Global Warming's Silver Lining For the Arctic Rim 582
Pickens writes "According to Laurence C. Smith, an Arctic scientist who has consistently sounded alarms about the approach of global warming, within 40 years the Arctic rim may be transformed by climate change into a new economic powerhouse. As the Arctic ice recedes, ecosystems extend, and minerals and fossil fuels are discovered and exploited, the Arctic will become a place of 'great human activity, strategic value and economic importance.' Sparsely populated areas like Canada, Scandinavia, Russia and the northern United States — the northern rim countries, or NORCs — will become formidable economic powers and migration magnets. Predictions in Smith's new book The Earth in 2050 include the following: New shipping lanes will open during the summer in the Arctic, allowing Europe to realize its 500-year-old dream of direct trade between the Atlantic and the Far East, and resulting in new economic development in the north; NORCs will be among the few place on Earth where crop production will likely increase due to climate change; and NORCs will become the envy of the world for their reserves of fresh water, which may be sold and transported to other regions."
Gulf Stream (Score:3, Interesting)
I havn't RTFA, but has he accounted for that climate change is predicted to destroy the gulf stream? If that stops flowing Scandinavia is predicted to become /colder/ even with global warming.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Climate change isn't predicted to destroy the gulf stream, at least not to remotely degree of confidence we associate with other climate-related predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
we won't know until it happens. So until then our government will institute policy as if it is a sure thing.
Re:Gulf Stream (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like with other long term things, no?
I mean, do countries wait until it's clear there's going to be a war before they start training an army and making weapons? The US also has the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, just in case. It's generally a good thing to plan ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that's kind of what they're there for.
An army isn't so much protection against war as protection against getting invaded, and forcing others to do your bidding.
Pads and a helmet indeed are so that you can take greater risks. It's technically possible to sit on a box containing an engine and ride on it at 80 MPH. Nobody does it because that's too dangerous. A car on the other hand protects you enough that the tradeoff is worth it. If we could be safe enough at 300 MPH (as we are in an airplane or bullet
Re: (Score:2)
"your strong military may be a threat to others and therefore you may be more likely to be attacked, not less."
Cite?
"To my mind even if the case is made that there is going to be warming, the economic "cure" is far, far, worse than the illness (cost of adaptation)."
For who? I'm sure all the creatures in the habitats that will be destroyed including in the sea are really concerned about the economics of trying to prevent it.
To hell with the short term economic effects. Its about time our species -people like
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For who? I'm sure all the creatures in the habitats that will be destroyed including in the sea are really concerned about the economics of trying to prevent it.
I'm sure they're just as concerned now about their habitats as they'll be after they're dead. If we're going to measure things by how "concerned" plankton is going to be about it, then we really don't have much to go on.
Re:Gulf Stream (Score:4, Insightful)
"Given that increased temperatures on Earth are associated with increased biodiversity,"
Cite?
I think you'll find the most biologically diverse habitats are in the temperate zones, not , for example in the sahara. Same goes for the seas.
"Population and economic prosperity are somewhat correlated (the more wealthy the population, the fewer children couples have)"
Actually its more to do with education rather than prosperity.
"I don't think you'll be able to do that by replacing coal or gas fired power stations with a fucking windmill."
No , but you could replace them with nuclear.
"Where is this relentless warming? There's been no statistically significant warming since 1995"
Really? Funny then how 1998 is considered to be the hottest year on record by most climate researchers and its looking like 2010 may beat it. I suggest you learn to use google and educate yourself.
Re:Gulf Stream (Score:5, Informative)
Scientific research shows that, for example, wearing a cycling helmet makes no difference. A helmet will not protect you in a serious accident and the slight increase in the risk taking behaviour you engage in by wearing one balances out the benefit you'd get from it, when compared to not wearing one when you're in a minor accident.
Actually, as I understand, scientific research shows that wearing a helmet has a tremendous benefit in prevent the sorts of injuries that leave people brain damaged for the rest of their lives. Apparently they reduce mortality rates by around 33%. The whole "you'll take more risks" thing sounds like neo-conservative pablum dolled out by idiots who care more about ratings than facts.
Here's some links to educate yourself:
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm [helmets.org]
http://www.bhsi.org/henderso.htm [bhsi.org]
Re:Gulf Stream (Score:4, Informative)
Research [bath.ac.uk]
Research [bmj.com]
Research [informaworld.com]
[The citation is currently unavailable]
You will be able to find counter views, but don't accuse me of being a neo-con just because I demonstrated the law of unintended consequences by citing research concerning cycling helmets. I'm sure you look like a twat wearing yours and have spent years explaining to colleagues and friends how your brain is now invincible because you're wearing one, by way of justification.
In all seriousness, take care on the roads. I've got a 4x4 and sometimes you cyclists are difficult to see, even with your silly hats and high visibility pants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In all seriousness, take care on the roads. I've got a 4x4 and sometimes you cyclists are difficult to see, even with your silly hats and high visibility pants.
Thus demonstrating why helmets might not statistically result in lower injury rates. A helmet does fuck-all if you're run down by an asshole in a 4x4 who's too busy compensating for personal inadequacies to pay proper attention to the road.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you see that's the thing. You can argue the case from both sides. Scientific research shows that, for example, wearing a cycling helmet makes no difference. A helmet will not protect you in a serious accident and the slight increase in the risk taking behaviour you engage in by wearing one balances out the benefit you'd get from it, when compared to not wearing one when you're in a minor accident.
I was in a single-vehicle accident on my bike (I fell off it and hit my head on a rock) and if I hadn't been wearing a helmet I probably wouldn't be here to tell you about it. While from the standpoint of some that is a positive thing, I can tell you that I don't believe that bullshit for a tenth of a second (about how long it took to fall off my bike.)
As a child I went out on my bike and I dimly remember falling off it, then nothing until I got home and was walking my (perfectly ridable) bike up my drivewa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't put words into my mouth and congratulate yourself for pointing out I'm wrong! I said unless you are a hyper-power (the obviously strongest military), or you have MAD-type weapons. Both are relatively recent scenarios. I think game-theory would agree with my opinion here. I'm not taking account of the fact that stronger powers can potentially bully weaker ones, but al
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is a big risk in the sense that it would be bad in the case that it happens. It's listed in the IPCC proceedings under "nonlinear response of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation".
Warning that something bad can happen is not the same as predicting it. I don't think anyone is supporting it in the sense "this is very likely to occur", and it would be very odd if they did so at an earlier time (since the uncertainty would have been even greater).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Climate change isn't predicted to destroy the gulf stream, at least not to remotely degree of confidence we associate with other climate-related predictions.
(disclaimer: oceanographer with only fleeting interest in global warming)
True, but I would like to elaborate. Some of the early climate models predicted the Gulf Stream to shut down* and naturally one of the objectives for building better models was to confirm or disprove these predictions. I don't think any of the newest IPCC models show the Gulf Stream shutting down but there are indications that it may slow down in the future. Not enough to off set the underlying warming though.
So it seems we don't have
More alarmist bollocks. (Score:3, Informative)
Please stop repeating the same old alarmist conjecture, hypothesis, unfounded speculation, stupefyingly idiotic model predictions and start actually going out and measu [agu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you realize the people saying that also support AGW?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes of course I do. They are in the business of successfully transferring money from the Government to their institution, so naturally they must append, "because of man-made Global Warming" to each and every grant proposal. But anyway, that doesn't change the facts and the facts are what we're interested in, surely?
Re: (Score:2)
And you do know what are some of the most wealthy corporations around, right? I'll give a hint: somewhat involved in sources of energy. And would be more than happy to make any scientists able to refute AGW fabulously wealthy on the personal level, any grant institution with assured funding.
(really funny how the facts are facts for you only as long as they reaffirm what you want... to hell with all the rest of "facts" the messengers bring)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you for real? I don't have a problem with findings of American Geophysical Union about Gulf Stream...
But somebody above used only this one finding, in line with what he wants, ignoring some other things the AGU says:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
Re: (Score:2)
I havn't RTFA, but has he accounted for that climate change is predicted to destroy the gulf stream? If that stops flowing Scandinavia is predicted to become /colder/ even with global warming.
That idea never made sense to me...
The gulf stream is powered by the forming of ice in the north Atlantic during winter: water crystallizes to ice while salt is expelled, increasing salinity and thus density of the water, which causes a downward flow. An increase in temperature would lead to less ice formation, a slower downward flow and thus a slower gulf stream. Ok, this still makes sense. A slower gulf stream would lead to a lower temperature, ok this still makes sense, right? A drop in temperature cause
To summarize: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it grant hunting season already?
