Greenland Is Melting Even Faster Than Experts Thought, Study Finds (cnn.com) 265
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Climate change is eliminating giant chunks of ice from Greenland at such a speed that the melt has already made a significant contribution to sea level rise, according to a new study. With global warming, the island will lose much more, threatening coastal cities around the world. Forty percent to 50% of the planet's population is in cities that are vulnerable to sea rise, and the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is bad news for places like New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Tokyo and Mumbai.
Researchers reconstructed the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet by comparing estimates of the amount of ice that has been discharged into the ocean with the accumulation of snowfall in the drainage basins in the country's interior for the past 46 years. The researchers found that the rate of ice loss has increased sixfold since then -- even faster than scientists thought. Since 1972, ice loss from Greenland alone has added 13.7 millimeters (about half an inch) to the global sea level, the study estimates. The island's ice sheet is the leading source of water added to the ocean every year.
Researchers reconstructed the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet by comparing estimates of the amount of ice that has been discharged into the ocean with the accumulation of snowfall in the drainage basins in the country's interior for the past 46 years. The researchers found that the rate of ice loss has increased sixfold since then -- even faster than scientists thought. Since 1972, ice loss from Greenland alone has added 13.7 millimeters (about half an inch) to the global sea level, the study estimates. The island's ice sheet is the leading source of water added to the ocean every year.
Every prediction seems to underestimate (Score:2)
Media Bias (Score:3)
Each time confidence increases it seems to centre around a worse spot than before.
While this might be true this is where you can legitimately argue media bias in that media are going to deliberately select the studies with the worse possible outcomes and predictions since these are the most newsworthy. While it may be that we have underestimated the impact on human-caused climate change you cannot tell this by looking at the media because there are more and more studies being done which means that there will be more studies with large statistical deviations.
For example, take a simple
Okay, guys (Score:1)
Iceland is really Greenland and Greenland is really Iceland. Somebody got the backward all naming.
Real Estate Agents (Score:2)
False advertizing since 1099!!!
Heads in the sand (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, the US media & politicians have their heads in the sand. The consistently fail to make the connections between the dramatic increase in frequency & intensity of extreme weather events that climate change models predict. We hear more from climate change deniers that from climate scientists. Internet forums are awash with dismissive comments & denialism. The USA is already suffering $billions in damages & losses, & it's only going to get worse. Just accept it:
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So.... who is right then? CNN or NASA?
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We can shout about the coming problems until we're blue in the face, but I seriously doubt anything will be done until it becomes an IMMEDIATE problem that simply can't be denied. It will have to smack us in the face with
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is real
Absolutely! The climate is constantly changing because it's large and complex. We also live in an "open system", so the climate here on the surface is affected by outside forces. The #1 influence is the Sun and our orbit around it.
We're feeling the effects now
I certainly hope so, because if you can't feel the effect, you're either dead or in a vacuum. :)
It's going to get a whole lot worse
That's pretty subjective. I think we can also say it'll get a whole lot better too. See your first item about how the climate is changing. Now, the change is on a geological scale so yo
Re: (Score:2)
You'll find idiots and inconsistencies in every news article, no matter what the topic.
If you want to inform yourself properly, ignore all that, and look directly at the science.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you see no issues with the same fabrication of information happening, across multiple media outlets in multiple places of the world?
On the contrary, there are plenty of issues with news articles. Most are designed to sell views, not to provide a balanced source of information. My conclusion is not that they are lying, or that the information is fabricated. They are merely not very interested in accuracy, and journalist typically know very little of the topics they are talking about.
I recommend looking through the news article for a link to the actual research paper, and read that instead. In this case: https://www.pnas.org/content/e... [pnas.org]
Re: (Score:2)
" If the big environmentalist groups are all for 'no-CO2' energy sources, why do they protest new nuclear plants being built"
File this under "Al Gore said a thing 10 years ago that I think might be wrong".
Ignore the activists. Listen to the scientists. The scientists are pretty adamant we need to get somewhere close to zero CO2 AND that Nuclear power might be an effective, if expensive, way to get there.
Re: (Score:2)
File this under "Al Gore said a thing 10 years ago that I think might be wrong".
