Climatologists: By 2100, the Earth Will Have an Entirely Different Ocean 417
merbs writes: The ocean is in the midst of radical, manmade change. It can seem kind of crazy that one of the most immense properties on Earth—the ocean washes over 71 percent of the planet—could be completely transformed by a swarm of comparatively tiny, fleshy mammals. But humans are indeed remaking the ocean, in almost every conceivable way. The ocean we know today—that billions swim, fish, float, and surf in—that vast planetary body of water will be of an entirely different character by the end of the century: hotter, higher, trashier, and more acidic.
That's stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno if it's the summary or the article that's trash, but wow. Terrible.
Re:That's stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The ocean is pretty big first of all, and second of all, it isn't homogenous. We're not talking about a lake here. In other words, you can cause total devastation in one area and still have another area remain pristine. In fact we've already observed that today, for example in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP spill, or the various naturally dead spots throughout the globe.
As far as the fish stocks, that's caused by overfishing and has nothing to do with pollution.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as the fish stocks, that's caused by overfishing and has nothing to do with pollution.
Bullshit. Ocean acidification, a form of pollution. Temperature increases. Habitat destruction. All of these play a significant role in fish stock depletion.
Re:That's stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard this argument before. Basically it goes like this: If the Christians are wrong, then no big deal, but if they're right, then we're all in trouble unless we believe in Jesus.
All Species have Already Survived Climate Change (Score:5, Insightful)
If science is correct and climate change is real and is being caused by humans, then doing something about it means everybody gets to live. If the climate change deniers are wrong, then everything dies.
Sorry but while I absolutely agree that we should take climate change seriously and do what we can to minimize the effect what you say is clearly not even vaguely correct. The Earth has been through natural climate change cycles in the past and all the species now on the planet have survived such changes.
What none of these dire predictions seem to take into account is that climate change should open up new areas where plants, coral reefs etc. can grow. 10,000 years ago the planet was in the grip of an ice age. Much of northern Europe and North America was underneath a giant ice sheet which melted. As the climate warmed the regions favourable for plants moved and species started growing in different areas as the climate changed. The problem with man-made climate change is that it might happen a lot faster than most natural change (except for volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes etc. which are even faster). Life has survived all of these disasters and it will survive man-made climate change as will we (unless we do something really stupid like start a nuclear war) but it might be very unpleasant.
What I would love to see is some sort of balanced, objective look at climate change. Hyped up articles like this that are clearly interested in pushing one point of view regardless of evidence convince nobody and risk a "boy who cried wolf" effect where people will ignore real warnings of problems due to climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry but while I absolutely agree that we should take climate change seriously and do what we can to minimize the effect what you say is clearly not even vaguely correct. The Earth has been through natural climate change cycles in the past and all the species now on the planet have survived such changes.
If the ocean dies, everything dies. That's not hyperbole, it's reality.
Re: (Score:3)
If the ocean dies, everything dies. That's not hyperbole, it's reality.
Yes but my point is that there is no evidence provided that this will happen. If you look at one region of the ocean, throw in your climate change model and come up with a prediction that none of the species living there now will survive then you do not have enough evidence to conclude that all life in the oceans will die.
To conclude that all life in the ocean will die you need to also check to make sure that the new conditions are not favourable to other species which might not be present in that regio
Re: (Score:3)
It's unnecessary to pedantically interpret "the oceans will die" as "100.000% of all life in the oceans will die" although I appreciate it does grant you licence to rattle off on a pointless tangent.
We couldn't exterminate all life in Earth's oceans if we tried. That doesn't mean that the ocean can't "die" for all intents and purposes; imagine if plankton began dying out. Naturally something else will step straight into its place.. unless it doesn't.
Earth's oceans are under a range of increasing anthropomor
Re: (Score:3)
What I would love to see is some sort of balanced, objective look at climate change. Hyped up articles like this that are clearly interested in pushing one point of view regardless of evidence convince nobody and risk a "boy who cried wolf" effect where people will ignore real warnings of problems due to climate change.
What you seem to not realize is that the mass extinction events of the past made extinct the most dominant species of the time (dinosaurs for example). Guess what the most dominant species is today? Humans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What you seem to not realize is that the mass extinction events of the past made extinct the most dominant species of the time (dinosaurs for example).
