Canadian Ice Shelves Halve In Six Years 458
eldavojohn writes "The CBC reports on new research that shows thousand-year-old ice shelves (much different than sea ice) are breaking up and have been reduced by half in a region of Canada over the last six years. 'This summer alone saw the Serson ice shelf almost completely disappear and the Ward Hunt shelf split in half. The ice loss equals about three billion tonnes, or about 500 times the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza.' More detailed pictures can be seen at The Conversation, with a quote from Professor Steven Sherwood, Co-Director of the University of NSW's Climate Change Research Centre: 'The real significance of this, in my view, is that this ice has reportedly been there for thousands of years. The same is true of glaciers that have recently disappeared in the Andes. These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural.'"
"These observations should dispel..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So I'm not one who tends to dismiss things that experts outside my field say, but this statement is quite a blatant fallacy: just because it's been that way for thousands of years doesn't mean that any change is certainly not natural. It's these types of statements that cause so many to lose credibility. It doesn't give me much faith in someone's ability to interpret complex data when he can't even construct a valid deduction from simple facts...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The height of the current interglacial was about 8000 years ago. Temperatures have been (very) slowly dropping back down since then - until recently that is. The magnitude of the current changes in the arctic are very troubling, and the rate of decrease is accelerating. The following graph shows that arctic summer ice was fairly steady at 16,000,000km^3 up until the 1990's. We are now down to 4,500,000 km^3 : http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b014e885c65ac970d-pi [typepad.com]
This has led some to charact
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that you started making unsubstantiated accusation in an attempt to defend a belief that was not being questioned makes you a part of the same problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, the good old glass houses argument. Also known as "I can't be wrong because I think you/re wrong". Always a solid argument, unless of course the opponent is particularly cagey and knows the devastating "I'm rubber you're glue" defense which, as we all know, is unstoppable.
Re: (Score:2)
The only unstoppable argument is The Chewbacca defense.
Double reference!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ice melts naturally as per nature, we are constantly cycling an ice age, I believe we can still trace back to our old one. I'll be honest I think it's both. Part natural, part humans, we can't tell what is natural and what is caused by us because we haven't been watching the ice for very long on the ice's timescale.
Ice shelves melting are nothing to freak out about though, it happens all the time in nature, what is frustrating is the lack of evidence pointing either way and the accusing finger being poin
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, then it IS natural.
Re: (Score:3)
No, there really is a consensus among climatologists. 0ver 97% of climatologists who are actively publishing on climate change and over 85% of climatologists in general agree that human influences are responsible for most of the global warming we are seeing (Doran 2009) [uic.edu] [PDF].
Re:"These observations should dispel..." (Score:5, Informative)
To outline an example in each of the three, statisticians have been concerned for a while about how climatologists measure mean surface temperature from weather station data and temperature proxy data (the notorious tree ring data and ice core data) that has a great deal of irregularity and adjustments to it. Economists have been concerned by the primitive economic models of carbon usage. For example, no study of the effects of "peak oil". And there's weak research on the economic effects of global warming. If one is going to decide whether or not to implement mitigating action, they should have some idea of the costs and benefits of global warming as well as the mitigating action. Computer modelers have noted the bizarre spaghetti code that builds crucial datasets (such as the Climate Research Unit's paleoclimate temperature estimate built on a huge number of datasets. Finally, mathematical modelers have noted the absence of large scale weather phenonema such as hurricanes and equatorial waves [wikipedia.org].
Second, climatology has a problem common to geology, economics, and astronomy, namely, that it is extremely hard to conduct reproducible experiments. This is a crucial flaw of climate modeling and prediction that routinely gets ignored.
Third, the field has unusual difficulty in communicating its research to the outside world due to the complexity of the field and the difficulty of generating data and models.
Fourth, there's an enduring bias due to who funds climatology research in the field of climate change. Most of the organizations want global warming to be demonstrated. It seems to me that there is a serious danger that research which doesn't support a claim of global warming (particularly, urgent global warming which would require substantial change in society in order to mitigate), is at increased risk of becoming defunded. For example, the Goddard Institution of Space Science (a NASA-run organization) and the before-mentioned Climate Research Institute have both been headed by people who have made extreme claims about the effects of global warming for decades. How would research from someone lower down in the hierarchy that doesn't fit the message coming from the top of the organization fare?
As I see it, an argument from authority (such as "over 97% of climatologists who are actively publishing on climate change and over 85% of climatologists in general agree that human influences are responsible for most of the global warming we are seeing") isn't good enough in the present circumstances.
There's also career selection bias (Score:3)
It's like saying most sociologists agree that the government should spend more on social programs.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you go into climate science as a field if you think everything with the climate is hunky dory?
Why not? I went into mathematics because I was interested in the field not because I thought there was something wrong with it. I don't think, for example, that there's a need for government to spend more on mathematical research.
Re: (Score:3)
I certainly didn't say "scientists" before in this tread because that was my only post (until this one) in the thread. But in general if I say scientists it's in the context of the field being discussed, not every scientist in the world. I guess the GP did use the term "*Some* scientists" but I don't consider those not working the field in question to have much authority to comment on it.
In regards to surface temperature there's a project called Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [berkeleyearth.org] lead by the physicist Ric
Re: (Score:3)
I'll believe and support AGW when it's advocates support going full nuclear.
So you then implicitly acknowledge that you have no intellectual basis for your beliefs on global warming, and you instead base your views on the perceived trustworthiness of various authorities? This is what the above statement seems to imply.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, but this gives no evidence of either man made or natural climate change. These ice sheets were created in the last ice age, which is still ending, so they were likely to melt either way.
Re:"These observations should dispel..." (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago [grist.org]. There was a more recent "little ice age," but that was a local phenomenon, not global.
But you're right that this doesn't prove that the global average temperature is rising. Again, it's only a local phenomenon, and it's possible that the ice shelves are getting colder but seeing less precipitation, resulting in the loss of ice mass.
Re: (Score:3)
So, how exactly is glaciers [wikipedia.org] melting [spiegel.de] around [sciencedaily.com] the [nationalgeographic.com] world [independent.co.uk] a local phenomen?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
> We know that the sun hasn't changed solar output
Er about that....
> and that there are no systematic changes in cosmic rays,
And that...
> etc.
Yeah....might wanna slow down there.
Uh, Greenland redux? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about a bit less in the way of hysteria? All the folks who were having kittens over the phony reduction in the Greenland ice sheet are looking like schmucks now so perhaps a few people, like the editors of Slashdot for instance, could forgo schmuckdom by not engaging in heavy breathing ahead of the facts?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
eldavojohn writes
Usually everything in the quote box after that is written by the submitter. The editor didn't throw in his own comment on this story, so direct your vitriol at eldavojohn, not Soulskill.
Though, I do agree with you, that comment about dispelling was utterly moronic. These ice sheets are thousands of years old...oh, they are from the last ice age, so they would melt anyways. Antarctic ice that is millions of years old would be more worrying if it was melting.
Re: (Score:3)
It has happened before. 8 thousand years ago the land bridge between across the Bering Strait was drowned by receding glaciers. Those damn neo-con rebuplicans! I bet Sarah Palin did it! It was a plot by those racist rich bastards to keep out people from siberia.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Greenland is loosing ice at a rate of over 100 Gigatonnes per year as measured by the GRACE gravimetric satellites. This page [skepticalscience.com] contains several references to peer reviewed papers on the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
I have been a regular on this site for over a decade now. And, I have no clue what you are talking about. As for the shyster alt-e stuff, the group consensus is usually along the lines of fails basic thermodynamics, smoke and mirrors, untested/unrevised claims, cost higher/efficiency lower than existing tech, etc...
Perhaps you have this site confused with another you frequent?
Uh oh. (Score:4, Funny)
Now where am I supposed to keep my ice books?
Re: (Score:2)
curse you subject lines of irony!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There were glaciers all over Montana (Score:4, Insightful)
I blame the Tea Party.
Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (Score:4, Insightful)
These shelves (that are on the water btw) didn't disappear either, take a look at the pictures, they are the ends of the glaciers that hang out in the water, they are going to reduce over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe those ones didn't, but others may have. [wikipedia.org]
Actually, the link claims there is evidence of catastrophic freshwater increases in a timeframe spanning months; but I'm too lazy to track the citation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I live in Ontario. Where my house is now, was under 1mi of ice less than 7k years ago.
Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ontario wimp... I'm in Winnipeg. We go under 1mi of ice every Winter.
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft. Go to Labrador for some REAL ice.
Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but we have documented proof that both Europe and North America were experiencing a "mini ice age" as late at the mid-1800's, and that before the early 1700's (when the mini ice-age started) it was warmer than it is now.
Re: (Score:3)
However as none of these records were written by "climate scientists" the AGW lot tend to deny them.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but we have documented proof that both Europe and North America were experiencing a "mini ice age" as late at the mid-1800's, and that before the early 1700's (when the mini ice-age started) it was warmer than it is now.
Insightful my ass. It's at least as warm if not warmer now than it was during the Medieval Warm Period.
Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural.
So you are saying that if there was natural global warming these ice shelves wouldn't melt? That's pretty amazing!
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
Point taken. So to be correct we would should say that whatever the cause of the current warming it is unprecedented in the last several thousand years.
Funny how if you see a logical fallacy when you skim something you tend to ignore the rest....
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how if you see a logical fallacy when you skim something you tend to ignore the rest....
Not so funny to me; evidence of lacking logic in one area could imply lacking logic in all areas, and therefore the rest of the communication should be suspect -- if not discarded outright.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Informative)
"The real significance of this, in my view, is that this ice has reportedly been there for thousands of years."
So we see the strongest warming cycle in thousands of years.
What's more likely?
That this unprecedented warming is natural and just happened to correspond with AGW.
Or that the AGW thing that scientists have been talking about for decades is doing exactly the thing they've been predicting.
True there's more nuance than that (not everywhere warms the same, etc) but the evidence has piled up pretty damn high.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists have been fairly unanimous in predicting warming since the mid 1970's, and so far they've been right.
And it isn't a coin flip, there are degrees of warming, if you predict that it's going to be warmer than it has in thousands of years you have a far smaller chance than 50/50 of getting lucky.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, global cooling was never the rage among scientists [nature.com].
Re: (Score:3)
No, sorry, I remember the 70's and global cooling was all the rage then. Search 'global cooling 1970s'. Global Warming has been since the 90's.
You remember what Fox News tells you to remember. Before you tell people to try a search like that, you probably ought to try the search [google.com] yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Your "search" is about articles that talk about how global cooling didn't exist in the 70s.
Why doin't you try an actual search of newspapers and magazines in the 70s and 80s. The yields a different result.
"the next ice age" have way to "the ozone hole" which gave way to global warming.
it's always some damn thing or another. many people were convinced in 1900 that halley's comet would cause the death of all mankind.
it's always some damn thing or another.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people upset by the split hypothesis is the climate skeptics. All the debate I've seen among the scientists is trying to figure out how much of the current trend is AGW and how much is natural (note it could be 150% if we're in a natural cooling cycle).
There's also been a lot of study over whether AGW is good or bad. A little isn't a huge deal (we already have a little), but a lot means massive drops in food production leading to famines and a lot of war, it hits the poorest equatorial nations a lo
Re: (Score:3)
It's not as simple as you'd like it to be. CO2 is only one factor in plant growth. Higher CO2 helps some plants (poison ivy comes to mind) grow but not others. But you still have to have water, ask the farmers in Texas about that, and appropriate soil.
Re: (Score:3)
No one who is alive today has to worry about the next ice age hitting (unless we invent immortality) as it's not scheduled to start for about 20,000 years and it takes 10,000 years or so for the change to happen.
New measurement unit? (Score:2)
What is this Great Pyramid of Giza unit?!? I demand all mass measurements to be reported in the accepted Elephant units. African or Indian, it's your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Approximately 551,155,655 African bull elephants.
Re: (Score:2)
How about filled shrimp boats? They're pretty heavy too :-)
Why would that dispel anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
Since you have no record of how fast ice shelves may have vanished in the past due to natural warming, it seems suspect to claim that this certainly proves the current rate of dissipation is due to unnatural warming...
Yes there is warming, but it appears our activities are unrelated [carlineconomics.com].
But then what would he know? He's only the chair of a climatology department...