Re:To summarize: (Score:5, Insightful)
Laurence C. Smith is a professor of geography at UCLA and a hydrologist. Sure he did write a book about the future importance of the north. That does not indicate that he is some how reliant on arctic study... Or something like that. Nor was there indication that he'd have written a book purely to get grants. It seems to be something he is interested in so he did research on and wrote a book. The science is real, we have found tons of oil reserves and gas reserves. This was obvious without even doing the science. We suddenly have new land available to us that we didn't have before. And new trade routes opening is obvious hell, it is happening to some degree already through Canadian waters.
If you dispute his claims then find science against him. If publishing a paper or saying something is important or being a part of the field you are researching is an inditement of fraud then science becomes impossible. You cannot force scientists to be in fields they don't care about. Write about things they find unimportant and are not educated in. It doesn't make sense.
The anti-science rhetoric coming out of
You aren't insightful, you got played.
Oh, excellent... (Score:5, Insightful)
as long as you can get there and survive there due to the hurricanes.
Increasing the total energy in the atmosphere will not result in a well-behaved warming, but in more variable and extreme weather patterns, and there will be more hurricanes and storms at seas. This little game humanity is playing with the Earth may well end up in tears.
Re: (Score:2)
as long as you can get there and survive there due to the hurricanes.
Yes, as we saw in the documentary, "The Day After Tomorrow", the superstorms sucked. Fortunately, the human survivors did that bonding thing and we don't have to worry about superstorms any more.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
as long as you can get there and survive there due to the hurricanes.
Increasing the total energy in the atmosphere will not result in a well-behaved warming, but in more variable and extreme weather patterns, and there will be more hurricanes and storms at seas.
The science would like to have a word with you. The current theory is that increased warming will increase wind sheer in the atmosphere, decreasing the severity and number of hurricanes.
Unlike your unfounded alarmist (aka bullshit) claims, I am going to provide a source, from the NOAA.. a great friend of the warmers.
CLIMATE MODELS SUGGEST WARMING-INDUCED WIND SHEAR CHANGES COULD IMPACT HURRICANE DEVELOPMENT, INTENSITY [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that it's not just hurricanes; climate models also predict widespread drought [wiley.com] (pdf):
Scuba gear (Score:2)
It's going to become warmer, but won't people get wet feet when all that ice flows into the ocean?
Pity about the geometry... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is so - but since I live far from the equatorial parts, for me the global warming has a potential to be a net benefit.
In fact, given this data, I wouldn't be surprised if the large and economically strong northern countries would deliberately continue the global warming trends, since it would benefit them a tiny bit, and greatly harm their future global competitors such as China, India, Brazil and all the SE Asian countries - which would clearly dominate the world soon otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in situations where the long-term basically turns out well(ie. the US's comparatively open immigration policy(with various historical exceptions based on whatever flavor of subhuman we are freaking out about today) has basically been reasonably successful; short, sharp upticks in migration, particularly the sort that is more desperate than entrepre
Re:Pity about the geometry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If TFA's projection is wrong, that may not be true at all; but there also isn't much to talk
Transplanting Penguins (Score:2)
(yes, I know, penguins are antarctic; but the arctic doesn't have any birds nearly as iconic)
Did anyone ever try to transplant penguins from the Antarctic to the Arctic? It would be an interesting experiment, and definitely worth a Ig Nobel. On the other hand, when folks start transplanting animals into foreign environments, it always ends in tears. Ask someone in Australia about rabbits, or someone in Florida about pythons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Pythons_in_Florida [wikipedia.org]
Bow before your new...... (Score:2, Interesting)
Canadian Mosquito and Black Fly Overlords.
If Smith's unlikely “thought experiment” scenario was to happen. Wouldn't a lot of the Canadian arctic be a shallow sea, caused by the rising sea levels? So don't rush out buying land before checking an elevation chart.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't rush out buying land before checking an elevation chart.
Or get flood insurance?
More to global warming than melting ice (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it amazing that people who report on climate change/global warming/armageddon fail to appreciate the nature of weather. Weather is *water moving in the air.* This simple understanding explains just about everything that happens with the weather.
Sure, warmer areas mean melted ice and areas that were before inaccessible or unusable. But there's more to it than that. There will be global weather pattern changes as well. Places that once got rain will dry up. Places that were arid will get wet. Conditions favorable to certain life and vegetation will change and that life and vegetation will simply die off and even become extinct. We have a global ecosystem that is being changed and upset in ways that simply cannot be predicted. Being able to reclaim some land is what I would characterize as some "short term gains."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So it gets dry here, wet there, hot here and cold there.