I think you mean "file this under nearly all major environmental groups have been pushing this since the 1970's."
Ignore the activists. Listen to the scientists. The scientists are pretty adamant we need to get somewhere close to zero CO2 AND that Nuclear power might be an effective, if expensive, way to get there.
Uh-huh. Sure is ah....scincey in here isn't it. So, remind me again why a race to the bottom by punitively taxing the poor is the best way to help everyone. That's also the same stuff the scientists agree on, and of course there's also the scientists that say we shouldn't let Africa modernize.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: those `experts' on Fox News and Breitbart (the kind of places where you must have gotten this nonsense) are cherry-picked for their propaganda value. If they ever tell the truth that's simply a coincidence.
Factoid: You're only making yourself look like an idiot because you're unable to grasp what was said. If you were wanting to avoid that, you'd have tried harder. The bonus is, even an idiot like you can still make enough to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
But fall all over themselves for pulling rare earths out of the ground to build solar cells and windmills as a 'green' solution. ... and it is only optional in generators in windmills, not a requirement
1) rare earth are not rare, it is just a name they got 150 years ago
2) rare earth are not used in standard solar cells
3) the only rare earth that is used in wind mills is niob, a waste product of iron mining/refining
Regarding your question about nukes, many countries, like Germany, lack places where you can
Re: (Score:2)
3) the only rare earth that is used in wind mills is niob, a waste product of iron mining/refining ... and it is only optional in generators in windmills, not a requirement
You forget about neodymium?
Re: (Score:2)
2% is still not none - comment still stands.
Re: (Score:2)
Rare earths have do with their cost to extract them from other mining ventures. Second indium and gallium aren't rare earths now? And how about tellurium? Not rare enough for you? Rare earths are indeed used in windmills, most rare earths use today come from mines "at-near" to other high value mines, not irong.
Strange how Germany had built all those reactors. And until germany passed the Feed in Tariff law, Wind and Solar weren't competitive, they still aren't which is why they're not scrambling to bring
Re: (Score:2)
You people keep spouting the same lies over and over. No, wind turbines don't require rare earths because they don't require permanent magnets in the first place. 98% of existing US wind turbines use electromagnets made of such exotic materials as copper and iron.
So why do all those windmills in the US built in the last 20 years, use rare earths again? I mean, I can easily look up the make, model, rotation speed, maximum wind speed, who made the gear assemblies, and even the guts of the turbine assembly itself. Can you? No apparently not.
Give you a couple of tips as to why your "copper and iron" bit is bullshit. Transitory copper states in a magnetic field. And neither iron and copper are strong enough to hold against the basic forces of the windmill itself. T
Re: (Score:2)
Large scale windmills aren't goign to be using permanent magnets for their generators, as they simply are not powerful enough. Instead, there is an exciter that produces DC electricity and runs that through the field coils on the rotor. There will be some rare earths in the control electronics, but the vast majority of the generator will be made from iron and copper.
A static exciter is basically a large voltage controlled current supply that will send a certain amount of current through the rotor to generat
Re: (Score:2)
"lack places where you can build them" yet have the area for massive solar and windfarms to generate an equivalent amount of energy as nuclear.
You can mix wind turbines with farmland, and you can put solar on roofs. I see a lot of barns and industrial roofs full of solar panels around here.
Nuclear plants require massive amount of cooling, which means they need to be build next to a major river with sufficient cooling capacity. One of the problems we sometimes have around here is that in hot dry summers, the river runs low, and the water is already warm, so that power plants have to turned down to prevent overheating the water and killing the fish.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What environmental groups protest again is fairly irrelevant as they have little power.
Gonna stop you right there, because one can look at the anti-nuke nuts in Japan and the US, and see just how much of a line of bullshit it really boils down to. Then I'm going to remind you that it was those same environmental groups that were protesting against paper bags, bringing with us the glorious era of plastic bags everywhere!
What matters is what investors will invest in, and nuclear has a long pay back schedule so isn't very popular with them. Indeed, in the UK, the ground work was laid and protests put to one side and those originally intending to build nuclear plants have been pulling out because they can't make the economics work.
