Slashdot Mirror
Warming and Slowing the World
chrisleonard writes "We all know that global warming is supposed to heat the planet up, but did you know that it might also slow it down? According to a report from Belgium's Royal Observatory (as reported here by astronomy.com), if the days seem a little longer to you than they used to, it might not be just old age catching up with you. Would it be wrong to call the interaction of the world's warming temperatures and its slowing rotation ... a snowball effect?"
2.5 million B.C.: OOG the Open Source Caveman develops the axe and releases it under the GPL. The axe quickly gains popularity as a means of crushing moderators' heads.
100,000 B.C.: Man domesticates the AIBO.
10,000 B.C.: Civilization begins when early farmers first learn to cultivate hot grits.
3000 B.C.: Sumerians develop a primitive cuneiform perl script.
2920 B.C.: A legendary flood sweeps Slashdot, filling up a Borland / Inprise story with hundreds of offtopic posts.
1750 B.C.: Hammurabi, a Mesopotamian king, codifies the first EULA.
490 B.C.: Greek city-states unite to defeat the Persians. ESR triumphantly proclaims that the Greeks "get it".
399 B.C.: Socrates is convicted of impiety. Despite the efforts of freesocrates.com, he is forced to kill himself by drinking hemlock.
336 B.C.: Fat-Time Charlie becomes King of Macedonia and conquers Persia.
4 B.C.: Following the Star (as in hot young actress) of Bethelem, wise men travel from far away to troll for baby Jesus.
A.D. 476: The Roman Empire BSODs.
A.D. 610: The Glorious MEEPT!! founds Islam after receiving a revelation from God. Following his disappearance from Slashdot in 632, a succession dispute results in the emergence of two troll factions: the Pythonni and the Perliites.
A.D. 800: Charlemagne conquers nearly all of Germany, only to be acquired by andover.net.
A.D. 874: Linus the Red discovers Iceland.
A.D. 1000: The epic of the Beowulf Cluster is written down. It is the first English epic poem.
A.D. 1095: Pope Bruce II calls for a crusade against the Turks when it is revealed they are violating the GPL. Later investigation reveals that Pope Bruce II had not yet contacted the Turks before calling for the crusade.
A.D. 1215: Bowing to pressure to open-source the British government, King John signs the Magna Carta, limiting the British monarchy's power. ESR triumphantly proclaims that the British monarchy "gets it".
A.D. 1348: The ILOVEYOU virus kills over half the population of Europe. (The other half was not using Outlook.)
A.D. 1420: Johann Gutenberg invents the printing press. He is immediately sued by monks claiming that the technology will promote the copying of hand-transcribed books, thus violating the church's intellectual property.
A.D. 1429: Natalie Portman of Arc gathers an army of Slashdot trolls to do battle with the moderators. She is eventually tried as a heretic and stoned (as in petrified).
A.D. 1478: The Catholic Church partners with doubleclick.net to launch the Spanish Inquisition.
A.D. 1492: Christopher Columbus arrives in what he believes to be "India", but which RMS informs him is actually "GNU/India".
A.D. 1508-12: Michaelengelo attempts to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling with ASCII art, only to have his plan thwarted by the "Lameness Filter."
A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
A.D. 1553: "Bloody" Mary ascends the throne of England and begins an infamous crusade against Protestants. ESR eats his words.
A.D. 1588: The "IF I EVER MEET YOU, I WILL KICK YOUR ASS" guy meets the Spanish Armada.
A.D. 1603: Tokugawa Ieyasu unites the feuding pancake-eating ninjas of Japan.
A.D. 1611: Mattel adds Galileo Galilei to its CyberPatrol block list for proposing that the Earth revolves around the sun.
A.D. 1688: In the so-called "Glorious Revolution", King James II is bloodlessly forced out of power and flees to France. ESR again triumphantly proclaims that the British monarchy "gets it".
A.D. 1692: Anti-GIF hysteria in the New World comes to a head in the infamous "Salem GIF Trials", in which 20 alleged GIFs are burned at the stake. Later investigation reveals that many of the supposed GIFs were actually PNGs.
A.D. 1769: James Watt patents the one-click steam engine.
A.D. 1776: Trolls, angered by CmdrTaco's passage of the Moderation Act, rebel. After a several-year flame war, the trolls succeed in seceding from Slashdot and forming the United Coalition of Trolls.
