GW circles, IF you approach them with respect, and honest doubt (not the popular dogmatic denial, which has no place in science). Arguing that they are wrong (but you of course are right) because of the uncertainty of science is rather absurd, wouldn't your statement apply to yourself equally? Its rather hard to take such things serious, and mockery is generally deserved.
The one issue with deniers (not doubters) that I've noticed is that they HAVE to be right, and keep bringing up the same disproven examples again and again, then get mad when no one listens to them. Denial of anthropogenic global warming has become almost a religious dogma, over a well reasoned scientific hypothesis, which astounds me. What is there in that statement that allows one to vest so much personal interest, and identity? How the hell did this become a "wedge" issue like other historical moral/religious ones like Abortion, creationism, and the treatment of homosexuals?
Yes, you see some of this on the other side, mostly among lay people. But it seems more concentrated in the denier side.
My personal view is that I don't know. I personally don't have much an opinion on whether it is anthropogenic, or not. I support measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and other pollutants, though because it is better to be safe than sorry. If they are correct, and we do nothing, the consiquences are rather grave. If they are wrong, and we do something, there is very little consequences (and even some fringe benefits).
Ah... the glory of pragmatism.
Re:1906 (Score:4, Informative)
Less than 10yrs ago when climate scientists were predicting one such "tipping point" would likely be an ice free summer artic by the end of the century, they were ridiculed in the press, in the halls of power and on slashdot. Yet today even the most conservative of scientists are predicting it will be ice free by mid-century and moderates are predicting "within a decade".
Current modelling says that an ice free artic will speed up the warming in the N. Hemisphere causing drought conditions in the US mid-west and southern Europe, here in Australia we are coming to grips with what is being called a "permenant drought" that has seen our grain harvests halved for the last 10yrs (2005 was the only exception).
"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..."
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.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
GAH, the Suns effect on temperature increase has been studied, and in fact if that was what is causing, the temperature Range would change up and down daily to match what the sun does. It does not. Nor does it's output match the long term trend.
This. Has. Been. Done.
Stop bringing this up, It's passed on! This hypothesis is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace! If ignorant people wouldn't keep bring it up it'd be pushing up the
Re:1906 (Score:4, Funny)
GAH, the Suns effect on temperature increase has been studied, and in fact if that was what is causing, the temperature Range would change up and down daily to match what the sun does. It does not.
....? Why was it 97 degrees saturday, 101 sunday, and then 86 monday in July that one week? *confused*
Re:1906 (Score:5, Informative)
Many possible reasons, but almost certainly NOT the sun's output... if the sun had that much "immediate and direct" effect on our temperatures, we'd likely not be alive to be discussing it on slashdot (the first "big spike" would throw us up over the boiling point of water)
Also, please, repeat after me: "Local weather and daily temperatures do NOT show ANYTHING useful in Climate Models!". Longer term trends (in weather and temperature - e.g. Climate) are what counts (and even then, you still need to take in to account much larger areas also - your small patch of the world might be 2 degrees colder over the next 10 years, but if the rest of the world is 4 degrees warmer, you're just an interesting data point).
Re:1906 (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo [wikipedia.org]
Re:1906 (Score:5, Funny)
It's a lack of people wearing full pirate regalia!
Re:1906 (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it arrogant to condem the entire species for the logical errors of a few dirty, dirty hippies!
Kidding about the dirty hippies part, but I do have a real point: the debate about global warming is non-scientists using non-scientific arguments to advance their non-scientific prejudices reguardless of truth.
Emphasis on the non-science part there. Just want to clarify that it's not that no one is trying to prove cause and effect, it's that most of the noise has nothing to do about hypothesis testing.
I also don't know about calling it arrogance. We know CO2 soaks up heat and we know there's a lot of CO2 being released. That right there to me justifies taking preventative steps. Of course, there are a powerful few very opposed to this. The resulting controversy is very predictable. It would be nice to pre-empt that with hard science, but it remains to be seen if proving it wrong or right is possible. It would also be great if we could just deal with it once we know for sure, but of course we have reason to suspect that would be a foolish way to go.
The flaw in the species that I see is the inability to see things as more than a dichotomy. It seems like too many people have boiled it down to "Do we save the environment or the economy," been unable to answer that, and settled for which advocates do they like better, the hippies or the lawyers?
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:1906 (Score:5, Funny)
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:5, Insightful)
In terms of energy, you may be right. But in terms of net environmental impact, you're dead wrong.
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.
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)
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, Informative)
Intriguing,
Here in SA we had a huge problem with plastic bag litter. So much so that one MP described them as 'our new national flower'.
A law was passed - it didn't ban bags, but it DID require them to be made at least 0.5 microns thick - meaning they are reusable (the older 0.3micron thin ones tended to tear if you use them more than once). This of course, costs money, so they ALLOWED (didn't require but in practise everybody did it) the shops to charge the price difference back to the customers.
That means you pay about R0.40 for bag - but suddenly, people KEEP the bags, and reuse them as many times as possible because those fourty-cent charges add up.