Well let's see. A nuclear reactor used to pay for itself in about 10 years. Today a windfarm and PV array has a payback period of around 30 years. What's the difference? NIM
Re: (Score:2)
A nuclear reactor used to pay for itself in about 10 years.
And how should that be possible? Hu?
Today a windfarm and PV array has a payback period of around 30 years.
No?
Re: (Score:2)
And how should that be possible? Hu?
By not having to require 28 environmental impact studies, and having it tied up in courts for 20 years.
No?
Yes. Those were the contracts signed previously the Liberal Party of Ontario and various "green energy" producers, including the outlay that the windmill or PV farm wouldn't reach solvency within it's operation lifetime, unless high Feed in Tariffs were charged. This happened. The new government nulled on existing contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
"because one can look at the anti-nuke nuts in Japan and the US, and see just how much of a line of bullshit it really boils down to" Yup, they have no power. The USA aren't doing any because the investors will not put money in, and Japan isn't because they#re still trying to scrape up the multiple trillions needed to clean up Fukishima. You probably "forgot" about that. So neither indicate ANY power in the environmental groups, since if they'd had any, then Fukushima would never have been built, and therefore it could not have been such a massive fuckup.
Oh really? So I guess those environmentalist groups tying things up in the courts for years is to simply help them along right? That is so much very not power in any form. Japan itself has massive issues with it's grid system because anti-nuke nuts protested even upgrades to existing nuclear power plants that would increase their safety. What didn't hear about that? Maybe go learn some moonrunes and stop digging that hole. You also seem to forget that the core "anti-nuke" movement in Japan is heavily
Re: (Score:2)
Whats the clean up cost of PV genius?
Depends on the type being used, and how it was manufactured. In some cases it' considered a toxic material, and has to be treated as such. You know that right?
Re: (Score:2)
If you think they have any particular power you are deluded.
So tell me something, why were protestors trying to block line 9 in Canada from operating in the opposite direction.
Neither of those assertions are correct.
Both of those assertions are correct, maybe you should go look up the coverage cost over lifetime and the number of years required to break even. Contractually. Go on. While you're at it, why not go look to everyone's favorite "germany is doing great with PV!" And ask why companies are still locking in at 25-30 years as the minimum amount of time to recoup manufacturing and installation cos
Re: (Score:2)
It's really about the rate of change. The faster you have these temperature changes, the more violent the path to equilibrium. It's not just the end result, but also all of the weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, etc.
False data? (Score:1)
And Last Month We Had This Bit Of News (Score:1, Interesting)
Key Greenland glacier growing again after shrinking for years, NASA study shows
“That was kind of a surprise.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/s... [nbcnews.com]
Not necessarily contradictory (Score:2)
Glacier melt rate is only the negative portion of the first derivative (rate of change in glacier's size). How much water is leaving the glacier every year?
Whether the glacier is growing or shrinking would be the sum of the negative and positive portions of the first derivative. How much water is leaving the glacier every year? Plus how much snow/ice is being added to the glacier every year. You could very well have a case where the glacier is melting faster than
There is probably nothing better ... (Score:3)
what scientists think (Score:2)
Completely meaningless.
Any methodology is based on a model. The model provides a bound. Scientists evaluate the paper, and then decide whether they trust the methodology, its execution, and its interpretation. For many reasons, however, extremely rough models are considered par for the course (aka "more funding required").
Meanwhile, no scientist is wedded to the notion that a superior
ok, water is rising...people move, so what? (Score:2)
Hopefully, a dam burst open. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, if it really is happening, maybe it will actually become green one day and they can stop being liars to attract immigration.
Re: News about climate change, (Score:2)
Donâ(TM)t know about Greenland, but was under the impression that Iceland is actually named for being a island, rather than the fact that it is very cold there!
øy [Re: News about climate change] (Score:2)
Donâ(TM)t know about Greenland, but was under the impression that Iceland is actually named for being a island, rather than the fact that it is very cold there!
Plausible. The Norse word for "Iceland" is "Island"! (note that they pronounce the "s" in that word).