A.D. 1789: The French Revolution begins with a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on the Bastille.
A.D. 1799: Attempts at discovering Egyptian hieroglyphs receive a major boost when Napoleon's troops discover the Rosetta stone. Sadly, the stone is quickly outlawed under the DMCA as an illegal means of circumventing encryption.
A.D. 1844: Samuel Morse invents Morse code. Cryptography export restrictions prevent the telegraph's use outside the U.S. and Canada.
A.D. 1853: United States Commodore Matthew C. Perry arrives in Japan and forces the xenophobic nation to open its doors to foreign trade. ESR triumphantly proclaims that Japan finally "gets it".
A.D. 1865: President Lincoln is 'bitchslapped.' The nation mourns.
A.D. 1901: Italian inventor Guglielmo Marcoli first demonstrates the radio. Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich immediately delivers to Marcoli a list of 335,435 suspected radio users.
A.D. 1911: Facing a break-up by the United States Supreme Court, Standard Oil Co. defends its "freedom to innovate" and proposes numerous rejected settlements. Slashbots mock the company as "Standa~1" and depict John D. Rockefeller as a member of the Borg.
A.D. 1929: V.A. Linux's stock drops over 200 dollars on "Black Tuesday", October 29th.
A.D. 1945: In the secret Manhattan Project, scientists working in Los Alamos, New Mexico, construct a nuclear bomb from Star Wars Legos.
A.D. 1948: Slashdot runs the infamous headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN." Shamefaced, the site quickly retracts the story when numerous readers point out that it is not news for nerds, stuff that matters.
A.D. 1965: Jon Katz delivers his famous "I Have A Post-Hellmouth Dream" speech, which stated: "I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the geeks of former slaves and the geeks of former slave geeks will be able to sit down together at the table of geeks... I have a dream that my geek little geeks will one geek live in a nation where they will not be geeked by the geek of their geek but by the geek of their geek."
A.D. 1969: Neil Armstrong becomes the first man to set foot on the moon. His immortal words: "FIRST MOONWALK!!!"
A.D. 1970: Ohio National Guardsmen shoot four students at Kent State University for "Internet theft".
A.D. 1989: The United States invades Panama to capture renowned "hacker" Manual Noriega, who is suspected of writing the DeCSS utility.
A.D. 1990: West Germany and East Germany reunite after 45 years of separation. ESR triumphantly proclaims that Germany "gets it".
A.D. 1994: As years of apartheid rule finally end, Nelson Mandela is elected president of South Africa. ESR is sick, and sadly misses his chance to triumphantly proclaim that South Africa "gets it".
A.D. 1997: Slashdot reports that Scottish scientists have succeeded in cloning a female sheep named Dolly. Numerous readers complain that if they had wanted information on the latest sheep releases, they would have just gone to freshsheep.net
A.D. 1999: Miramax announces Don Knotts to play hacker Emmanuel Goldstein in upcoming movie "Takedown"
I am into the copy and paste.
Oh... my... GOD! The ramifications of this are... uh, on second thought, never mind.
Pshaw, I bet we could accelerate the Earth more effectively than that if we'd all get together on the first of every month, point all our cars West, and punch the accelerator simultaneously.
Wow, this hypothesis suggests that global warming may result in the Earth slowing down its rotation by 11 microseconds per decade. I had better make sure my earthquake insurance is paid up.
What they don't mention is how much NORMAL slowdown we can expect from other causes, such as the transfer of angular momentum from the Earth to the moon. I don't recall the numbers, but I am sure the moon will be a much larger factor than the variation in air currents.
A dingo ate my sig...
1/10000 of a second every century we shall slow down.
This means, that to gain ONE SECOND of our preciously short day, we will have to wait 1 MILLION years. This means, that by the time the
sun explodes, our day will be approximately 83 minutes longer. I'm sorry if I choose not to get excited about this.
In retrospect, the earth's rotation is slowing due to other factors, primarily tidal forces from the moon at a rate of 22 seconds every million years. It will eventually slow to the point where it takes one month to make a complete revolution, in perfect tidal lock with the moon. Or at least it would, although its still unlikely to make it before the sun goes.
Either way, I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Of all the scares from global warming, this is one of the least disconcerting.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
All these scientists that signed the 2nd paper discounted what the 1st guys said and they did it with an overwhelming number of people. Of course the media didn't cover that. The media never wants to cover something like that. Blood and guts sells. Death and destruction sells. Conspiracy sells. Telling the public that violence in schools is actually decreasing and is lower now than it was in the troubled 70s doesn't sell. Plastering a blood-splattered babbling kid on the evening news that "saw it all" sells.