Only there are two flaws with that. First the dinosaurs did not go extinct and are still around today only smaller and with a different name: birds. Secondly we have one evolutionary advantage: intelligence. This lets us adapt far, far more rapidly to change than evolution and may even help reverse climate change: either by reducing our environmental impact or by geo-engineering.
Climate change is a concern but one that stops far short of the end of life on earth. It may cause massive disruption, a drop
Re:All Species have Already Survived Climate Chang (Score:4, Insightful)
What utter crap.
Birds may or may not have evolved from dinosaurs, but that does not make them dinosaurs for any reasonable definition of bird or dinosaur. Perhaps you also think that whales are land mammals.
If there was not some significant event in the past there would be no reason for these small feathered derivatives to survive while the actual dinos died out. I get that it's fun for misinformed science teachers to throw in the erroneous "birds are dinosaurs" factoid along with "centrifugal force doesn't exist" and "glass is liquid" for wide-eyed students but let's leave it there. To state that a particular class of life has survived by pointing to a far-removed derivative is a cop out and adds nothing useful to discussions about extinction.
Hotter, higher, trashier, and more acidic? (Score:2)
Sounds like college.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:That's stupid (Score:4, Informative)
What I'm saying is that when we create problems, we tend to be pretty well self correcting.
In case you haven't noticed, people like Michael Mann have been predicting environmental doomsday scenarios for a long time now, several of which were supposed to have come true already, only they haven't.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:That's stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Man's 3% of emissions seems to matter more than nature's 97%. Anyone who believes the climate change crap is not using their brain.
When the 97% of nature is in balance, then the 3% of mankind's emissions will be enough to put it out of balance.
It seems that someone doesn't understand how an equilibrium works. You can use your brain and still be wrong if you don't understand the problem in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
nono
If you take a balance scale, and put 1 kg on either side of it, then adding 30g more on just one side will make it still be a scale - nothing those 30g can do will change that.
Re:That's stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Man's 3% of emissions seems to matter more than nature's 97%. Anyone who believes the climate change crap is not using their brain.
When the 97% of nature is in balance, then the 3% of mankind's emissions will be enough to put it out of balance.
It seems that someone doesn't understand how an equilibrium works. You can use your brain and still be wrong if you don't understand the problem in the first place.
Moreover, the anthropogenic nature of the changes (or not) is irrelevant. Other than providing clues for how to counter the changes, the source of the changes doesn't matter. If we don't do something about them, it's gonna suck. It's also important that we realize that our options for "doing something" are not limited to merely trying to limit our contribution to change. We can also act to directly oppose or reverse the change.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It simply IS (Score:3)
Just like decreasing ice-caps, sea-level rises, and increasingly chaotic weather. And threatening changes in major ocean currents .. like the atlantic conveyor belt (see e.g. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blo... [carbonbrief.org]).
And they could be mand-made to ... and in all probability are. Except in the US of course. There they're just "God hugging us closer".
Re:That's stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
If any part of literally every single previous runaway prediction model had been correct, we'd be in runaway mode right now.
Bullshit. The actual runaway levels are so high that we're nowhere near them at the moment. So there's no way you can prove those models wrong today.
This sounds more like ... (Score:5, Funny)
hotter, higher, trashier
Are we sure they're not making predictions about the next generation of Kardashians? They're definitely anthropogenic. Maybe we could bury them under millions of black plastic balls [plasticsnews.com] .
Re: (Score:3)
Don't. They'll probably just cram the plastic balls into their tits.
Don't worry! (Score:3, Interesting)
In 85 years we'll have flying cars, submersible habitats, colonies on the moon, we'll be terraforming Mars and flying around in spaceships.
Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
Even Ted Danson predicted that the Oceans would be dead in the 1990's (dead before 2000). https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... [yahoo.com]
Can the folks who predicted this latest disaster be held accountable?
Re:Don't worry! (Score:5, Insightful)
In 85 years we'll have flying cars, submersible habitats, colonies on the moon, we'll be terraforming Mars and flying around in spaceships. Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
Hey we got computers that could beat people at chess. Be patient, its just taking a little longer than expected. :-)
Re:Don't worry! (Score:4, Insightful)
Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
They weren't experts in political malfeasance [reason.com] so they probably accurately projected out the slopes of current trends at the time - not realizing that the economy was in the process of being wrecked.