Things change. Its the nature of time.
No one has demonstrated without a doubt that it means the end of civilization.
We will adapt, migrate and flourish, because that is human nature.
Expecting to maintain the status quo because this is what we "currently" know as being comfortable and "optimum" is short sighted and frankly ridiculous.
And with all that aside. No one has demonstrated either that there will be DRASTIC changes yet. Its all speculation, base
Re:More to global warming than melting ice (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never, ever heard of anybody say it would. Please link to any place where you've heard it.
What is there is a potential for things getting seriously unpleasant. There was an earthquake in Haiti recently for instance. That's the kind of "unpleasant" I'm thinking of, only in multiple places at once. Will the human race survive? Sure. Do I want to be there when it happens? Hell, no.
Oh, there's been a lot of flourishing in New Orleans lately? You mean that they quickly fixed everything in a couple of months and since then it's been awesome? And of course I'm sure you don't mind at all the amount of tax money that it took to fix it, as well as the loss the economy took from having all those people stop what they were doing and get to rebuilding.
There's a big difference between having to adapt quickly and having to adapt over centuries.
Let's say the sea level rises. If it rises a few meters in 50 years, you may see your house on the beach get flooded. If it rises in 5000 years, there's likely to be a point where one of your descendants decides that the sea came uncomfortably close a few years back, and moves somewhere else.
More oil, yay! (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if global warming turns the arctic into a temperate zone, then they can dig up more oil. If we ever reach that point, can we agree that "more oil" is not the answer to our problems?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I honestly wonder if people will still deny global warming when we have freighters traveling through the north pole in the summer. I mean, what's it going to take?
I wonder if people using the term "deniers" will ever stop setting up strawman and accept that people are questioning the causes of climate change, not whether the climate actually changes. Someone can criticise AGW theories without also saying that the world is ever unchanging and will always be so.
Re:Deniers... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a straw man. Lots of people question that the climate changes, that CO2 is the cause, that increased CO2 concentrations are from human emissions. Just today I read an article by Norway's most prominent denier, and he asserted
1. CO2 concentrations can't possibly rise, because the ocean regulates it.
2. Even if it appears to be high right now, it can't possibly cause warming, because it's saturated.
3. The laws of thermodynamics contradict global warming.
I'm not going to judge all deniers by their least unreasonable spokesmen - for one, because they certainly wouldn't return the courtesy, and two, because they do very little to combat the more crackpot theories.
Re:Deniers... (Score:4, Insightful)
We obviously need to do something, otherwise one day it WILL get real bad
Even that is alarmist, because the Earth has had much higher concentrations of CO2 in the past. The simple fact is our weather models aren't reliable enough for accurate predictions.
Re:Deniers... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not alarmist, it's a logical progression. We can't keep pumping shit into the atmosphere and water supplies thinking it won't have some major cumulative effect down the road. Again, that day is far off (likely after everyone reading this is dead). We are still well within a window to do something about it, but eventually it will reach a point where we can't fix it. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather do something about it now rather than scramble to do something about it once it's almost too late/is too late.
Re: (Score:3)
Take a second and read what he said. I'll even quote it for you: It wasn't a fireball.
I know it wasn't. That's why I said it was foolish to believe that would happen in the near future. Go back and read my OP. [slashdot.org]
Is today "pay no attention to what was said"? WTF.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe the earth was created 6000 years ago, you probably are not going to be capable of a rational debate on the scientific evidence of long term (tens of thousands of years) climate change.
What percentage of adult humans claim membership in religions?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but that's not important. Mankind is producing eleventy billion trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide just simply by existing, and it gets into the atmosphere and by (handwave handwave) mechanisms too complicated to explain to someone so obviously stupid as to believe that climate change is happening (handwave handwave) it only absorbs heat from the earth and only releases it back to the earth and then the ice melts and the polar bears all die.
Either that or the pro-AGW believers are utterly divorced from
Who is questioning it exactly? (Score:2, Informative)
Its a law of physics that CO2 is an infrared absorber - is someone questioning that?
Its a fact that CO2 levels are rising in our atmosphere - is someone questioning that?
Its a fact that most of that rise is due to man - is someone questioning that?
No?
So what are they questioning then and who is doing it? I mean who of significance , not the kind of pig ignorant
arts graduates who couldn't tell you what CO2 is composed of or its physical properties if their lives depended on it.