Enough of my rambling. You've heard it all before. My question is, has anyone seen this Discovery episode? Does anyone know where more information can be had? I'd love to see the episode. It sounds like a good one. I still like the one that proved that something like 600 million years ago we had a Snow Ball Earth and the one that proved all human life as we know it today originated from deep within Africa. Both of those were good shows.
How many years in a row does it have to be 'odd' for?
It used to be perfectly natural for my area to get a little something called SNOW now and then.
The last 5 years have gotten snow that almost immediately melted from the ground (within a day) and even then the snow fall was pitiful.
10 years ago we would get a regular snowfall of some sort.
20 years ago a regular snowfall of some decency.
50 years ago you actually had to own a pair of snow boots to wear more then once a year.
Now days the 1 day of snow we get is so thin that you can walk in it with sneakers.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
We're on a planet that has a 3 billion year history in which the climate has changed dramatically enough to put dinosaur fossils on Antarctica, evidence of undersea life on top of Mt. Everest, strange enough to feature a 20 megaton blast in Siberia 50 years before atom bombs were invented, and random enough to prevent our ability to accuratly forecast tomorrow's weather, AND we conclude based on less than 100 years of weather data that global warming is happening?
Forgive me, but I'm feeling a little like a mayfly seeing its first (and only) sunrise and worrying about global sunlighting.
...talked about this. The name of the essay was IIRC "The Inconstant Moon" and I first read it in The Sun Shines Bright, a collection of his science essays.
All I vaguely remember from the essay is that, once everything slows down enough, the moon should start spiralling inward. Friction with the atmosphere will destroy it, giving us a nice little ring system like Saturn's. However, that's supposed to take 7 billion years, while Sol will go red-giant in 5 billion years, so it's one of those "this would be really cool, but we'll all be dead by other means before we get to see it" events.
I hope I'm remembering the essay correctly. If you disagree, okay -- go read the essay and tell me what I forgot.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I'm sorry, but I'm going to pipe up here.
If you're basing "global warming" off anecdotal evidence, Canberra in Australia (where I live) has just had one of the coolest summers ever. The opposite of your experience. And please, don't try that b-s line on me that "global warming makes the extremes greater", because that's not global warming.
But allow me to present the case against the global warming phenomenon.
1. The temperature that is used by most scientists to prove the world is "warming up" is taken at posts that have been established for circa 100 years. Any further back than that there's no guarantee that the information is accurate. As a result of scientists normally living in larger cities as opposed to country towns, most of those weather posts were set up beyond the outskirts of large towns/cities approximately one hundred years ago.
However, as is the nature of these cities, they have grown/sprawled to encompass these weather posts. Now, as any scientist can tell you, cities are warmer than their surrounding regions. It's known as the "urban heat island effect". Tarmac, cement and all those other human building materials absorb and retain a much greater proportion of the heat that hits them during the day than does undeveloped land. Try walking over bitumen during a hot day and then walk over dirt. You'll see what I mean.
As these hotter cities expand to encompass the temperature stations, the temperature recorded by them is artificially increased. However, it's an extremely localised effect - the city is warmer, yes, but there's no way that the city is warm enough to have any effect on the surrounding countryside. It doesn't warm the globe up.
So, to begin with, almost all the statistics the global warming proponents are chucking round are incorrect.
2. Furthermore, land covers only 1/3 of the earth's surface. The other 2/3 is the ocean. Funnily enough, scientists haven't measured the temperature of the ocean over the past 100 years - there are generally only temperature stations located on the land. So the statistics that I've outlined above, that I believe already are flawed, are no greater than 30% of the surface area of the planet.
3. NASA satellites (which have been measuring the temperature of one of the atmospheres of the planet - I forget it's name, but it's about 1km above the surface of the planet) shows that the planet has actually been cooling down since the records have recorded. How is it that the planet has been warming up yet the atmosphere cooling down? And remember, these statistics are taken for the entire planet, not just the area over which is land.
4. From core samples that have been taken in various places over the planet, scientists have been able to determine both carbon dioxide and temperature levels. They've graphed both these over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, and guess what it showed - carbon dioxide moves as a result of temperature, as opposed to vice versa.