The popular expression of the common realization that this has happened is "where are the flying cars?" (thermodynamics notwithstanding).
Re: (Score:2)
In 85 years we'll have flying cars, submersible habitats, colonies on the moon, we'll be terraforming Mars and flying around in spaceships.
Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
Even Ted Danson predicted that the Oceans would be dead in the 1990's (dead before 2000). https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... [yahoo.com]
Can the folks who predicted this latest disaster be held accountable?
Ted Danson the actor is an "expert"? Unless there is an actively researching and publishing climatologist or oceanographer that has the same name. We do have flying cars by the way. Technology has been there for a while. It was just the failure mode is unforgiving for a population that can't turn signals most the time. Experts tend to be right about predictable things such as technological progress and modelling of the natural world. Humanity though, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
In 85 years we'll have flying cars, submersible habitats, colonies on the moon, we'll be terraforming Mars and flying around in spaceships. Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
If you consider writers of fiction to be experts. Which might explain why you believe the lies of climate science denialists.
Re: (Score:2)
can we stop holding up spurious "science" "news " reporting and celebrities has the pillars of the scientific community?
seriously. Unless its about a Cheers reunion or something, who gives a F what Ted Danson makes a prediction about?
Re:Don't worry! (Score:5, Informative)
The oceans are already measurably warmer and more acidic, you fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
my favorite are the articles that ridicule al gore for riding private jets
as if he had a choice and could use a magic carpet
he's stuck with the technology we have today, which does not preclude him from the valid observation that we are changing the climate, and that we should do something about it
even if he hiked from meeting to meeting the morons still wouldn't listen to him
the "logic" is:
"al gore rides a private jet, therefore we can ignore the evidence of climate change"
this is their actual thought proc
Re:Don't worry! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Don't worry! (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly
useful idiots
used, like tools. their heads filled with nonsense that push their simpleminded predictable buttons, and they're wound up like angry little robots, and let loose on facebook feeds and polling stations, rendering the country more stupid, in the service of an agenda that hurts everyone, including the idiots, except some plutocrats
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas the key he's looking for can be found at either end of the second row up.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's be honest: he could fly coach.
(Or, more realistically since the Secret Service would nix that, he could hitch a ride with the military)
Aside from that, you're right that using the private jets thing as an excuse to ignore his argument is fucking stupid..
Re: (Score:3)
That's an awfully high horse you're on there.
You're right about AlGore. The fact that he got in early and made a fortune from AGW related government programs that he supported, does not in and of itself detract from the arguments supporting AGW.
I just wish you'd apply the same standards to your opposition, as in; Romney is automatically disqualified from having an opinion on the poor; Trump is a hypocrite on trade because his shirts were made in Mexico, etc.
In fact, given the way you just ran your oppositio
Re:Don't worry! (Score:4, Insightful)
do we take creationists seriously?
do we take antivaxxers seriously?
do we take 9/11 truthers seriously?
denying climate change is the exact same order of blind ignorant faith over overwhelming facts
what the hell are you talking about? there is no middle ground. there is reality, and there is nothing else
there is magic middle ground between reality and propaganda or reality and wish fulfillment fantasy. i have to take such people seriously?
everyone is entitled to their own opinion. but absolutely no one is entitled to their own magic facts
climate change is real and happening. there's no debate. there's no argument. either you accept that, and consider yourself someone who is in touch reality, or you deny that and be an idiot
an idiot: i'm not throwing around empty insults here. what else do you call someone who in their prideful ignorance rejects basic facts? someone who is a creationist for example and denies the established facts of evolution: this is a person i have to engage? no, this is a person who needs to be utterly rejected. they are not part of any reasonable debate. there is no help for them as they have substituted magic narrative for basic facts of reality
Re: (Score:2)
So ocean pH dropped by 0.1 pH in the last 300 million years, and 0.1 degrees C in the last century.
So lighten up, Francis, hasn't changed much
Re:Don't worry! (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you for your polite response, but you missed the point, and perhaps I did not express it well.
The point is this: With friends like Al Gore et al, who needs enemies? With Billy Clinton saying it's settled science, who is going to believe it?