The result it that plastic bag litter has become notably less common in South Africa, they are a valuable commodity now. People tend to be so terrible they won't even avoid littering public parks out of caring for shared resources for the community - but they will damn well do it if it means not throwing away their own personal money.
Sorry - if giving people an economic incentive not to throw their trash in the public park to strangle birds and fish (and yes, human children !) is 'telling them how to live' then I'm all for telling people how to live in some cases.
Note also: I am NOT a fan of my government, my posting history will show how extremely critical I am of them in general - but where a well thought out plan has given a genuine benefit to the entire nation I will also give them fair credit.
PS. Now if only we can find a way to give people an economic incentive not to throw ciggarette-butts, coke-cans, used-condom and broken beer bottles in the parks.
personal carbon credits (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know if you're being, or trying to be, sarcastic but there's a debate going on in the environmental communities on whether carbon credits are good or bad. Some saying are that they can help reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Others say people are just out for a quick buck. Still others say carbon credits are just a "feel good" measure, people can buy credits but then won't adjust their lifestyle to have a smaller carbon footprint.
As I see it, carbon credits can be all of them.
Falcon
Re:1906 (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh. This meme is very old and very wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
You have been misinformed by the opposing "industry", scientists pretty much ignore water vapour for a very good reason. The atmosphere is saturated with water vapour. That means that the only way to change the amount of water vapour in the air is to change either the temprature or pressure of the atmosphere. In other words water is a feedback in a changing climate.
Now what the anti-GW "industry" never mentions is a little thing called the dew point [wikipedia.org] that explains why dew drops form all over the world every night, even in deserts. In a (globally) stable climate you can pump as much H2O as you like into the atmosphere and all that will happen is that it will fall out as rain/dew over the next few days.
Here is a short list of some other old and tiresome misinformation that is midlessly regurgitated every time GW is mentioned...
Climate change on Mars/Jupiter
Sunspots.
Cosmic rays.
Volcanos emit more CO2 than mankind.
No warming since 1998.
Global cooling was all the rage in the 70's.
There are many more but the point here is that people simply spout off what they read in the opinion pages without having a fucking clue as to what they are talking about and a complete lack of desire to find out. They assume that the thousands of scientists that make up EVERY national science body on the planet are lobotmised fools who haven't got a clue about what they have spent a good portion of their lives studying.
A couple of minutes googling would have busted the ridiculous myth that you are propogating. If you or anyone else reading wants to be treated as a skeptic and not a 'denier', then act like a skeptic. Go and question your own assumption and try and prove yourself wrong. When you fail to do so then you may just be onto something worthwhile and ORIGINAL. Picking out pre-spun factoids that happen to fit your worlview is nothing less than the triumph of politics over science.
Disclaimer: I picked on you because I was looking for the H2O meme and you were the first one I saw. If you are interested in some genuine science I can give you some links but I suspect your mind is made up and firmly closed.
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.
It's bogus and they know it (Score:4, Informative)
The "ice cover in the arctic is growing" claim is bogus, and they know it (or should). It keeps coming up [slashdot.org] and people point out that even the authors of the claim now say it's bogus (see linked thread) but the same claim keeps coming back, generally worded the same way ("the real inconvenient truth is that the ice cap is growing" or some such).
I used to think it was just cluelessness, but I'm starting to suspect trolls.
--MarkusQ
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:1906 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Spoken like a person who's never read a paper on the subject. The study of climate change is part models and part real-world data gathering and testing. Even among models alone, there are *many different* models, most on particular aspects of climate forcing and impacts, not the more famous global models. There is not one "model". And it wasn't ignored, by any standard; it's been an active ongoing research topic in the scientific community for decades. Peer review is the judge, not public opinion.
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.
Waht arr yoo talkng abowt?
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. Read section 2.7 [ucar.edu], which summarizes pretty much every peer-reviewed paper published on the subject. Not even close. I mean, seriously -- did it never occur to you that maybe, just maybe, we have observatories and satellites studying in detail essentially every thing the sun does, in addition to all kinds of long-term proxy data?
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.
Ice ages happen regularly, on the order of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, along the lines of Milankovitch cycles. The Isthmus of Panama formed once, three million years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:1906 (Score:5, Interesting)
Spoken like a person who's never read a paper on the subject.
People like the GP divide the world into a few groups when it comes to belief regarding climate change:
1) "Sheeple" who believe the circumstantial evidence we have proves that global warming is a real and likely man-made phenomenon.
2) Clever, educated people who listen to people with no background in science quote scientists (trying to collect data or refine existing models) out of context. These people learn from their TV/Radio/Blog gods that global warming is a liberal conspiracy. See #1.
3) Scientists, who are either duped by the liberal universities and left shaking their hockey stick plot of T vs. t, or who are ignored by the mainstream (did I mention liberal?) media when they show that global warming doesn't seem real.
This actually reminds me a lot of the creationists' response to evolution. They seem to think that any new evidence describing something previously unknown to the scholarly community is proof that evolution is a broken theory.