But my main point remains, that you are taking a rather unscientific leap with your fear-mongering statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why would that dispel anything? (Score:4, Informative)
Since you have no record of how fast ice shelves may have vanished in the past due to natural warming, it seems suspect to claim that this certainly proves the current rate of dissipation is due to unnatural warming...
Says who? At the very least, someone seems to have the idea that these particular ice masses have been around for thousands of years.
Yes there is warming, but it appears our activities are unrelated [carlineconomics.com].
But then what would he know? He's only the chair of a climatology department...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/murray_salby_and_conservation.php [scienceblogs.com]
Re:Why would that dispel anything? (Score:5, Informative)
In 2008 fossil fuel burning adding 8.7 gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere, land use changes another 1.2 gigatons. Where did it go? Unless all anthropogenic CO2 is disappearing in a way that natural CO2 isn't, then we're contributing to the increase.
Re: (Score:2)
Since no one else has explicitly debunked this yet...
Yes, it is true that human emission of CO2 is dwarfed by natural emissions, which dominate the variability in CO2 emissions on a short-term annual basis. However, natural CO2 emissions are in equilibrium with natural CO2 sinks, so the long-term trend is more neutral. The human CO2 emissions have no corresponding CO2 sink, and therefore continually add a little bit of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.
Think of it like this. You get a paycheck for $2k eve
Its the solar cycle! (Score:2)
Bad phrasing (Score:2, Insightful)
How's that saying go, past performance is no guarantee of future results. The Andes used to be under water for thousands of years; the continents used to all be one big land mass. If we lived back then I'm sure we'd be
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad phrasing (Score:4, Insightful)
How's that saying go, past performance is no guarantee of future results. The Andes used to be under water for thousands of years; the continents used to all be one big land mass. If we lived back then I'm sure we'd be hearing about Anthropogenic Tectonic Drift.
Assuming this is not some pathetic attempt at humor which I am pathetically entirely missing, do you even have any idea of the timescales involved here or are you one of those 'the earth is 10000 years old' folk?
Re:Bad phrasing (Score:5, Informative)
>If we lived back then I'm sure we'd be hearing about Anthropogenic Tectonic Drift.
The difference is that there's a physical mechanism for human effect on climate and that observations are matching calculations based on that physics.
A quick touchstone for any alternative hypothesis for explaining global temperature rises is to ask, "Does it predict stratospheric cooling?" If CO2 is trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, then we'd predict that it won't reach the stratosphere, which will then cool down. Warming due to orbital changes, solar activity, or whatnot, would warm up the stratosphere.
It's easy to find out which is happening.
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't. He said it wasn't natural. If it wasn't natural, it must be supernatural. If we did it, it would be natural.
erroneous conclusions (Score:3, Insightful)
"These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural."
Really? Because climate has never, ever, not even once, shifted quickly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [wikipedia.org]
Note the huge uptick in average temperature starting roughly 11.5k years BP. I'm pretty sure the foot-powered cars the Flintstones drove didn't warm the earth, so this must've been a natural event. Saying that it's impossible for current temperature trends to be unnatural flies in the face of something that has already happened once, almost within recorded history; not to mention all the times when it happened outside of recorded history.
This is why some people, like myself, do not take climate alarmists seriously. They make these grandiose pronouncements that have little, if anything, to do with the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why some people, like myself, do not take climate alarmists seriously. They make these grandiose pronouncements that have little, if anything, to do with the facts.
Most likely this is just like Y2K, SARS, and yes, even AIDS. All real, actually happening events and yet at the same time exaggerated by people who have much to profit from pushing an agenda (in this case funding for their own research programs).
Re: (Score:3)
What's that massive spike at the end of the graph, in the "Recent Proxies" section? Do you see it?
Re: (Score:3)
"These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural."
Really? Because climate has never, ever, not even once, shifted quickly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [wikipedia.org]
Note the huge uptick in average temperature starting roughly 11.5k years BP. I'm pretty sure the foot-powered cars the Flintstones drove didn't warm the earth, so this must've been a natural event. Saying that it's impossible for current temperature trends to be unnatural flies in the face of something that has already happened once, almost within recorded history; not to mention all the times when it happened outside of recorded history.
This is why some people, like myself, do not take climate alarmists seriously. They make these grandiose pronouncements that have little, if anything, to do with the facts.