Gore's clowning approach detracts from discussion and realization of the actual issue --- you see or listen to him and you say, "this can't be true" and move on, which is unfortunately not helpful, because even though he is a clown, he could actually be right about some things.
Science is supposed to be objective, not political. But the AGW issue has become about 99% about politics. That will not help recognize and resolve the issues. And people taking obviously extreme positions (either way) detract from the discussion by diverting the focus onto their ranting and raving, rather than remaining with looking for viable solutions.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: Don't worry! (Score:5, Interesting)
More than 90% (Score:3)
The Permian-Triassic extinction event didn't just kill of 90% of all life. It killed of 90% of all species - that is, it killed off 100% of 90% of species. Of the remaining 10%, it killed off 99% of some species, 98% of others, and so on. It was frighteningly close to sterilizing the planet.
Humans do have the capability to actually do that - sterilize the planet. It's highly unlikely, but possible if the entire world economy were dedicated to that - and it could be, as a side effect, because of two importan
Re: Don't worry! (Score:2)
Funding, mostly.
The oceans have radically changed before ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It can seem kind of crazy that one of the most immense properties on Earth—the ocean washes over 71 percent of the planet—could be completely transformed by a swarm of comparatively tiny, fleshy mammals.
Why? The oceans have radically changed before due to the actions of microbes. It may have taken them longer but the change were even more dramatic.
There is no "normal" earth atmosphere, no "normal" earth ocean. To humans there is merely the incarnation of the atmosphere and ocean that we evolved in, that is good for us and the other creatures and plants that evolved "contemporaneously" to us.
Re:The oceans have radically changed before ... (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who don't read the article:
“The level of CaCO3 saturation would decrease by 50 percent or more, and colder oceans would become corrosive to CaCO3 shells,” Taro said. Plus, the last time the oceans got this acidic this fast, 96 percent of marine life went extinct.
Once it gets acidic enough the plankton [wikipedia.org] are done for, and they compromise the base of the food chain in the ocean. Yanking that out kills just about everything else, save a handful of species like jellyfish. The many humans who depend on the ocean for food will also be troubled to say the least. This really isn't an academic matter about what is normal or changing; this issue is both more urgent and far more serious than any expected effects of global warming.
The science is rock solid and very simple, and the historical record leaves no room for misinterpretation. What CO2 we put into the air, ends up in the ocean, and we can project the acidity like clockwork merely using the record of the carbon we dump into the air each year. By 2100 it will already be too late; we need to begin addressing this before 2050, and in earnest. It is difficult, but not impossible with a rapid expansion in nuclear power, but no other source can scale fast enough.
"Environmentalists" fighting tooth and nail to dismantle carbon-free nuclear generation, and insisting that we can decarbonize with renewables alone will doom the oceans if they have their way. If you are supporting anti-nuclear organizations like Friends of the Earth, Green Peace, or the Sierra Club, please think about just how foolish their priorities are before the challenges we face. Consider Ecomodernism [ecomodernism.org] for a perspective that values preserving the environment, rather than adhering to a rigid and ineffective ideology.
Acidification, Climate & Energy [youtube.com] is a talk given by Dr. Alex Cannara at TEAC7, and it outlines the staggering extent of the problem, and how we can begin to address it. Dr. Cannara has also given a number of other talks on the subject, and searching for "ocean acidification" on youtube will keep one busy for hours. Incidentally, addressing ocean acidification will also resolve global warming, particulate pollution, energy poverty, and population growth as welcome side effects. It all begins with rational energy policy though, and discarding the notion that we can afford to rule out our most powerful carbon-free energy source.
Re:The oceans have radically changed before ... (Score:5, Interesting)
" This really isn't an academic matter about what is normal or changing; this issue is both more urgent and far more serious than any expected effects of global warming."
It gets worse than that. Plankton generate 50% of the oxygen in the atmosphere and equally are responsible for extracting huge amounts of CO2.
Re:The oceans have radically changed before ... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Environmentalists" fighting tooth and nail to dismantle carbon-free nuclear generation, and insisting that we can decarbonize with renewables alone will doom the oceans if they have their way
Ah, the "only nuclear can safe us" myth. When looking at this without ideology, one quickly learns that nuclear is simply too expensive. As such, it is not a solution to any problem - investing in nuclear makes the situation worse by wasting resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the "only nuclear can safe us" myth. When looking at this without ideology, one quickly learns that nuclear is simply too expensive. As such, it is not a solution to any problem - investing in nuclear makes the situation worse by wasting resources.