Serious question? Here's a serious answer (Score:5, Insightful)
> Its a law of physics that CO2 is an infrared absorber - is someone questioning that?
No, this is clearly true.
Its a fact that CO2 levels are rising in our atmosphere - is someone questioning that?
No, this is clearly true
Its a fact that most of that rise is due to man - is someone questioning that?
No, this is clearly true.
- - - - -
But your questions are too simple. The last time I posted an answer like this, I was immediately modded troll. But hope springs eternal, so here is why I count myself as a skeptic. Here are some further questions:
Will increasing CO2 increase the temperature of the earth? This is not certain, because of the complex interactions of the climate. One example: raise the temperature, and you get more water vapor. More water vapor yields more clouds, which have a *massive* cooling effect. In short: it is entirely possible that CO2 has a negligible effect on the temperature.
Set the temperature question aside for a moment: is a higher CO2 level a bad thing? CO2's primary effect on the planet is "plant food". Commercial greenhouses deliberately increase CO2 in order to increase their crop yields. If we could magically reduce CO2 to 19th century levels, we would see crop yields fall substantially.
Back to temperature. If the earth's temperature does rise, is this a bad thing? Historically, warmer periods have been times of prosperity. Most of the earth is in the temperate zone, and warmer temperatures improve the climate, lengthen growing seasons, etc. Imagine frozen Siberia as the bread basket of Asia. It is not clear that a warmer earth is bad.
Finally, how do we measure the temperature of the earth? There are many temperature stations scattered about, but the majority of them do not comply with the guidelines set up to ensure accurate measurement. Many are at airports (lots of tarmac), others - especially in very cold climates - are placed conveniently near buildings. These and other siting issues make the temperature measurements inaccurate. Satellite measurements have their own difficulties. The more you read about these issues, the clearer it becomes that we do not currently have reliable temperature measurements.
So: on the basis of inaccurate temperature data and ineffective models, what should we do? Should we commit trillions of dollars to drastic policies based on questionable science? Or should we, maybe, invest in a decent network of weather stations, invest in climate science, and *understand* what is going on?
Climate is complex, and the one thing certain about all of the climate models developed to date is that they fail to model climate. If a model is to be useful, it must make falsifiable predictions of future events. To date, no model has done better than a random-number generator. Tropical storms were supposed to increase, but did not. Sea level was supposed to rise faster that ever. In fact, the sea level has been rising steadily since the last ice age,, but the rise has actually slowed in recent times. If one thing is clear, it is that our understanding of climate is woefully inadequate.
Re:Serious question? Here's a serious answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It may be possible that rising levels of CO2 may have a negligible impact on temperature due to the negative feedback of cloud formation. Current evidence suggests otherwise, specifically that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the average temperature by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius.
I'd like to see a citation for the 'evidence' of those effects for doubling CO2. All the journal articles I've found base their doubling numbers on climate models, not measured 'evidence'. More over, th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Serious question? Here's a serious answer (Score:4, Informative)
Will increasing CO2 increase the temperature of the earth? This is not certain, because of the complex interactions of the climate. One example: raise the temperature, and you get more water vapor. More water vapor yields more clouds, which have a *massive* cooling effect. In short: it is entirely possible that CO2 has a negligible effect on the temperature.
Where did you read about that *massive* cooling effect? The last time I looked into global warming (three years ago), the strength of the negative feedback due to increased clound covering was still subject to quite a lot of debate, but it was suspected to be far less than the warming attributed to humans.
Also keep in mind that water itself is a greenhouse gas (it's the most important component of the natural greenhouse effect), so there's also a povitive feedback component involved as well: a higher atmospheric temperature means we'll get a higher concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere before condensation happens (curse you, Clausius and Clapeyron!)
Set the temperature question aside for a moment: is a higher CO2 level a bad thing? CO2's primary effect on the planet is "plant food". Commercial greenhouses deliberately increase CO2 in order to increase their crop yields. If we could magically reduce CO2 to 19th century levels, we would see crop yields fall substantially.
Too bad the CO2 won't stay in the lower atmosphere where plants can get at it, and then there's the problem of Liebig's barrel: an increase in CO2 means shit if you're lacking for some other resource...
Back to temperature. If the earth's temperature does rise, is this a bad thing? Historically, warmer periods have been times of prosperity. Most of the earth is in the temperate zone, and warmer temperatures improve the climate, lengthen growing seasons, etc. Imagine frozen Siberia as the bread basket of Asia. It is not clear that a warmer earth is bad.