But the Norwegian word for ice is "is", so in Norse, "island" literally means iceland, not island. Their word for island is øy.
etymology.com says it's named for ice-choked fjords. https://www.etymonline.com/sea... [etymonline.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Iceland is not that cold (it is nicely warmed by the gulf stream, people claim in Reykyavik it is rarely below 0C). But when the vikings discovered it, it was still covered with glaciers from the last 'ice age'.
Re: (Score:2)
Iceland is not that cold (it is nicely warmed by the gulf stream, people claim in Reykyavik it is rarely below 0C). But when the vikings discovered it, it was still covered with glaciers from the last 'ice age'.
It seems unlikely that the glaciers lasted for 10,000 years yet mostly vanished before 1900.
Re: (Score:3)
Do something about the voting system, and more importantly: about the voting fraud.
Living in a banana republic seem not to pain any american, strange.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, I'll get right on solving that. Should be done by next Thursday.
Re: (Score:2)
What voting fraud? The republicans seem awfully fond of trotting that little item out, but every time people look at the data, it always amount to a rounding error at best.
Gerrymandering and manipulations by election officials are many many orders of magnitude greater problems than voter fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
You ARE referring to the man Mueller said was not indicted BECAUSE POLICY NOT TO INDICT SITTING PRESIDENT, right?
Sounds like there is a child here alright
He's in your mirror
I Can't Wait to Go River Running in Greenland! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Last time Greenland was really green in human lifetime there were Vikings.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time Greenland was really green in human lifetime there were Vikings.
Meaning, that not so long ago, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Green was only the south tip.
And it is green again since about 50 years. They even farm Wheat there.
Re:News about climate change, (Score:5, Informative)
Greenland is still green in the areas that the Vikings visited.
Here are some pictures of old settlements:
https://oceanwide-expeditions.... [oceanwide-...itions.com]
The Greenland ice sheet in the middle is more than 100,000 years old, so it was solid ice even in the Viking time.
Re:News about climate change, (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So all "Greenland was green in Vikings time" claims are on very shaky ground. There might be a place in Greenland, or even several places, which indeed were warmer than today, but just a few miles away, you have spots, that are green today but weren't in Vikings time.
I thought that was obvious. As far as I know, nobody ever claimed that Greenland was "all green" during the Middle Ages, just that the southern coast (which is, by the way, at the same latitude as Iceland) was habitable thanks to mild summers and not to harsh winters (the big problem there is winter weather). All in all, South Greenland was probably quite green back then, like today [greenland-travel.com]; no need to use some conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:2)
A graph that doesn't even go to 2000, let alone 2018.
And so? I was answering this:
At the warmest time in Greenland in historical times (about 1100 AD), temperatures were as today. In 1000 AD, when Erik the Red was founding the settlements, it was about two degrees cooler [than 1100 AD]
That graph shows warmer weather around 950 AD (Erik's age) than a round 1100 AD or 1150 AD, that is why I said it tells a completely different story. But, after all, you are probably just a troll and not interested into establishing facts. The bottom line is that the idea that Erik the Red used the name Greenland as a scam is simply ridiculous and blindly believing it shows how much insecure some people are.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time Greenland was really green in human lifetime there were Vikings.
It wasn't green then, either, it was mostly ice. Just because some people managed to eke out a living, including large amounts of imports of food and goods (and exports of seal-related things) until trade fell apart doesn't mean it was particularly green.
Re:News about climate change, (Score:5, Informative)
The coast of Greenland is actually fairly verdant, considering its latitude and harsh winters. We're not talking Kauai levels of verdant, but more akin to the far-flung islands of the north atlantic like St Kilda. this is only along the coast, mind you: the edge of the ice cap is usually only a dozen or so miles inland.
But even during the only-slightly-warmer-period that the Vikings were around, Greenland was still mostly covered in ice. That time - the medieval warm period [wikipedia.org] - saw northern hemisphere temperatures perhaps 0.5C above average. We're already well above that, much more rapidly, and well on our way to a lot more.
Re: News about climate change, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last time Greenland was really green in human lifetime there were Vikings.