But at least, I think that keeping our nuclear plants (it doesn't mean going all-nuclear) is better than investing in coal... We often use Germany as an example for "green" power because they do plenty of wind and solar but shutting down the nukes and replacing them with new generation coal plants is probably not the best for our planet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Environmentalists" fighting tooth and nail to dismantle carbon-free nuclear generation, and insisting that we can decarbonize with renewables alone will doom the oceans if they have their way
Ah, the "only nuclear can safe us" myth. When looking at this without ideology, one quickly learns that nuclear is simply too expensive. As such, it is not a solution to any problem - investing in nuclear makes the situation worse by wasting resources.
No, you are operating under the myth that we have the time to wait for renewables like solar and wind. We don't, decades of science and engineering are ahead of us. Even then the ability to manufacture sufficient battery (or alternative) storage is unknown. We need nuclear as a bridge. The cost of nuclear is not an issue since we don't have the time. We need to take coal offline immediately. However the shift to renewables combined with a shift away from nuclear is causing more coal to go online as a backup
Re: (Score:2)
It is difficult, but not impossible with a rapid expansion in nuclear power, but no other source can scale fast enough.
I'd like to point out that around 6000 GW of PV capacity is predicted to be installed by 2050. I'd also like to point out that all PV cost and capacity predictions so far have been hopelessly conservative and wildly surpassed by actual events, years or even decades ahead of time.
Having said that, this planet could surely use a few hundred extra nuclear reactors.
Re: (Score:3)
Science fail. This is why we can't have nice things.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yup, the earth will survive in one form or another, just like life will survive in one form or another.
Conservation of the current environment isn't about preserving life on earth, it is about preserving the ecological niche in which humanity lives.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "normal" earth atmosphere, no "normal" earth ocean. To humans there is merely the incarnation of the atmosphere and ocean that we evolved in
Despite our abilities to adapt to changes in our environment, it's worth pointing out that our current ability to survive on this rock which is surrounded by millions of miles of near vacuum is based on millenia of evolution (or simple divine genesis if you prefer) which depends on that atmosphere and ocean in it's current incarnation. Forget the fish and the plankton and the dolphins - it's the humans which will encounter difficulties when they are all gone, or altered so radically that one of our primary
Re: (Score:2)
That's just talking past the point.
It's having changed before isn't really relevant, and for the very reasons you bring up yourself: Besides the fact that changes over a few million years are rather different frm changes occurring over a handful of centuries, you yourself said we rather need it in a certain state for our own survival, and changing that state is bad for us. Saying its changed before to excuse us changing it now is stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying its changed before to excuse us changing it now is stupidity.
Good thing I didn't say that and was only expressing non-surprise that something as "immense" as the oceans can be changed by a single species. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
What's your problem? They now get a brand new pool in their basement. For free I might add!
Re: (Score:3)
The Earth will not in any worst case scenario of climate change become like Venus. Acting like we are headed towards a Venus doesn't help anything.
Doom and gloom (Score:4, Funny)
i'm so tired of doom and gloom. Can't scientists ever say nice things?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to see the good side in things. Think about it: As soon as humanity is extinct, the world will be a much better place and all those expensive downtown apartments will be easy and cheap to get.
Now isn't that something to look forward to?
Slashdot Paradox (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot is normally science-aligned. But I am surprised at how Slashdotters suddenly seem to become something akin to flat-earthers when it comes to *scientific consensus* on climate change. I don't recall this community always being like this.
Re:Slashdot Paradox (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I read every article and comment, but I think Slashdot shifted from pro-AGW to anti after the Climategate stuff was released, but also broadly, we had too many people claiming that we had just 4 years to save the planet, and that was a long time ago now.
Disclosure: my own view is that climate change is simply one instance of a class of problems which are global, global in that, they can't be solved by any one government acting alone, so it is these global problems which may necessitate humanity to
Re: (Score:3)
2579 Characters, 465 Words
1 Paragraph, 1 Sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
And 49 phrases, which is why it's just about readable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You ever heard the story of the boy that cried wolf?