I think that it would be better to divide the world (only in our minds) into:
1) People who don't have the background or interest to know whether global warming is real or not, but who are generally pretty strongly polarized one way or the other.
2) People who do have a pretty good idea how likely it is that global warming is a problem and that it's man-made. These people are generally ignored by those in group 1, though they're quoted ad nauseum by both sides of the "debate" held by that group.
Re:1906 (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally I don't reply to people who reply to my comments, but I really must know:
Why in the world would you start your quest to prove me wrong on a corrolary point by quoting an article about a man-made structure constructed some 2 million years after the geologic event I was referring to?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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:1906 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? We know for a fact when the dinosaurs roamed the earth several degrees warmer than it is now. We also know the average CO2 level was quiet a bit higher.
We know that the earth goes through periodic ice ages, does it not make sense that it also goes periodic warm cycles? or is such a fact beyond the ability of reason? Ice shelves routinely break off. We know this is true. how because they aren't millions of years old but only thousands.
If they melt and reform over the course of 100 thousand
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:4, Insightful)
This is exactly my argument for my anti-Godzilla policy proposals. Better safe than sorry!
-Peter
anti-godzilla rock (Score:4, Funny)
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: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: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: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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have time to find a source right now, but didn't a linked-to-by-slashdot article one or two weeks ago mention the variations in some ocean currents as the cause? Something about them delaying serious global warming until the next decade or so.
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: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:4, Informative)
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.
That's not a prediction of the IPCC, who gather together and summarise the peer reviewed literature. Climate is variable because there are a lot of things that effect it, from solar influences, to the La Nina/El Nino cycles. Regional variation is greater than global variation. Due to that variation we can still expect extremes to occur: some years are just very cold (for a number of factors not related to anthropogenic warming), and some are hot, and that will continue, regardless of warming. However, as noted in IPCC assessment reports (TAR WGI 9.3.6) [grida.no]:
In other words, individual cold days or years are not evidence against global warming, since they may well be a result of natural variation caused by other factors (and would have simply been even colder without global warming). To count as notable evidence against global warming you would need a significant sustained cold spell (5 to 10 years at this point). However, extreme cold days or years are not predicted effects of global warming. They may well happen, but there isn't any significant evidence that they are caused by global warming.
Re:The Climate Change Guys Will Have a Field Day.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
You aren't educated enough. The climate models call for more extreme climate shifts both colder and warmer with the over all average being warmer. Also the tropics change the least and the Arctic regions change the most. The models have been around for years and so far the biggest errors have been underestimating the rate of change. There will be years when the changes will reverse simply due to yearly variations it's the general trend that has changed. Saying you had a colder winter so global warming is wrong is like saying it's warmer in August so winter cooling is a myth. Weather patterns are measured decades, hundreds of years and thousands of years not months and years. Yearly changes are meaningless when talking about long range trends.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Large blocks of ice thousands of years old are breaking off and move along the ocean currents until they melt. During the winter months, the surface water freezes. Given that 90% of an iceberg is underwater, wouldn't this mean that the water itself is warming and not the atmosphere?
Re:Confused (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the water is warming. Most of the current rise in sea level is due to the water warming, and thus expanding rather than to ice melting. That won't be significant until Greenland goes. Floating ice melting doesn't change the sea level, but merely absorbs the heat required to melt it. This is significant for absorbing energy without raising the temperature. But after the floating ice melts, then the seas can raise their temperature without the hindrance of needing to melt ice. (Note that this is also a block the other way to water cooling.)
A given volume of water can hold considerable more thermal energy than the same volume of air at the same temperature. As a result the oceans act as a ballast on the thermal variations...but as they warm, the balance point of the scale shifts. It takes a long time to warm the oceans, and then it takes a long time to cool them. This is important in understanding climate change.
Note also that warmer air can hold more water. This is important as a thermal transport mechanism. (I'm not a climate modeler, so I can't understand why this would turn some places into deserts...but I've seen complex interaction of subroutines, so I'm not surprised that things like this happen.)
But it's not that either the air or the water is warming, they both are. Just at different rates, and with differing stability.
Re: (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: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: (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:About weather changes and global warming... (Score:5, Informative)
These are really really rehashes of thoroughly debunked arguments. We already know that solar output effects the energy that the Earth absorbs, we observe the output of the Sun directly, we know exactly how different solar output changes from year to year. We know the variability between solar output during solar output peak and trough -- it's 0.1% The total solar forcing can be calculated directly it's 237 Watts/M^2. So from sunspot peak to trough the forcing changes by .24 watts/M^2. We know the effect of greenhouse gas change (in particular CO2) since pre-industrial times on forcing. It's 2.43 watts/M^2 see for example The 2001 IPCC Report [grida.no].
It is true that solar output is high especially high for the past 80 years see solar variation [wikipedia.org] but even the change between now and the Maunder Minimum (.2%) does not compare to forcing from greenhouse gasses.