Really not even then. The economy of Greenland in the Viking days was based on their export of ivory from Walrus tusks. [smithsonianmag.com]
i.e. when humans were far fewer in number and didn't produce greenhouse gases
Indeed, there are other factors that change climate other than humans. Human-induced greenhouse warming is in addition to other factors, not instead of. The main difference is that the human induced warming is much faster than the natural cycles-- but that still means decades, not waterworld tomorrow.
so who did they blame for the world freezing and seriously if the rich in particular really believed in rising sea levels why don't they sell all the waterfront property they own.
I'm not sure which "rich" you're talking about who own waterfront property.
In general, h
Re: (Score:2)
Hard, proven science says we did it. The only "hard proven science" against it is 300% pure grade-A bullshit. Show me *any* that was *not* funded by the petrochemical industry, like the Koch bros.
There is *none*. But you don't believe any media...oh, except you absolutely are positive that Faux News is for real... and not just saying what a psychotic, anti-Democracy billionaire wants them to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard, proven science says we did it. The only "hard proven science" against it is 300% pure grade-A bullshit.
I saw a talk from a professor with multiple degrees, geology and something else like planetology (but I'm probably misremembering). Anyway, he seemed to have pretty good evidence based on ice-cores to show that the snow falls corresponded extremely closely to the earth's orbital variations around the sun.
He showed a chart of how the earth's orbit changed over time because we don't travel in a true elliptical orbit. Then he showed the graph of the earth's temperatures over time based on the ice core sample
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I have seen this as well but this doesn't go with the climate change brigade so you get called a climate change denier and modded a troll.
I have very little faith in something that is promoted by art teachers that convince school students to go to rallies and demonstrations, People pushing a political agenda, or someone pushing a carbon exchange/trading scheme which seems to line pockets of those controlling the trade much like bankers and traders control forex and th
Re:People not acting like there is a problem (Score:5, Informative)
God, but you're a dumb shit. All you had to do was check a single fact, and you blew it. Did you really think nobody would bother to look up your assertion to see if you were bullshitting?
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/0... [cnbc.com]
https://therealdeal.com/miami/... [therealdeal.com]
https://www.latimes.com/busine... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to read your own link before calling someone a dumb shit:
"Prices, meanwhile, continued climbing upward in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties – with the exception of single-family homes in Palm Beach County."
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I understand what you're trying to say, SuperKendall was only lying in 2 out of 3 of his examples?
I will stipulate that.
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't read the entire thread because it looks stupid. But it seems like you're attempting to make the case that real estate prices are falling in coastal areas because everybody knows they'll be underwater soon.
If that were the case, real estate in Miami would not be going up.
What we're seeing is a normal market fluxation where prices increased dramatically, now they're normalizing again. Then they'll start going up. Nobody right of Bernie Sanders really thinks the coastal cities are going to be unde
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet you also think climate is the same as weather, you single data point cherry picker you!
You didn't answer his assertion. You didn't even try.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You didn't crush shit. You said, "All cities where the price of real-estate continues to climb.", and I demonstrated that's not true. The median price in NYC has actually gone down. The median price in Pam Beach (the priciest part of Broward County) has gone down. The median price in LA is the same today as it was in 2007, and in
Re: (Score:2)
In all those cities you mentioned there are several reasons. First flight from those cities into cheaper areas, this causes market prices to fall. Second, real-estate prices are massively over-inflated compared to median income. Third, the associated costs with those properties are prohibitive compared to living elsewhere especially if you want a family. Now this is the important part. Housing prices are declining, this is correct. The 'net value' of the land is increasing. All of those stories you pos
Re: (Score:2)
Oh is THAT who you were arguing with? I've blocked SuperKendall because I'm so sick of reading his posts.
It's actually a very simple rule: If SuperKendall said it, it's most likely wrong.
Re:People not acting like there is a problem (Score:4, Funny)
It is funny watching two of Slashdot's most prolific trolls butt against each other. Each doing their best to be even less relevant to the point of the other's post.
Good show ol' chap. Good show.
Re: (Score:2)
Look more closely at the very tail end of the graph. They fell.
Re: (Score:2)
Look more closely at the very tail end of the graph
Look at this single data point a trend is obvious!!