Well, as long as you don't live in the Mediterranean area, I guess... But in Germany (that's where I'm living), the number of heavy rain (which causes nasty floodings...) has increased during the last century with, global warming as the main suspect; but at least I don't have to worry about hurricanes or rising sea levels - take that, Holland ;)
Finally, how do we measure the temperature of the earth? There are many temperature stations scattered about, but the majority of them do not comply with the guidelines set up to ensure accurate measurement. Many are at airports (lots of tarmac), others - especially in very cold climates - are placed conveniently near buildings. These and other siting issues make the temperature measurements inaccurate. Satellite measurements have their own difficulties. The more you read about these issues, the clearer it becomes that we do not currently have reliable temperature measurements.
That's where statistics comes in; the problem with the seamingly contradictory satellite data has also been solved some years ago, btw...
So: on the basis of inaccurate temperature data and ineffective models, what should we do? Should we commit trillions of dollars to drastic policies based on questionable science? Or should we, maybe, invest in a decent network of weather stations, invest in climate science, and *understand* what is going on?
Excuse me, but I have no idea what you are talking about here. Could you clarify to which policies costing trillions of dollars you refer, and why you think them useless? Global warming is a widely accepted fact, the debate has shifted to the question of who to blame; personally, I belive it's us pesky humans, but that's beside the point as we'll have to deal with the consequences anyway (according to the Milankovitch theory, the next ice age won't be triggered for quite a few thousand of years); and switching away from oil is recommendable for quite a few other r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So: on the basis of inaccurate temperature data and ineffective models, what should we do? Should we commit trillions of dollars to drastic policies based on questionable science? Or should we, maybe, invest in a decent network of weather stations, invest in climate science, and *understand* what is going on?
I'd vote for yes. The scientists have made a warning, with the information they have today, with the knowledge they gathered for years. It might be right, it might be wrong. Now it's time for political decisions, some will be in attempt to prevent unbearable climate change, some for mitigating the effects of such change.
On this matter, the same as many others, we can always claim that the information is lacking, the knowledge is incomplete. There is no limit to the validity of that argument in theory. What
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then his prediction is already falsified with our current data.
And IPCCs predictions (even from the end of 80-s) are by now statistically significant enough and if anything they are too conservative.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html [skepticalscience.com] - a nice summary.
Re:Who is questioning it exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
"It is also true that 500 mil years ago, Earth was a ball of ice despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 was ~4200ppm (about 12 times higher than today). Oh yeah, you guys always forget to include that 'law of physics.'"
I am certainly not an expert in the subject, but my basic understanding of snowball earth [wikipedia.org] is that first the continents got into a position that led to a runaway glaciation. More ice on the ground/water equals more light reflected equals more ice forming. Once the entire earth was covered in ice there was no photosynthesis going on, so carbon dioxide started to build up, mostly from volcanic activity. In fact according to the citations on wikipedia it didn't build just up to 12 times higher than today, but might have been more than 300 times higher [agu.org] before there was enough greenhouse heating to overcome the cooling effects of reflection from all the ice.
You seem to be implying that high levels of CO2 at the same time the earth was frozen over somehow contradicts global warming when in fact it supports the idea. Were you not aware of that? Or were you just hoping that we weren't? (And in any case, how is a fact or set of conditions a "law of physics"?)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if people using the term "deniers" will ever stop setting up strawman and accept that people are questioning the causes of climate change, not whether the climate actually changes.
It's not a strawman - there have been many claims that "the world is not warming", although it does seem to be a less popular position today than in the past. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Position: Global warming is not occurring [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I honestly wonder if people will still deny global warming when we have freighters traveling through the north pole in the summer.
I don't.
I think you're being extremely generous towards the denial movement. The only thing I wonder about is what excuse they're going to use for that.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If you want to look at the question objectively, all you have to do is examine the (vastly) available science and ask yourself "qui bono"? What would motivate a majority of the world's scientists to 'fabricate' climate change, or 'manipulate' the reasons behind climate change? Who are the most vociferous deniers, and what do they gain from their denial?
Personally speaking, I tend to group deniers - people who won't even try to examine the question objectively, but base their 'research' and 'conclusions' on
They don't deny it! (Score:5, Informative)
I'm no apologist - I think climate change is a very serious issue that is being dangerously ignored - but you've just raised a classic straw-man and it's very annoying.