Expect people to doubt you if you're going to make apocalyptic prophecies and they fall through time and time again.
When religion does this people like you call it a fraud, when science does it people like you act surprised that no one bothers listening anymore after the Nth time you get it wrong.
I don't think people here are denying the basic chemistry, just the endless predictions of hell on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
You ever heard the story of the boy that cried wolf? Expect people to doubt you if you're going to make apocalyptic prophecies and they fall through time and time again.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong. Or lying.
Then they told us that there was no warming, sorry, we were wrong before when we said there was warming, but here's a single word in an email we
Re:Slashdot Paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called Crying Wolf effect.
We've now had 20 years of hyperbolic, ridiculous claims from the AGW advocates, none of which has actually come to pass.
There have been histrionic predictions about disappearing glaciers, extinct polar bears, 50cm+ rising seas, 50 million climate refugees, catastrophic hurricane seasons, ice-free arctic, all which should have come to pass by now. We've had spurious statistics, cooked data, 'smoothing', manufactured data, bent hockey-sticks, collusive behavior outright mendacity and "dog ate my homework"-level excuses for missing original data. I won't even begin to describe the number of errors in An Inconvenient Truth. Couple that to the near-zealotry exhibited by the faithful, and it's not hard to understand why the moderate middle reacts negatively to the latest FUD.
I'm not saying that the anti-Global Warming "industry" hasn't been equally egregious in their attack on global warming, but truth isn't determined by whoever shouts the loudest. If you have a radical assertion, that will require significant proof.
At a certain point, people stop listening.
Re:Slashdot Paradox (Score:5, Informative)
There have been histrionic predictions about disappearing glaciers, extinct polar bears, 50cm+ rising seas, 50 million climate refugees, catastrophic hurricane seasons, ice-free arctic, all which should have come to pass by now.
I agree, 'crying wolf' is a near-perfect way to ruin one's credibility.
Hyperbole sells movies, not science. However, there's precious little hyperbole coming from the scientists themselves.
The predictions you mention really are coming to pass. Jellies have hit their stride, they're filling the oceans. Polar bears really are dying out. Local weather systems really are making landfall with more energy than they used to. Arctic ice really is disappearing very quickly.
I live in New Zealand. Like many tourists to our little country, I to have naughtily stood upon the tongue of the Franz Josef glacier. I did this in 2000 and it looks quite different only fifteen years later, judging by this Herald article [nzherald.co.nz].
This is reality. That fact that it is not happening nearly as fast as we were led to believe by our hyperbolous media and silly disaster movies like '2012' should come as a surprise to absolutely no-one.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the climate changing? Yes. Do humans play a part? Yes. Will life as we know it be exterminated in 100 years? No.
Re:Slashdot Paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a working scientist, I read the climategate emails, they are completely ordinary, there's nothing to see. A few out of context quotes appeared in the press and gave bad impression, that's all it was.
Re:Slashdot Paradox (Score:4, Insightful)
As a "working scientist', do you normally conspire to circumvent FOI requests.
Also while I'm sure gaming the peer review system is normal, that does not make it a good thing.
Re:Slashdot Paradox (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, Phil said he'd prefer not to give McI the data. The data was mostly elsewhere. The rest wasn't his to give away. Yours was a total lie.
Your BS is also in effect with "They couldn't even "risk" a peer review", no such claim ANYWHERE is supported.
Re:Slashdot Paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
Thirdly, go re-read the Climategate emails.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong. Or lying.
Then they told us that there was no warming, sorry, we were wrong before when we said there was warming, but here's a single word in an email we heard about that proves the data was manipulated - no! don't look at the data! no!
They were lying
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong or lying.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
Very disappointed... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm quite disappointed in Slashdots readers.
Many of the people who read Slashdot are IT sector workers which means that many of us lead data led lives. We support, manage, process and analyse data irrespective of whether or not it paints a pretty picture.
