Slashdot Mirror
Water On The North Pole
Auckerman writes: "I wonder how much of this can be attributed to man or to normal weather cycles. Per usual, free login is required at the nytimes." This is a sobering dispatch, no matter how skeptical you are of the ability of homo sapiens to model or understand his role in weather patterns. Seems that what used to be a comfortable icefield at 90 degrees north latitude is now swimming in seawater. [Note: Not "0 degrees" as I'd carelessly typed originally; thanks to YU Nicks NE Way for pointing out the boo-boo.] This sentence from the article especially grabbed me: "Scientists at the Goddard Space Science Institute, a NASA research center in Manhattan, compared data from submarines in the 1950's and 60's with 90's observations, demonstrating that the ice cover over the entire Arctic basin has thinned by 45 percent. Satellite images have revealed that the extent of ice coverage has significantly shrunk in recent years."
You're also neglecting that if the North Pole is melting, then the glaciers probably are, too, given that they're a lot closer to the equator. In addition, if the warming is symmetrical, there will be similar melting at the South Pole, which is almost entirely on land.
A third factor to consider is the weather system, which relies on sea-based and air-based currents. Losing the North Pole would screw up sea currents directly, and (because it's a source of reflection and emission of heat, rather than absorbtion) the air currents indirectly.
In short, countries such as England (which rely on the Gulf Stream to be habitable at all!) will become uninhabitable waste-lands within a relatively short space of time.
But is this even man-made? Well, the Earth is a gigantic dynamic system, which will ALWAYS move towards stable points. It's irrelevent, for the purposes of this, as to whether the stable points are termed "strange attractors" (Chaos) or "points of preferred condition" (Gaia). What matters is why the shift is even taking place.
It's indisputable that humans have had an impact on the atmosphere. A =SUSTAINED= impact. Natural phenomina may have an immediate impact that is far greater, but few natural phenomina of that magnitude last for more than a few days, maybe a few weeks. Humans have been sustaining the level of activity which could -potentially- be destabilising for over a century.
What to do? I'm not sure there is anything anyone =can= do, now. If you think in terms of Newton's Laws, F=m(dv/dt), and integrate from the start of the Industrial Revolution to now, and then work out what kind of opposing force you'd need to counter that, you'd probably get something far greater than humans could achieve before the brunt of the effects had already been and gone.
Throw in the fact that we're not dealing with the nice linear system above, but a horribly complex non-linear system with constantly varying inputs from other non-linear systems, and the best guess you could possibly make will be way way out from whatever the reality will be.
IMHO, humanity has seriously blown it, and the best anyone can really do now is create gene banks of all existing species, with sufficient variation to create viable populations. Humanity's greed and obsession with dominion over everything (including other humans) =may= have brought about the end of humanity itself. From the perspective of those who can't realistically make any difference, no matter what the reality turns out to be, the best bet is to act as if. Preserve the preservable, in case the worst happens. If the worst doesn't happen, then you've still prevented the extinction of any species you've got in the gene bank, which may save other species from the worst that can happen to them.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Meteorological stations (the weather guages) in the 19th century were boxes stuck out on poles in the middle of a field. Meteorological stations in the 21st century are boxes stuck out on poles in the middle of an airport tarmac.
This is standard canard. The main component (70%) is measurements over the sea surface. Further, most warming has occurred since 1980-- long after the effect you cite should have appeared. Be careful; the petrochemical industry spends a lot of money spreading such "commonsense" nonsense.
Or what about the ozone hole? [...] And we have no theory today to explain why it subsequently shrunk.
Our lack of understanding is my point, but... this from the 1998 WMO/UNEP Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: "The large ozone losses in the Southern Hemisphere polar region during spring continued unabated with approximately the same magnitude and areal extent as in the early 1990s. [...] These ozone changes are consistent overall with our understanding of chemistry and dynamics."
All I know for sure is that the Mount Pinatubo eruption last decade released more CO2 into the atmosphere in one week then the entire history of human industry.
Pure invention. Here are global CO2 levels as measured at the Muana Loa observatory. No discontinuity due to Pinatubo's 1992 eruption. (You're probably thinking of SO2, but you're still overstating.)
Human-caused CO2 increases are certain. Global warming is certain. The first should cause the second. But conceivably we're missing something, the CO2 increases are not causing global warming, and coincidentally some unknown, natural force is the real cause. It's possible. But odds of even, say, 1 in 10 that we're hosing the planet should perhaps give one pause.
Before people start posting in panic, even if all the ice at the north pole melted it wouldn't cause sea level to rise... now if the glaciers of Greenland and the south pole all melted, then you can worry.
The reason, of course, is that north pole ice is floating on water so that it's weight is already seen in sea level.