5. Another scientific experiment that's very interesting - in an isolated greenhouse, increase the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Guess what you'll find? That the trees/plants grow faster. And as such, increase their intake of carbon dioxide, and produce more oxygen!
As such, my opinion is that the effort that is spent worried about global warming should instead be re-directed towards the preservation of native habitats, especially old growth forests which are our greatest ally as carbon dioxide recyclers. They are, quite literally, the lungs of our planet.
-- james
ps For some of those statistics I've used above (NASA satellite links, core samples, etc) please head to http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/
This is an independently (ie no finance from oil company, etc) run web site run by a man named John Daly, who like myself, believes that the Greenhouse Effect is nothing more than hot air.
You might have missed where last week, the leader of a violent terrorist organization, which has taken credit for many bombings and destructive acts in the United States, was questioned before congress under oath.
The leader "plead the fifth" on everything.
The violent terrorist group? Earth Liberation Front (or something like that), a bunch of ecological extremists that the media happens to approve of.
It isn't that the media is deliberately biased, just that they tend to report what they support, and ignore as "not news" those things they disagree with.
Another example is defensive uses of firearms. 300 different stories published about the latest "school shooting", 2 of them accurately reported that the shooter was stopped by two other students (it was a college) who had their own firearms. The rest just said the perp was "tackled".
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I also applaud you for posting this. The pettition you refer to has not received enough attention (see also). But even more important is to look at the data.
-- MarkusQ
Care for our planet, yes. Act as responsible stewards of our land and oceans, certainly. But spew bogus alarmist rhetoric to confuse and manipulate the mediagoing public, shame on you. This is junk science at its worst.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The amount of CO2 going into the air is known... the affect on the weather is what's in question.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Um. No. I vehemently disagree with you. Global Warming is bunk. We only have about 100 years worth of weather data. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU SAY HUMANS CAUSE THIS WITH THIS DATA! It isn't enough! The world is around 3 billion years old ( I think that's it....) and we are trying to say that us humans who have only been here part of that time caused this? No, US folks are skeptical of scientists who talk out there butt. Weather patterns are CYCLICAL! Just because I ain't freezing my butt of now and walking thru 10-12 inches of snow does not mean that the globe, as a whole is any warmer. Do you realize that Texas has had more snow then Columbus, OH?? That's almost unheard of. Also, I believe Texas has also been colder then we are too. Some people will say that global warming caused this chaotic pattern. BS. We don't have anywhere near enough data to prove global warming. Any scientist saying we do should tear up his PhD.....now and go start selling burgers at McDonald's.
Also there's no such thing as an unbiased news source. We're humans. We have opinions and try as we might, we can't always suppress them.
Also, an another note, for the freaks who say we don't have enough oil, well, if we'd drill in ANWR we'd stabilize the market. If we get off of our butts and tap the oil in the Gulf of Mexico, we could be self sustaining and not need oil from saudi. This is a fact (wish I could atrribute a source but it's late and I am going to bed after this). Here's an interesting link about ANWR. The reasons these ecological wackos have come up make no sense and have no scientific backing except some crap some scientists who liked the idea has drawn up.
I am not saying we should not explore alternatives that are cleaner then gasoline. Hydrogen and fuel cells hold great promise not just from an environmental sense, but from a business sense as well. Imagine if we all had a fuel cell on our house. We'd no longer be dependent on wires going underground and into our house and no longer would we have to worry about lightening striking the above ground wiring because there would be none. When ever Hydrogen is cheap (it's cheap now...), you'd just fill it up and be good to go. The waste water created by the reaction could be ran through a filter, and used to flush toilets or take showers or heck even drink. Who WOULDN'T want this? Even the big oil would want a piece of this. The good thing is if we actually tap the Gulf adequately, we could be assured we would have enough oil until this stuff is perfected. Right now, if we decided to bomb someone in the middle east, we may as well grab ahold of a bank loan to buy gas cuz it's going to go up. My biggest point here, is that it doesn't have to be this way. it's only this way becase a small MINORITY thinks the sky is falling when it's not.
Gorkman
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Weather is very complicated. Global warming will not simply give us the same weather, but warmer. It will cause strange, and unexpected new weather patterns. Storms will tend to be more intense (high temp = more energy), some places will get wetter, some drier, some warmer, some cooler.
But all this is nothing compared to the Ocean's rising if it actually get warm enough to break up the antartic ice shelf.