P.S. Just ignore the rest of the entire market as well k thx bye.
But then you'd expect that degree of misunderstanding basic statistics with a climate alarmist...
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the overall graph. The price of median home is the same today as it was in 2007. Maybe you've never owned property, but in an era of rising housing prices everywhere else, and increasing interest rates, that means the prices are going down.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the graph. Look at the data. The median price in the six-county region in 2007 was also $505,000.
Re: (Score:2)
I already addressed this above.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say this has more to do with demographics than some hyper-rational market metamind.
Why? You may have heard of the baby boomers - they're getting older, and are entering more and more into retirement. They're still an unusually large proportional bulk of the population, no longer the largest - but they are still the largest group at those raw individual wealth levels.
Large groups of wealthy older folks tend to pour that cash into real estate in fancy places when switching to retirement.
It's no Tulip Bu
neither do anti-vaxxers, WYP (Score:2)
Sow what. Antivaxxers are also in denial of the consequences of reality, but that doesn't stop them from being stupid right through their children's measles contamination, along the way to losing their sight and vision, along with (possibly) their lives.
Re:People not acting like there is a problem (Score:5, Funny)
All cities where the price of real-estate continues to climb.
The sea might not be able to afford them
Re: (Score:1)
Once upon a time, someone shared this sentiment in Pompeii.
Re: (Score:2)
All cities where the price of real-estate continues to climb.
If you wanted to know if sea levels were rising, would you look at :
A) real estate prices of beachfront property,
or
B) sea level gauges and satellite data ?
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see better proof of data manipulation than just the assertions of a random guy on youtube.
Sea level data is noisy, so only a fool would pick out a single sensor, instead of calculating the average of all of them. See this global map of recent sea level rise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] as you can see, there is a lot of local effects, even showing a clear difference between the west/east side of Australia.
Re: (Score:3)
Here you can see same Australian tide gauge with averaged trend lines, plus a combined graph of all Australian stations. Clearly going up in recent times, despite your youtube guy denying it.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2... [wordpress.com]
Re:People not acting like there is a problem (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps you should check your goddamn facts before making an ass of yourself.
Housing prices in New York, Miami and Los Angeles are actually starting to decline. See links in my comment above.
You think you can say whatever made-up shit supports your beliefs and then puff out your chest and that's gonna fly?
Re: (Score:2)
Flood insurance is done through the federal government.
And Obama as well (Score:3, Interesting)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20... [wattsupwiththat.com]
Re: People not acting like there is a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever notice how proposed solutions to climate change are always financial in nature, like taxes and fees?
Money is how we try to steer our economy. That's the capitalist way. If done correctly and consistently, it should steer us to the cheapest way to solve the problem. Of course, it's done neither correctly or consistently (in part because of diverging interests, but also because it is very hard to do so), but, given the current world system, it's still likely to be one of the better approaches.
What we need to actually do is stop emitting CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) very quickly - hopefully by moving to clean energy sources and production, and not via a reduction in wealth. And "very quickly" is so quick that building a natural gas power plant really should not be done any more. Most power plants are planned for a 30 year live span, and while NG is comparatively clean relative to coal, it won't be clean enough to meet the necessary standards 20 years down the line.
Re: (Score:2)
What we need to actually do is stop emitting CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) very quickly
Right, along with replenishing our carbon sinks, aka, forests.
Brazil and the rest are removing them as fast as they can.
This is just as big a threat as CO2 emissions, if not larger.
Re: People not acting like there is a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Government meddling is the opposite of capitalism
First, without government there is no capitalism. There is no property over more than you can hold your immediate hand over. There are no enforceable contracts. There is no money and hence no capital.
Secondly, I have a soft spot for libertarianism. As I see it, the libertarian "solution" (with a lot of caveats) is that nobody would be allowed to do something that infringes someone else's property rights. So either the atmosphere is privately owned - in which case I wish you good luck to stop your CO2 molecules from entering my piece of atmosphere - or is it communally owned. In that case, we need to come up with a way to manage that limited resource, unless it falls victim to the tragedy of the commons. And the most libertarian way I can come up with would again be putting a price on using that limited resource - and a sufficiently high price to make sure it is not overused.