Almost nobody denies the existence, to a greater or lesser extent, of "global warming." The argument is now whether the observable changes are predominantly attributable to man's impact on the environment, or to the natural climatic lifecycle of the Earth.
It's very important before weighing-in to an argument that you understand what the argument actually is, from both sides.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The argument is now whether the observable changes are predominantly attributable to man's impact on the environment, or to the natural climatic lifecycle of the Earth.
Is there, really? I believe this question has been answered pretty decisively by the scientific community, with a resounding consensus that man's actions are moderately to significantly affecting global warming.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even those who believe in human caused climate change will not reduce their standard of living to (possibly) make a difference in the rate of change.
"Tragedy of the Commons" where the Earth's atmosphere is the commons.
There's a spectrum (Score:4, Interesting)
I've observed a bit of a spectrum (with some people occupying an 'area' of the spectrum instead of a single point - not being absolutely positive of where they stand).
For example, I've heard the following from several different people:
* there's no possible way we have accurate temperature readings of the global temperature 'state' - you'll find out that someone placed the thermometer too close to the earth (too warm) or in direct sunlight in the Sahara, etc, etc (they don't seem to understand the concept of taking lots of samples from lots of places and averaging the result)
* I heard Rush Limbaugh spend most of a program once going on and on about the eruption of a volcano, and how it was putting out more CO2 than mankind would emit in like 200 years or something like that, and concluding there's nothing mankind could possibly *do* to change the climate.
* I've heard people say there might be warming, but it is related to Solar activity cycles and has nothing to do with human activity.
* I've heard people say "So what? Global warming means winter is less horrible. I'm all for that." - which, I suppose, if you live in Canada or the Northern States of the lower-48 (places like New England, NY, PA, the Midwest, etc), is true - some people, as this article discusses, will likely *benefit* from global warming; unfortunately, that benefit comes at the expense of a lot of other (some of whom are very poor to begin with and their lives will be made even worse) people.
* I've heard people say maybe global warming will/is happening a little bit, but that as it happens, cloud cover will increase, which will reflect solar energy, so it will be self-moderating.
* Then there are the folks who believe that any kind of problem is just the fulfillment of prophecy, and Jesus will come rapture the righteous, while the damned will suffer 'real global warming'.
So basically, among the deniers, there's a range of people from "it's definitely not happening", to "maybe it's happening, but I don't think we need to do anything about it", to "it's happening, but there's nothing we can do about it, so eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die".
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't recycling a net loss for the environment? It's not a stretch to recognize that we spend more energy reprocessing waste than making the original stuff in the first place. Thus, it's better for the environment not to recycle. Maybe when resources become more scarce, it'll be better all around to mine a landfill than a mountain. Until then, recycling is the choice that damages us all.
Landfills are a safe and proven technology. Recycling is a demonstrable net loss, economically and environmentally.
Why do
Re:They don't deny it! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't that an incredibly vague - and in consequence unbelievably stupid - question?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Deniers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Only idiots deny global warming. That it is anthropogenic, however, still remains to be seen [cnn.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Denial can be an effective strategy for those who don't mind the consequences of global warming and look forward to useful geopolitical outcomes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There are not going to be any underwater ruins. You are watching too many bad Kevin Costner movies.
Hey, hey. Say what you want about AGW, but don't run down 'Waterworld'! I watched it again the other day, and it's really a great-bad film; as in, enjoyably bad.
What other films have fights between catamarans and jetskis (which seem incredibly robust - they can hang around underwater for hours)? Or Dennis Hopper being fitted for a false eye by his sycophantic minions? Or races through a pirate oil tanker? Great stuff!
Re:Deniers... (Score:5, Informative)
"The worse prediction are for a sea level rise of an inch or so over a 100 years. "
How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century? [skepticalscience.com]
"For the lowest emission rate, sea levels are expected torise around 1 metre by 2100. For the higher emission scenario, which is where we're currently tracking, sea level rise by 2100 is around 1.4 metres. "
And it gets worse for the centuries beyond 2100. 2100-2199 ~+3 meters, and 2200-2299 ~+5 meters.. ..
Needless to say.. but the the The Coast Is Toast: Take the Money and Run [thepriceofliberty.org]
PS.. For you mathematically challenged deniers, one(1) meter is 39.37 inches..
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hahaha, yes it's been horrible.
The real problem with the Arctic rim isn't heat, although lack of heat is a challenge. The real problem is sunlight. The northern regions of the Arctic rim doesn't get enough sunlight to sustain trees, then there's a belt of pine needle like conifers, then there's a transient belt of broad leaved trees.
Personally, I hope that we never develop the Arctic rim in a meaningful way. The broad leaved trees produce an unbelievable amount of oxygen out of CO2 in the relatively short growing season. We've already decimated the rain forests, the oceanic regions of oxygen production are down a bit due to phosphorus posioning (or some other pollution, they think it's phosphor), and the Arctic region's oxygen contribution becomes more important every day.
Re: (Score:2)
yes you are part of the arctic rim... I think you guys are too low in eevation to really tell.
Re: (Score:2)
missed an l in elevation
Re:How consistently has he "sounded alarms"? (Score:5, Informative)
Mean global temperatures have refused to rise for the past 20 years, now?
I wonder what you could get away with saying. Maybe there was a great volcanic eruption in Chile last week. Maybe there hasn't been any hurricanes over the caribbean for five years. Maybe global sea level has dropped two meters on average?
Because it's about as plausible to say any of that as saying mean global temperature has refused to rise for the past 20 years. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How consistently has he "sounded alarms"? (Score:5, Insightful)
As consistently as mean global temperatures have refused to rise for the past 20 years?
Seriously, how long are we going to keep funding Chicken Little to squawk that the sky is going to fall tomorrow, 4 REALZ TIHS TIEM!!!!!1!!?
What? I read in earlier (Score:5 Insightful) and (Score:5 Informative) posts by h4rm0ny (722443) and tygerstripes (832644) that nobody was denying that global warming was happening.
In any case, dear politically correctly attributed AGW sceptic, which facts are you basing your above assertion on?
Re: (Score:2)
Could hypothetically get...interesting now that most of the international community said "to hell with territorial inviolability of european borders" (generally sort of a sanctity for the last half a century) by agreeing to independent Kosovo.
After all it's not fair how Finland won't get the best benefits (*); and all just because of loosing its Arctic coast ((*)however small they would be in comparison - always something) to the Soviet Union in a war aggression by the latter. Luckily, I can sleep well know
Re: (Score:2)
You know, 6 months is just the extreme in one point...
Re: (Score:2)
As if Canada didn't already have a bounty of unexploited natural resources. Shouldn't make much difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With regard to the article and summary: there's no good soil in the Arctic rim. Good soils take on the order of a hundreds of years to form. Good luck trying to become an economic p
Re:Dutch disease (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, let Muslims have their dark age. It's their turn, and every world religion gets the first one free.
Re:Dutch disease (Score:5, Informative)
The Torch of Civilization [Re:Dutch disease] (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, that is not true. Byzantium was carrying the torch of civilization and culture.
True... however, "Byzantium" -- known at the time as Constantinople -- was, of course, a Christian city, not an Islamic city.
The collapse of Byzantium happened as the rennaissance was beginning in Italy.
The collapse of Byzantium happened when the 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople. Even though it was a Christian city, it was rich, and much easier to take than the not-terribly-rich-but-well-defended holy land.
There is probably a relationship between the two.
Undoubtably. The Italians not only eliminated a powerful trading rival, they sacked it and took the riches home.
I'm not sure what this has to do with global warming, but it's fascinating history.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dutch disease (Score:4, Insightful)
Economics is not a scientific discipline. Those studies are not very credible.
Depends on your definition of "scientific". For example, science could mean:
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
or "science" could mean stuff that the scientific method can be applied to (which incidentally includes the field of economic game theory). Or falsifiable theories.
Economics definitely fits the definition I mentioned above. It is flawed to say it isn't a scientific discipline without saying what a scientific discipline is. Else we're stuck with the futility of arguing while ignoring that the other person defines the words differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, even better for Arctic rim countries - as far away as they can be ;p
BTW, we're not sure where our limits of adaptability are until we hit them - so better to play safe; already causing one of the biggest and most rapid extinction events in geological history might be, at the least, not a good sign about the influence on the surroundings, on which we also depend.
Re: (Score:2)
Just consider that it won't be easy to replace 4 billions years of evolution.
Nah, not 4 billion years. More like, at most, 60 million years of evolution, or less if you count the lesser mass extinctions that have happened after that.
60 million years, not a big deal really, for nature, just something like 1,5% of the history of Life. Sort of like a human getting kicked back half a year in their education/career/family life (comparing human life span to expected life span of habitable Earth).