That's not a very reassuring comparison if you want to calm down the alarmists. You know what else happened at a time when, despite what you are suggesting, temperature change was slower than what we seem to be getting now, at ~11.5k years BP? Yup, that's right, a mass extinction.
Re: (Score:3)
Because climate has never, ever, not even once, shifted quickly?
Right. It hasn't. And your link only demonstrates how radically unnatural the current warming is.
Check the slope of the graph you linked to. The "rapid" warming coming out of the last ice age has a rate of approximately 1 degree C per 2200 years.
Over the last hundred-odd years the earth has earth has recently warmed at a rate fourteen times faster than that. And the conservative end of the scale the current rate of warming is 2 degrees C over the next hundred years. That's 44 times faster than the unusually
Logical fallacy (Score:3, Interesting)
"These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural"
Why?
Ice melting fast != humans at fault. Honestly, I've seen a lake go from "safe to walk on" to "no trace of ice" in a few days. I never once thought "Holy crap, some dude must have caused this!"
Certainly, that's the ASSUMPTION, and there are a lot of credible reasons for believing that to be true. But I don't see how A logically follows B unless you're already certain that B is true and just looking for more reasons to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ice melting fast != humans at fault. Honestly, I've seen a lake go from "safe to walk on" to "no trace of ice" in a few days. I never once thought "Holy crap, some dude must have caused this!"
That's what happens when someone pees in the lake.
Re: (Score:2)
We need more pirates! (Score:4, Informative)
We all know by now that global warming is caused by the lack of pirates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming [wikipedia.org]
The Happening vs Natural Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Summaries like this irk me. It ends with "These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural." This is a complete invalid conclusion.
"These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming is not happening." is a more reasonable statement based on the facts presented.
As to proving that it is not natural, that is a different argument that needs to be made by demonstrating the causes not reciting the symptoms.
Re: (Score:2)
As to proving that it is not natural, that is a different argument that needs to be made by demonstrating the causes not reciting the symptoms.
I think we should first prove that humans are not natural. Before we start saying that climate change is not natural, regardless of the cause.
The Alarmism misses a key detail (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll just point out the corresponding lack of sea level rise. I'm going to have to put this in the same category as the atlas maker that said 15 percent of Greenland's ice melted. If that had actually happened the oceans would have gone up by feat. That hasn't happened so 15 percent of greenland's ice didn't melt. Likewise if this ice pack is so significant in canada there must be a corresponding rise in sea level.
Over the last century we've had a rise of about 8 cm in sea level. That means ice has absolutely melted. Just not as much as the alarmists would have us believe.
We can take GW seriously without getting hysterical about it. What we're seeing is SLOW melting and SLOW sea level rise.
Re: (Score:2)
15% could have melted and someplace else grew by 15%
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it didn't. They used an inaccurate Atlas.
Re: (Score:2)
what do Canada's growing glaciers prove? (Score:2, Insightful)
Other glaciers in Canada are *growing* (an inconvenient truth), like Helm, Pace and on Mount Logan. In one swoop, this proves......
Re: (Score:2)
It proves that some Canadian glaciers are eating too much processed American-style fast food. And I, for one, would like to know what we are going to do about it!
Re: (Score:2)
Ten percent of the glaciers in the world are growing. Draw your own conclusions.
Re:what do Canada's growing glaciers prove? (Score:5, Informative)
Other glaciers in Canada are *growing* (an inconvenient truth), like Helm, Pace and on Mount Logan. In one swoop, this proves......
I like it when people post references for their claims.
I tried to verify yours on my own and was not successful.
The claim that Helm Glacier is growing seems to be out right false. [wordpress.com]
The claim about Mount Logan seem to be based on an increase in height [iceagenow.com] - the assumption being that it's due to ice accumulation, but that does not translate one way or the other to the total mass of the glacier, just the thickness at one point.
I couldn't easily find what "Pace" refers to since the word "pace," as in speed, is commonly used with the word "glacier" so I couldn't verify your claim either way.
Re:what do Canada's growing glaciers prove? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some glaciers should grow due to AGW while others should shrink. We can, to a degree, model which ones should grow and which ones should shrink (but that's a bit harder than recognizing the generality).