And all xfiles people know that global warming is being orchestrated by a global conspiracy of GOOD guys to stave off an imminent ice-age!
Anarchists never rule
The Reversal is coming!!! Well, in about 300,000 years, that is.
For those who aren't familiar with this physical phenomenon, the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself (changes polarity) every 300,000 years or so. Rather quick on a planetary time scale, huh?
There are lots of geophysicists interested in this field (paleomagnetism) because it requires some sophisticated modeling of how geodynamos work. Take a look: here for supercomputer modeling of the reversal
I'm not sure which to place my bets on first -- a) the Moon flying away from the Earth, b) the magnetic field reversing, or c) the Earth stopping its spin... Well, ok. It's b). But between a) and c)? I'm not so sure.
If you're basing "global warming" off anecdotal evidence, Canberra in Australia (where I live) has just had one of the coolest summers ever. The opposite of your experience. And please, don't try that b-s line on me that "global warming makes the extremes greater", because that's not global warming.
Err... you are aware that putting more water vapour into the atmosphere "makes the extremes greater". If anecdotal evidence is what we're looking for for, then Canberra's recent heavy rainfall should provide evidence of this.
But allow me to present the case against the global warming phenomenon.
1)
Do you have any evidence (peer-reviewed, of course) for this? Forgive my skeptism, but I would put more weight on the views of the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (taken from a joint statement made in the journal Science), than the word of a slashdot poster.
2)
This point is just wrong. If you had have paid more attention to the link which you posted, you would find a section on measurements of temperture change in the deep sea Southern Ocean.
3)
This point ignores that loss of ozone will cause a temperture decrease in the upper atmosphere, and that the satellite data has been reexamined, and found to show a increase in the temperture.
4)
Could you please supply a citation for this. I'm interested to see how they seperated out cause and effect. I looked through your supplied link, and didn't see it.
5)
Negative feed back mechanisms have been known about for years, plant growth especially. This have been taken into account in the climatical models.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
But it doesnt mean it wont react relatively predictably to a relatively large input.
And all this carbon dioxide we are sending up is a pretty large input.
While yes, most claims over global warming and the like are vastly exaggerated, some of what you say is not strictly correct.
1. Not sure. One thing I do know in the time I have spent doing atmospheric physics is that people are smarter than that. Temperature data is FAR FAR FAR more than a few thermometers in cities
2. There is an experiment called ATOC which has been doing just that for several decades. While this mightnt yet be long enough, the trend seen so far is for warming.
3. This is no longer correct. The satellite data to which you refer has more recently been analysed, and shows a warming effect. I believe the effect that was ignored was the spiralling in of the satellites over time, but im not sure.
4. Eh? millions of years? and you can see a cause and effect? What's more, your next point contradicts this one. CO2 and water are known greenhouse gasses. Even mars is warmed by a few degrees by its atmosphere.
5. Yes, there is a known dampening effect on greenhouse gasses. The other one is the warmer it is, the faster C02 dissolves in the ocean, leaching out as rock.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
3. NASA satellites (which have been measuring the temperature of one of the atmospheres of the planet - I forget it's name, but it's about 1km above the surface of the planet) shows that the planet has actually been cooling down since the records have recorded. How is it that the planet has been warming up yet the atmosphere cooling down? And remember, these statistics are taken for the entire planet, not just the area over which is land.
any sattelite orbiting at an altitude of 1Km would be a wild fireball that would either last 3 seconds and then cease to exist or cause thousands of UFO sightings and cause accidents with aircraft.
I have been above 1Km at least 60 times in my life (a private aircraft, single prop without a pressurized cabin can get to 2km easily. and I can positively say that there are NO sattelites at that altitude...
Oh and weather balloons, hang aroud 30-50Km high.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
*laugh*
That will teach me to do a quick link search! (Although to be fair, I haven't really researched your claims either). I don't doubt that there are are people in the "global-warming-is-bunk" camp that have political agendas; for that matter many people in the "humans cause-global warming camp" have a pretty clear political agenda too. In my defense, please note the times on my varrious posts over the past few weeks (and frequent refferences to coffee); we've got a new son, & I've been hopping on while rocking him between diaper changes,, etc. at pretty much random times (read: not enough sleep).
So I will back down to a few statements I know first hand to be correct, and not try to back anything with potentially tainted links:
Better?-- MarkusQ