The information contained in this article is absolutely nothing new at all, most of it has been known since the 1970's. You can not pump carbon into the atmosphere and expect there to be no consequence, much of that carbon is absorbed by the sea converting it to carbonic acid. This isn't news its olds, the difference now is that we can put a date on the likely tipping point for significant change. The data can't be argued with you might as well shout at a brick wall. Science will report on both the data and findings and what it means working with current projections. you may argue about the destination, but the projections are accurate and in-line with expectations. What I would be interested un seeing is the data that projects either a deferment or reversal of change and what the requirements would be.
Be my guest however, complain about how negative it all is while doing nothing about it. Afterall its easy to believe in the la-la fairy its alright alternative than face a reality.
Re: (Score:2)
We support, manage, process and analyse data irrespective of whether or not it paints a pretty picture.
Yeah but in business its usually a bad idea to manipulate the data to create a specific picture... however in academia...
i wonder what will happen to ... (Score:2)
Screw that (Score:2)
Who needs a climate? I have air condition. Sea levels rising? Why should I care, my apartment is at over 1500 feet above sea level, even if all the ice on the planet melted this won't bother me. And I have a gun, so if any of those rich bastards try to escape their flooded beach houses and climb my mountain it's going to be an unpleasant wake up call.
I used to fight in this war. I used to try to convince people that it might be a good idea to at least ponder whether it could be right since, well, if it is,
Re: (Score:2)
I sympathise, I really do. I'm so pissed off with politicians and business who weasel their way around the science with transparent "concerns for jobs and the economy". Screw them - they don't get my vote, and as far as is practical, they don't get my $$$; e.g. I need a car to do my job, but I research the manufacturers carefully before making a decision to buy. Ditto my other purchasing decisions.
But I would rather my descendants be able retain some respect for me and my efforts to do better, rather than j
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I'm with the weasels here. When the time comes around that our descendants curse us for our idiocy, I'll be long gone, dead, buried and forgotten. Just like these greedy bastards and their political whores will be dead and gone, not giving half a shit about the crap they left in their wake.
Sorry. Not caring anymore. I choose to fight battles where my effort at least has a little bit of impact.
Is anyone else tired of the alarmism? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s... [newsbusters.org]
I cite that just because its funny and underscores what is going on.
You have some people saying reasonable things and talking about the science. And then you have dumb journalists running around like chickens with their heads cut off... collecting the most extreme quotes they possibly can to get the most insane headlines.
I'm not interested in the alarmism and I'm not alone. Millions are just tuning it out. I think that political tactic and media tactic has reached the point of diminishing returns.
Moving forward, I'd just like the science... with full acknowledgment of the uncertainties and no attempt to advocate for any given solution.
Just give me the information. Bias the results to try and get a panic reaction out of me and there's a good chance I'll spot it and then rather than convince me, I'll just distrust your paper.
I'm not anti environmental improvement. However, I'd like that improvement to be more than a ploy. There are a lot of alterior motives in this issue at this point.
1. The politicians can use it as a weapon. Al Gore didn't get into this for nothing.
2. The corporations love it because they get massive pork spending for green projects. The money going to GE etc for this stuff was unheard of before the AGW issue.
3. The Universities get too much grant money to not want to keep the fire burning on this issue. The issue cools and the grant money falls off with it.
4. The UN sees the issue as a means to political relevance outside the security council.
5. Various little countries can use the issue to justify demands for aid. The "help us because of colonialism" etc has sort of worn off. Help us because AGW is relevant.
6. The AGW issue can be used to justify protectionist policies against East Asian economies in China and India.
It goes on and on and on and on and on. So... I just want the science without the politics and the advocacy and the lobbying and the gaslighting and the endless fucking pathos.
Re:Is anyone else tired of the alarmism? (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Politicians on BOTH sides use it as a weapon - but only the GOP makes it a focus. Democrats talk about being pro-environment, while the GOP vilifies the scientist. As for Al Gore - he did what he did after QUITTING politics.
2. The corporations make far more money polluting than they do fighting pollution.
3. The Universities get grant money from both sides - but you only hear about it from the green side because their studies are the one that keeping being proven, while the polluters keep getting negative results.
4. Anyone that thinks the UN needs to be relevant - inside or outside the security council has no idea what they do. It's not just about peace, it's about cooperation, education, etc. etc. etc. The UN doesn't need this issue.
5. You are totally correct that little countries complain about this. You are totally stupid if you think that they aren't telling the truth. The big kids bully the little kids, not the other way around. Calling the little kids whiners says more about you than it does about the little kids.