AGW raises that atmosphere's temperature, and its temperature affects glaciers by at least two general proximal mechanisms: more or less directly, by melting them, melting the snow that would accumulate to form them, lubricating their flow, etc.; and by changing the amount and type of precipitation that might fall on them. The mass of a glacier is dictated by the balance between melting and accumulation. If the extra moisture in the atmosphere falls as significantly more snow than would have fallen without AGW, as might occur at certain latitudes and elevations, or due to peculiarities of geography, it can swamp the loss of mass caused by warming. Those glaciers will accumulate mass even in spite of somewhat higher temperatures.
The most endangered glaciers are those at modest latitudes and elevations, especially in places that don't get dramatic amounts of snowfall, or areas that will see adverse changes in precipitation levels and patterns as a result of climate change.
That said, I have no idea how Mt. Logan might be affected by this dynamic, but no single mountain or glacier's behavior will prove or disprove anything about climate change. Overall, however, the world's long-lived temperate glaciers are losing mass and receding, the cause of which can only be climate related. The most reasonable explanation for the abrupt change is AGW.
Re: (Score:2)
this was in response to article by people who didn't think 2 seconds before they typed with their claims either.
No sequitur detected (Score:2)
These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural.
Oh? How? By the way the Island of Krakatoa had been in the Sundra strait for thousands of years, and then it disappeared overnight. This would dispel in one fell swoop any notion that volcanoes could be natural.
Ward Hunt Shelf (Score:2)
The Ward Hunt shelf started melting close to 100 years ago.
It doesn't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are 2 basic threads to anti-anthropogenic global warming arguments...
The first is, "It's not really happening, you've cherry-picked your data and/or misinterpreted it." and the refutation usually seems to consist of cherry-picked data with very specific interpretations.
The second is, "It's not anthropogenic, it's natural, because of..." with some reason or other.
For the moment I won't take sides on either thread, but I'm going to take very serious issue with the second. However I get the very distinct feeling with both threads that the real message is, "Since global warming is not real / not anthropogenic, we don't need to modify our actions. We can keep our fossil-fuel-based energy and transportation, unmodified." (and business models, might I add...)
But assuming you're on the second thread, and assuming you're saying that global warming is real, just not man-caused, it must be apparent that we simply cannot keep going the way we are. We must come to grips with a changing environment. Global warming means more energy into the atmosphere, and that means more water evaporates and moves from place to place. Some places get even more water, some places get even less, storms get stronger, and it's not even a smoking-gun kind of thing, it's statistical. No new killer drought or killer flood or killer tornado, just a slow ramp on the severity and frequency of the ones we have.
All the while people living in marginal areas get stressed, our agricultural systems get stressed, our emergency response systems get stressed. It's not "a disaster", it's more of the disasters we've had all along.
Not planning for it, not studying it very carefully to understand the extent, not taking some action to mitigate it, is hiding our head in the sand, and waiting to get smacked in the butt.
When you get flattened by a giant rock, you're just as dead if the rock rolled off a cliff as if it was dropped by a crane. One is "natural", the other "anthropogenic", but you're still dead.
Re: (Score:2)
In order to plan for it, one must be able to predict it. I don't have any confidence in climatologists to be able to predict the temperature increase, nor (to any useful level of detail) the effects of any temperature increase.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Some marginally inhabitable places may become uninhabitable, but other uninhabitable places may become habitable.
It's change, not always bad, or always good. Fighting against global warming is acting like the RIAA in the face of online music downloading. You arn't going to be able to stop it, so you best learn how to deal with it. Prepare to deal with people moving from flooded areas, and prepare to plant crops futher north in Canada/Siberia, those melted glaciers will expose rich virgin soil that will need
Re: (Score:3)
Gary Cooper. High Noon. (Score:4, Interesting)
Global warming is happening.
Why do we care whether global warming is human-caused, or not? Are we all Catholics trying to assess guilt? What does it matter whether or not global warming is human caused or not? Global warming is here and it is happening. The cow is already out of the barn.
What's relevant is whether or not humans can alter the course of global warming.
Answer is obvious! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a metric Giza Pyramid, or a US/Imperial Giza Pyramid?