Re: (Score:2)
With capitalism, each person manages their own resources
How do you manage your part of the atmosphere ?
Re: (Score:3)
In any case, I think the libertarian version would dictate that the atmosphere above my property is apart of my property.
How high does it go? What about aircraft flying over your property? Satellites? What about a hypothetical property on Mars also extending up and intersecting with your claim? What if I suck "my" atmosphere into a barrel, causing some of "your" atmosphere flowing into my property? Damaging my partial vacuum?
Property is rarely that simple or absolute. That's why we have things like water rights, and ancient light [wikipedia.org] laws, and indeed laws against public nuisance and pollution.
The atmosphere above public property is public property. When something emanates from one property to another that causes provable damage, one should be allowed to sue to stop the damage and receive compensation for past damage.
Just two problems. First, what is "
Re: (Score:3)
You may think my CO2 caused you damage, but there's no way you could prove it.
Unless you are willing to ignore the large majority of competent scientists. But let's go back. So if I change the colour of your car, that is damage. If you change the colour of my air (in the infrared, ok), it is not? How is that consistent?
Call me unconvinced by the politically-motivated and hypocritical AGW-evangelists that there's any problem at all.
No surprise here. What does not fit our preferred world view simply cannot be. Unfortunately, that is not a sound reasoning process.
Re: (Score:2)
Being an ideologue is the opposite of productive.
Re: (Score:2)
The cheapest way to stop emitting CO2 very quickly involves mass purges of human life.
Only if you do not value human life. Which limits the argument to some psychopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
It is runaway. In the early 90s it was said that the tipping point for a runaway greenhouse effect with atmospheric water was 2013.
A lot of things were said in the 90s. But I'm not aware of any credible scientific publication that has predicted a runaway greenhouse effect based on current levels of CO2 or even those predicted for the foreseeable future. Water vapour acts as a positive feedback, yes, but not as a runaway feedback. An infinite sum can and in this case does have a finite value. And heat loss by radiation increases with the 4th power of temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it was a problem they'll build dams before leaving the coast.
I'm sure it'll be much cheaper to stop producing so much CO2.
Re: Greenland Is Melting Even Faster Than Experts (Score:5, Interesting)
Wolf? Is that from the parable that goes something like this:
There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep when he saw a wolf. He cried out "wolf" and the villagers came running. But the wolf was pretty far away.
"That wolf is miles away!" said one villager. "You stopped me playing call of duty for this?". The other villagers shared the sentiment and went grumbling back down the hill.
In time, the wolf wandered closer. "wolf! Wolf!" cried the boy. Before the villagers could arrive, a representative from the United Consolidated Sheep Farms Inc (who owned a competing flock) told the villagers that there wasn't a wolf and any how the wolf wouldn't eat the sheep anyway in fact it would make the sheep grow faster and why did the boy hate the kingdom?
The villagers decided then the boy was worth ignoring ans s othey sent a representative to tell him to knock it off.
the wolf moved closer still and this time took a sheep. The boy cried this out but the villagers didn't want to hear. They'd already been disturbed enough and they knew the wolf didn't exist. Eventually after his incessant crying, some villagers went to see what the fuss was about.
"look! look!" said the boy. "A wolf has eaten a sheep!". The villagers could see the sheep, but they were dspleased with the boy. "look, boy!" growled one of the villagers, "sheep die all the time of natural causes. You've lied about the wolf so many times I wont believe you until I personally see a wolf in the act of eating a sheep."
"Well, it might be a wolf", said the other villager, "but this is an isolated incident. The wolf has probably gone. There's no pattern of wolves so I don't see why I should stop playing call of duty and actually do anything about this".
A the villagers left in disgused convinced the boy was a fool.
Again the wolf arrived and the boy cried out...
Re: (Score:2)
How did you get so far in life, when your density level is approaching lead?
Re: (Score:2)
I post this only to undo my moderation on this story.
I had moderated the parent post up by mistake. I think the menu box had focus when I pressed down-arrow to scroll.