6. We don't need to justify protectionist policies, the Republicans are more than happy enough to do it for no reason.
It goes on and on and on - only because you refuse to admit there is a real problem. We need research and political limitations to delay it until we have a scientific solution. Yes that means some sacrifice from us today to help our children tomorrow. Only an douche-bag insists on spending their money on a big TV without putting anything into the kids college fund.
Beaches without garbage have become rare. (Score:2)
I have to say, everytime I visit a beach somewhere it's nigh impossible not to see some garbage littered here and there. Either by visitors or by garbage washed ashore. Back in the 80ies I remember seeing nice beaches without garbage, but I'd bet money that they have become rare in the mean time.
We are fucking up our planet for no good reason - to me there is no doubt about it.
It will all be better if Jeremy Corbyn is PM (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe you. In the 70's it was going to be an ice age, now it is going to be a heat wave. Is the data real or manipulated?
Face it we just do not have a friggin' clue as to what is actually going to happen as the climate swings wildly with an increased oscillation as the oceans heat up and the poles thaw out. Obviously the more energy you put into the ocean and atmosphere the more the currents will change in unpredictable ways. Like bad computer code with too many variables the possibilities are highly unpredictable.
For one it is entirely possible that increases in global temperatures causing forest fires across the boreal fore
Re:They Lie (Score:5, Informative)
I don't believe you.
Then you're an idiot.
In the 70's it was going to be an ice age,
Nope, never happened. Oooh I see you're confusing journalists in the popular press floundering around with actual science. Do you do that with computer stuff too, or do you only level your skepticism on things you truly don't understand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like we have two idiots!
You are Confused (Score:4, Insightful)
And there, folks, is the attitude that The True Believers have towards anyone who questions their religion/hypothesis/politics, despite the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They definitely don't have the latter, so responses are as above or 'shut up' or 'fuck off' or...
You are confusing "extraordinary claims" with "extraordinary impacts". One is a scientific term, the other an economic term. The fact that CO2 will acidify the ocean is elementary school chemistry (my kid did a science fair project to demonstrate it in 5th grade). It really isn't rocket science. The impact on the ocean food chain is also very well documented (which is what the article is about), but it is not an extreme claim - it was predicted back in the mid 1800s and wasn't particularly controversial then.
To give a completely different example, an asteroid impact destroying civilisation is not a extraordinary claim if you have any familiarity with the fossil record and basic mechanics, but it would certainly have an extraordinary um impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, even back in the 1970s there were more scientists who were inclined to believe in global warming than in global cooling. It is just that cooling was more interesting to put in the news...
For instance, Global warming was one of the more important topics of the Stockholm Conference [wikipedia.org] in 1972 (the biggest conference on the environment in the 70's) , while global cooling wasn't even hinted at.
Of course not all of the world is warming right now.
Some parts of the world are indeed cooling (temporarily) bec
Re:They Lie (Score:5, Informative)
I don't believe you.
Your beliefs make no difference to reality. Are you hoping to fairy wish climate change away? - "timmy you can do it! you just have to believe!"
In the 70's it was going to be an ice age, now it is going to be a heat wave.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong.
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
Is the data real or manipulated?
I once had a guy here claim that the measured rate of warming was insignificant and posted a link to woodfortrees to prove it. I went and looked. It turns out, he'd carefully selected a narrow band of measures along the equator (where the warming is the least) and excluded the temperate and polar zones to reduce the warming measures. In short he lied.
I pointed this out to him, and he disappeared. Yet I have seen, several times, the same link re-appear.
So: who is manipulating data?
Re: (Score:2)
More power to them. Stick it to da libertard!
Humanity as a species has existed for far too long. It's time we finally give that planet a rest.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
-No, the sun isn't the reason for the seasons. The reason is the earths axial tilt. If there was no tilt, there would be no seasons.
-No, solar flares do not affect climate. They do affect 'space weather' and thus satellites and the upper atmosphere, but not our weather down on the surface.
-No, solar output is not responsible for the warming. If it were, we would be cooling right now, as the sun output has trended downward the last few decades.
-No, Al Gore didn't predict the Arctic would be ice free. He was
Re: (Score:2)