'Intellectual Properties' are uncontrollable in the wild. To base an economy on them is just stupid.
Some of us have *tiny* clues. Like the meteorologist that explained why the 20st century was warmer than the 19th, particulularly after 1950. Think about how you got a temperature reading in 1880 and one in 2000. Meteorological stations (the weather guages) in the 19th century were boxes stuck out on poles in the middle of a field. Meteorological stations in the 21st century are boxes stuck out on poles in the middle of an airport tarmac.
Cities are always warmer than the rural country side. Airport tarmacs are warmer than cow pastures. Comparing todays temperature data with that of the 19th century is scientifically invalid. Climatologists have to use that error-prone data because they have no other. And one of them who are honest will admit that their results are inaccurate.
And then you have that little statistic about "Each year of this decade has been one of the top 15 warmest of the century." The pessimist will see this as a sure sign that SUV's and hairspray are destroying the world. The realist will understand that this is predicted by the oldest and widest-held climatalogical model: the climate has cycles. Only 500 to 1000 years ago there was a mini iceage. 10,000 years ago there was a major iceage, and scandinavia is still rising a couple of centimeters each years because it is no longer weighed down by greenland-like ice sheet.
Or what about the ozone hole? Only in the past few decades have we been able to even detect an ozone hole over the antarctic. We had no theory to explain it in 1985. And we have no theory today to explain why it subsequently shrunk. Perhaps the polar ozone holes also follow a climatic cycle? Perhaps there's was an ozone hole every fifty years and we just don't know it?
Excuse me for not taking this news of doom and gloom with religious certainty. Yes, I am a skeptic of scientific reporting. All I know for sure is that the Mount Pinatubo eruption last decade released more CO2 into the atmosphere in one week then the entire history of human industry. Maybe, just maybe, if there really is some global warming, it is due to that volcano rather than the fact that I don't carpool.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Global warming is a certainty. Here is an excerpt from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 1999 climate review:
The Global mean temperature for 1999 was the 5th warmest on record since 1880. The warmest and second warmest years were 1998 and 1997. The top 6 warmest years have been in the 1990's. Each year of this decade has been one of the top 15 warmest of the century.
Certainly, some climate changes happen naturally. However, it would be quite a coincidence if this rapid change had a natural cause at just the time that an obvious man-made cause appears: elevated atmospheric CO2 levels.
If there is one fact to know about the global environment, it is this: we have no clue. Water at the pole is not the first surprise. For decades, we poured out chemicals that appeared safe; they were non-flammable, non-corrosive, non-toxic, non-reactive-- what could be better? Well, in 1974 Molina and Rowland pointed out that these chemicals, CFCs, destroy stratospheric ozone, potentially allowing UV to devastate crops worldwide (not to mention causing skin cancer). Imagine the surprise: sometime totally inocuous like spray deoderant could devastate all life on earth. What a thought. It was like discovering that salsa causes tectonic instability. We had no clue. Since CFCs are stable enough to survive in the atmosphere for decades, estimates are that ozone levels will not return to normal until about 2050. That is, I will probably never live one day on this earth with a normal ozone layer.
But then everyone spent 10 years collecting data and running sophisticated computer models, and we got on top of the problem. Cool, right? Except that in 1985 the massive ozone hole over Antarctica was discovered. Totally unexpected. Didn't show in any computer model. No one had any idea why a hole should appear there instead of, say, over the continental US. After all that study, still we had no clue.
There is no reason to expect the global warming phenomena to be any more predictable than ozone depletion has been. In all likelihood, our CO2 emissions amount to a rampaging charge to fundamentally alter our entire planet. The eventual outcome? We have no clue.
What sort of scientific proof do you have of this? I'd like to quote the parts realted to global warming and seas from the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a document which 1,575 of the world's scientists, including more than half of all living Nobel prize winers:
"Introduction
Human being and the natural world are on a colision course. Human activities influct harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practicesput at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision out present course will bring about.
The Environment
The environment is suffering critical stress:
The Atmopshere
Stratopheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's sruface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.
Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depetable groundwater supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percept of the world's population. Polution of rivers, lakes, and groundwater further limits the supply.
Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the costal recions, which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste- some of it toxic."
I'm sorry, but you're opinion of the condition is shortsighted and is too dependnent on the "oh, if there's a problem, technology will fix it someday" mentality. Unless we change our ways and reverse that mentality, we're going to end up going the way of the dodo, and taking quite a few other species of plants and animals down with us.
Perhaps that is just natural selection at work- wiping outselves out with the power of our own ignorance. But as intelligent beings, we have the ability to keep ourselves in check, sustaining our own lives.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad