Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming - From Inside the Globe
Bill Kendrick writes "The National Post reports that a team of American and Canadian researchers has found evidence of real global warming: the temperature of the Earth's crust is increasing at a remarkable rate. What's really interesting is that heat absorbed by rocks slowly permeates into the earth. By boring holes in the ground, they can tell how hot the earth was years ago, in a 'reading tree rings' fashion."
Free Mac Mini
what you're saying is very unpolitcally correct and has not been supported by hollywood.
So it sounds like Rush might be right and humans aren't the cause of global warming? Be on the lookout for flying pigs and monkeys coming from strange places...
There are thousands and thousands of heaters. They are not natural and are causing the planet to warm up. If people would just keep their doors closed with the heater on it would be very beneficial to the animals.
The Articale says 'crust tempature rising' wich to me.. says its heating from the inside outwards
but reading the entire thing says that rocks closer to the surface are warmer.. wich to me says its heating from the outside inwards
and would most (if not all rocks) from the 1950's still be visable? let alone burried?
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
Heat from 150 years ago is 100 metres below ground? (Depending on the rock). Sort of like tree rings...
"Tree Rings" are the result of bark cycles of the tree. This is *not* the same thing... We're talking about rock that has never seen the light of day... so we're talking about radiation permeating the surface and being stored there like a BATTERY...
What about temperature cycles? Can he "see" the great cold snap of '78?
What about dispersal patterns? Does radiation permeate equally?
And does that mean that the caves that have a constant temperature of ~60 degrees WERE the temperatures thousands of years ago?
What *we* do know... is that its science that makes for good press, politics, and money...
PK
Based on this last comment in the article, what are we supposed to do?
...scientists predict the warming will bring with it a rise in the number of so-called "extreme weather events" such as ice storms, droughts and hurricanes.
"That's what worries me the most," Dr. Beltrami says.
Ok, that is something to worry about. We all know they are events on the planet (and off the planet) that we can't control that impact our lives greatly: earthquakes, hurricanes, global climate change, etc. Is all this research being done so we know how bad life is going to become or do these scientists believe they may actually be able to do something to stop nature's course?
What's their problem?
Everyone and their dog knows that the heat comes from the sun, THE SUN.
It does not come from humans (all you 14th centuary hippies and selfproclaimed gods out there, give it up, it's pathetic) and it does not come from evil poor people trying to make a living in undeveloped countries (hello EU, USA, UN?).
It's just to silly.
Canadian scientists were the first to discover this!!! USA SUCKS.
scientists predict the warming will bring with it a rise in the number of so-called "extreme weather events" such as ice storms, droughts and hurricanes.
I read this and can't help thinking, If we cooled the planet by say 20 degrees we'd have fewer weather events such as ice storms??? Excuse me?!?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
because I am American,
I own a SUV that sucks a crapload of gas,
and I still hear reports about Global Warming being bullshit.
What a relief for my conscience,
and on top of that I do not have to try to adopt another lifestyle as other countries do
(who are wrong, not being as smart and independent about such topics like petrol as we, American).
Drilling a hole generates heat. Sometimes harder substances generate more heat, sometimes less. While the "heat tree rings" may exist, as seems logical, the act of attempting to observe them corrupts your data.
Using extremely old holes could mitigate this somewhat, but then you have no measure of the geological composition, and therefore thermal properties, of the rock the hole was bored through.
This makes any measurements made of core earth temperature so speculative as to be worthless, except as a very "scientific" expensive way to spread fud. There are quit a few "scientific" methods to measure global warming that are in fact just pseudo scientific pawns in the politically charged arena of environmentalism.
To imagine that we have had no impact on global warming is obviously false. Any argument contrary to what should be painfully obvious to the most casual observer is pure political bullshit.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Well, It seams to me that this is another case of weird science. The argument for rising temperatures is simple, the temperature of the surface will move downward due to conduction (you heat a long metal rod on one end and eventually the temperature will be conducted to the other end).
But wouldn't the rising crustal temperatures on earth be subject to too many variables? The tempurature of the crust 100 feet below the surface of the earth would not only be dependent on the temperature of the earth ~150 years ago, but upon the temperature much longer ago than that. Why is this? Well 200 years ago the temperature of the crust 100 feet below the surface of the earth (lets call this tempurature "A") was influence by the earth's surface tempurature ~150 years before that (from their reasoning). Now, at present, the tempurature of the crust 100 feet below the surface of the earth is dependent upon the surface tempurature of the earth ~150 years ago ( lets call this tempurature "B"). It is obvious to me that tempurature "B" is going to be influenced by more than just the surface temperature ~150 years ago, but also by tempuratue "A" (something that has an initial temperature that is low, when warmed up by a given amount will still be cooler that something with a relatively high temperature, when warmed by the same amount), and likewise tempurature "A" is dependent upon more than just the crustal temperatures ~150 years before it was measured.
Therefore unless if we can know the temperature of the surface of the earth in the past, there is no way of knowing the temperature of the surface of the earth in the past. Am I the only one who thinks this is weird science?
...interesting if true.
What's their problem? Everyone and their dog knows that the heat comes from the sun, THE SUN. It does not come from humans (all you 14th centuary hippies and selfproclaimed gods out there, give it up, it's pathetic) and it does not come from evil poor people trying to make a living in undeveloped countries (hello EU, USA, UN?).
Why is it every time someone calls someone "hippies" they're always spouting nonsense? Did you read the article before you posted? HALF the heat in the crust is coming from the center of the earth. This heat is generated by radioactive decay. The other half comes from the sun.
When people say humans are causing an increase in the global temperature (whether you agree with this or not), what they mean is that humans are generating atmospheric gases that trap solar heat by interfering with its thermal radiation into space. Saying the heat "comes from the sun, not from humans" is correct in a narrow literal sense, I guess, because we aren't warming it up with our breath.
What, did you think that the geophysicists just happened to have forgotten all about that? Quick send this devastating rebuttal to the editor of Geophysical Review Letters.
No. Homie don't think so.
Artificial heating locally will quickly re-equilibrate with the natural observed heat profile.
They can also do things known as "experiments" to check the accuracy of the experimental method.
And see that gee the profile over 614 holes is consistent with a actual experimental phenomenon rather than the drilling procedure and local rock type.
What are the "scientific" ways to measure global warming that are "pseudo scientific pawns".
Al Gore was one of the first to popularize "global warming" myths. Since he is the guy who invented the Internet we all know and love, it looks like the more gullible among us also buy into his other creations.
How dare you walk on the ground and heat up all those gravel molecules! I protest, and demand federal regulations limiting how much people can walk. Please we must act now to prevent global inmact!!! Can't you heathens listen to what mother Earth is trying to tell us!!
We are not going to destroy the planet by global warming. The earth has endured a great deal of meteorological change and life goes on. The fact is that temperatures are going to change whether we like it or not. I almost think that whether we are making the planet warming by .01 degree is irrelavant because natural changes are probably making it warmer by .5 degrees anyway.
There are better reasons to not cut down forests and to reduce emissions. When people argue global warming, they just pollute the issue and reduce their credibility.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Slow down yankee doodle! You fucking commie cowboy! Canadians are smarter and better looking than you stupid fat americans!
Dr. Beltrami and his colleagues from the University of Michigan found that more than half of the land's heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century, and 30% since 1950.
So, they believe the rate of warming for 1951-2000 was less than half what is was for 1901-1950. I don't have much basis for an opinion on the meaningfulness of these researchers' results, but I would sure like to know how they explain this apparently levelling off.
I think what we are seeing at Slashdot when the subject of global warming comes up is that the far right web sites are sending their readers here to leave comments and otherwise shout down the "locals." Regular readers might notice a certain kind of nasty post that we aren't used to, calling names and otherwise trying to intimidate people who post moderate opinions.
This practice is called being "Freep'd." The term comes from the site Free Republic. It is funded by far right organizations like the Moonies and the Heritage Foundation.
We are badly in need of facts from someone schooled in heat transfer and/or geology.
The core of the earth is much hotter than the surface which results in a thermal gradient defined by many factors. In the absence of sunlight and a warm atmosphere, the flow of energy would be from the core into space with the speed determined by the thermal characteristics of the earth. The presence of our atmosphere (at some apparently variable temperature) complicates the equation.
I assume (and this is dangerous) that since this research will be published in a peer reviewed journal, the basic science is sound. Can anyone shed any light on this?
Things sure aren't getting any colder.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
I just spoke with Roger Lumis from the Xavier University in Nova Scotia...I'm afraid it's true we will all be dead within 12 years. :(
*Dig, Dig, Dig*
...
*Dig, Dig, Dig*
...
"Hey Jack, we got two holes dug for ya. Now whatcha want us to do wit'em?"
"Lower the temperature guage into each hole and measure the temperature of the crust at the bottom of each hole. While you do that, I'll calculate the historical dates for each hole based on their depth..."
"Okey dokey boss...well, this here hole's got a readin' of 42 degrees...whatcha make out it's date to be?"
"Okay, according to my calculations, that one is from January of 1849, and the other one is dated to be around July of 1968."
"Okey, well, the udder' hole's got a readin' of 74 degrees."
***Next Day's Newspaper Headlines"***
"Experts Discover Dramatic Global Warming in the Earth's Crust"
Some issues worth thinking about:
The article states that 150 meters down corresponds to about 100 years ago. However, the thermal conductivity of the crust at each site should be different, meaning that local adjustments need to be made to temperature readings.
The process of drilling generates frictional heat which will affect local temperature readings. Even if the holes are old, wouldn't air or water passing through affect the temperature?
Speaking of water, did the authors do a thorough seismic survey to check for aquifers, geothermal vents, other activity which might affect the temperature?
What's the relative standard? To assume that the surface temperature is the current temperature is dangerous, since it is more affected by daily solar heating, cooling from precipitation, etc.
616 bore holes seems like a lot until you consider that the land surface area of Earth is 148 million square kilometers. If you picked out , say, 616 members of the U.S. population, there is a (significant) chance they will all be engineers, but it's incorrect to assume from this observation that everyone in the U.S. is an engineer. Site selection will have a big impact from reasons previously stated.
Granted, the full article has not been printed yet, so all we have is a journalist's take. But I will be watching for the full article.
Therefore unless if we can know the temperature of the surface of the earth in the past, there is no way of knowing the temperature of the surface of the earth in the past. Am I the only one who thinks this is weird science?
(It's been ten years since I took a PDE course, so parts of this could be slightly off.)
The heat equation looks like this:
du/dt = A * (d/dx)^2 u
where u is temperature, and the partial derivative with respect to time is proportional to the second partial derivative with respect to space (depth). (A is a constant determined by the thermal conductivity of the material.)
To use the heat equation to solve for u(x,t), you need boundary conditions surrounding a two-dimensional domain (space and time). Time here runs from 1500 AD to 2000 AD, and space runs from 0 meters at the surface to 1000 meters at the bottom of the hole. So there are four boundary functions along the extremes of both dimensions:
1. u(0 meters, t)
2. u(1000 meters, t)
3. u(x, 2000 AD)
4. u(x, 1500 AD)
The first one is the function they're trying to get- it's their unknown. The second they have to assume is constant, because there is no way to directly measure it. But since temperature perturbations at the surface of the earth won't have penetrated that deep over the time scale they're looking at, and most of the variability will originate at the surface, this is a fairly safe assumption. The third just requires them to drop a thermometer down the hole, as they have done. The fourth is what you're worrying about, but they don't need it because they have 2. and 3. and can use the heat equation to extrapolate over the rest of the domain.
A problem arises because the left side of the heat equation is a first derivative in time. As time progresses, features in the temperature profile u(x) degrade. (Partial differential equations that have second derivatives on both sides, like the wave equation, don't have this problem.) What you don't want to find, when you measure the temperature down one of these holes, is that the temperature increases uniformly with depth. That means you've waited too long, everything has equilibrated, and both sides of the heat equation are now zero, which prevents you from extrapolating backward. Apparently they must have found some curvature in u(x), or we wouldn't be seeing this article posted.
There are other complications. The thermal conductivity constant won't be uniform with depth, for example. What that means is they need computers to solve for u(x,t) numerically. Partial differential equations can almost never be solved symbolically anyway, so this isn't much of an issue.
Looking at all your posts, it looks like there is zero evidence that you can comprehend the real possibility that you are just plain wrong. No doubt you will write a lengthy reply proving my point.
Just reminded me of Kent Brockman:
Could this record-breaking heat wave be the result of the dreaded "greenhouse effect"?
Well, if 70-degree days in the middle of winter are the "price" of car pollution, you'll forgive me if I keep my old Pontiac. [chuckles]
ref
Great, now maybe we can finally nationalize all of the remaining private property in the U.S.A.
</sarcasm>
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
This might be evidence of global warming, but not unlike the ozone hole, it is mainly speculation. Just because the earth is getting warmer in the center doesn't mean polution and other man evils are plotting to ruin the environment. As far as science can tell (at the moment), the only way that we can for sure ruin the environment is to take drastic measures (like pouring oil over the entire planet).
Also, one would think drilling would create heat so the info comming back might not be any more accurate than carbon dating.
I am devoting my life to the continuation of global warming. I promise I will not rest until the North/East (my home) has Florida like weather conditions year round.
Then how does it explain an extremly high temperature in the core of our Earth?
let me guess... Big Bang? Right! And now it's getting colder. May be with some local fluctations.
Wait a minute. Where is the global warming?
Than the situation is even worse - the much smaller % of Sun's radiation fluctuations have thousand times more effect on our temperature than any posible physical factor down here on the Earth. That scares me - any small Sun's blast might the last thing the life here will see.
We are badly in need of facts from someone schooled in heat transfer and/or geology
I'm no expert in heat transfer: I slept through most of the (7AM!) Thermodynamics course I took back when I was a student. I decided to bone up on it, however, the book is lodged in the middle of a stack of textbooks holding up one side of the shelf that my monitor rests upon. So, instead I'll bullshit my way through it. Just think of the earth to a big computer: the crust is the CPU, the atmosphere is the heatsink and the seas are the liquid cooling system God put in so He could overclock the world.
After thoroughly reading Tom's Hardware Guide, HardOCP, and a bunch of other sites on the web, I can say with all the authority of an expert in a completely different science making a bad analogy that we just need to shave a few mountains, apply a nice, thick layer of thermal compound and put tall enough (must reach beyond the atmosphere) heatsink/fan combos on top. Or maybe the Overclocked Jesus can turn the seas to liquid nitrogen and save us all! Of course, I'd never have a taste of fried halibut again, but I'm willing to make sacrifices.
If, in fact, there is a global warming trend, which I'm not inclined to dispute as there may well be, just what can we realistically do to prevent it? At this point, I'd suggest adapting, since there's only one other certain solution...
Give them an inch and they'll take a foot. Much more than that, you won't have a leg to stand on.
Duh ! What is this silly nonsense? Do you think heat is some kind of liquid that is affected by gravity and slowly soaks down through the rocks? Heat flows in all directions. And measuring temperature alone provides little useful information, you also need to know the thermal conductivity and specific heat of the medium(rocks), which is highly non-uniform.
Old boreholes? Give me a break. The air convection in the hole will effect the measured temperature.
I for one don't believe any such thermal signal more than a few years old can exceed the noise threshold.
Bert Douglas
I realize that confusing all this theology with some science is the kind of thing that gets one flamed, if not burned at the stake, but the Belltrami's own web site is here. Both cites for papers published elsewhere and some online papers are available.
People who don't think global warming is possible are the same kinds of people who don't belive in evolution, that is to say people who don't belive the obvious scientific evidence in favor of something that is more in synch with their pre-heald beliefs or ideologies.
Yeh, it's possible that global warming isn't happening or isn't caused by humans, but if you look at all the data rather then a few slashdot posts or propaganda from one side or the other, it's pretty clear that the earth is getting warmer, and has been recently, and that there's a resonable chance that we might be causing it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I wonder how many "sciantists" you could get to sign a "anti-evolution" petition. A lot, probably.
The number of "sciantists" who sign an online petition isn't proof of anything.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Global warming?
Have Rosie O'Donut close her mouth.
Get Alec to make good on his promise to leave this country and go to Europe with the mangia patate.
Result: No more global warming or other fantasies in this hemisphere.
There are a lot of people here giving a hard time to the skeptics. In science, scepticism is a virtue. Theories need to be tested. Theories need experimental support. People who make claims need to back them up. Proper science is all about this back and forth between various claims and theories.
Its also unfair to suppose that every skeptic is motivated by some base political, or economic consideration. It is dangerous conceit to assume that one's own views are pure while dismissing those who disagree as letting prejudice influence them.
Consider this letter to The Economist by Jeffrey Harvey
of the Netherlands Institute of Ecology -- one of the major critics of The Sceptical Evironmentalist and ask yourself how someone who claims to be a scientist can compare Nature and Scientific American to the Bible and the Koran. Also see the excellent reply by Charles Korsmo.
SIR -- As co-author of the review of "The Skeptical
Environmentalist" in Nature and of a critique of its chapter on
biodiversity published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, I must be
one of the green heretics you refer to in your one-sided leader
("Defending science", February 2nd).
You are smearing the vast majority of the scientific community.
You say that the four senior scientists who attacked Bjorn Lomborg's
polemic in Scientific American were "weak on substance". To show you
how absurd this is, Professor Tom Lovejoy, who wrote the piece on
biodiversity, is a senior ecologist and biodiversity adviser with the
World Bank, and a leading authority on tropical ecology. Your attempt
to discredit him is sordid and reflects your conservative ideological
agenda.
I have not the space here to debunk the vast amounts of
disinformation in Mr Lomborg's book. Its fatal flaw is to ignore the
connection between environmental indicators and the condition of the
underlying ecosystems upon which our survival (and that of all life)
depends. Mr Lomborg says nothing about the fraying of marine and
terrestrial food webs, the extent, loss and chemical alteration of
wetlands, the effects of invasive species, etc.
I will conclude with a quotation from an article that appeared in
Jyllands-Posten, a Danish Sunday paper:
"Ove Nathan, former president of the University of Copenhagen,
thinks it totally unlikely that such a thing as a scientific
conspiracy against Bjorn Lomborg should exist. 'There is no scientific
periodical that outshines or is more critically edited than Nature,
Science, and Scientific American. In science they speak with almost
the same authority as the Bible of Christianity and the Koran of
Islam. If all three periodicals pass the same severe judgment upon
Lomborg, I personally would take it for gospel truth.'"
Jeffrey Harvey
Netherlands Institute of Ecology
Heteren, Netherlands
~~
SIR - Jeffrey Harvey's letter (February 16th), in response to your
article on Bjorn Lomborg, is among the most remarkable and disturbing
I have ever read. He attempts to demonstrate the "absurdity" of your
claim that Tom Lovejoy's Scientific American article was "weak on
substance", not by reference to the substance of Mr Lovejoy's article
but by recounting his rank and position. He then one-ups himself by
quoting approvingly an article comparing Nature to the Bible and
Scientific American to the Koran, and ascribing to them the power of
gospel truth.
While notions of unquestioned authority and infallible oracles
have long been shunned outside fundamentalist religious circles,
apparently they have found a comfortable home among some scientists.
You must have been shaking your head in disbelief at such an egregious
example of the kind of person against whom science must be defended.
Men such as Mr Harvey do not deserve to call themselves scientists.
Charles Korsmo
Washington, DC
This is not a troll. An object which might possibly be the infamous 12th planet, Niribu, has been found in the sky. Looking where the object is calculated to be, based on data about its orbit. This might not be an object headed for a pass near Earth, but as the time nears we can get a better idea. There is the possibility that we will see signs of the purported changes our planet will undergo. The earth warming inside might be a sign. The Antarctic ice shelfs are melting on their underside, is this a sign too? Increase in the number of earthquakes might be one too. The magnetic poles are shifting a little faster than normal. I won't provide links, just look up some of this stuff and make up your own minds.
What's a second? An hour? A day?
It has much more to do with
the Earth's rotation than with cesium.
The fact that this is rated higher than the responses that point out the OBVIOUS logical flaw, is why I will be passing over any "scientific" discussions on Slashdot from now on.
-- A longtime reader
Could someone help me out here, please?
I am reading the posts here with some amusement. The anger which erupts so quickly in American political discussions-- particularly in regards to what is considered 'leftist'-- makes me wonder if it is even possible to consider an issue rationally from either side of the debate.
The thing I am wondering is exactly how accepting the proposition that human industrial activity might be causing climactic change is a 'left-wing' idea. Is it because a concern for the environment has been associated with the American 1960s left?
The word 'left-wing' originates from the French Revolution. The particular architecture of the royal stables, where the first assembly was held, made for a seating arrangement in the shape of a semi-circle. The Royalists, loyal to Louis, sat on the right. The Jacobins and sans-culottes, on the left.
Over the years, 'left' has denoted state-centered approaches to wealth redistribution and community over individuality. The 'right' is market-centered and libertarian (well, it's supposed to be, but many Christian-conservative right-wingers hate the ACLU, go figure).
So why does a scientific controversy get interpreted in these terms?
My guess is that the passionate rhetoric on both sides is symptomatic of the American inability to discuss politics rationally, mostly because Americans have too much power and too little history to use it wisely. Hence the immediate association of global warming to 'liberalism' because the *only* American experience with a left movement was in the 60s.
(Funny how noone has brought up British Petroleum... I guess Europe is irelevant...)
Anyone have any other ideas?
Oh lord - yet another editorial attempt to get the Gaians and the Ostriches to have at it again, in the hopes of stimulating a flame war. And here Taco was saying that the comments posted by folks here are of little, if any, value to Slashdot.
If that's the case, then why do they go out of their way to get fanatics on an issue in an uproar?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Dr. Beltrami and his colleagues from the University of Michigan found that more than half of the land's heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century, and 30% since 1950.
Sorry, I blew it, so I'll publicly take responsibility for my error. As the responses by "dhogaza" and "PhuCknuT" correctly point out, I misread that sentence. Beltrami et al claim that 30% of the temperature increase over that past 500 years happened since 1950, not just 30% of the temperature increase since 1900. Although I obviously puzzled over that sentence for before posting about it, I will endeavor to be more diligent against making this kind of mistake in the future. Sorry for wasting everyone's time with a simple misreading.
If you talk to Europeans, they accept that the Earth is warming up and think that something must be done to prevent it from messing up the balance of nature.
If you talk to people from the USA, they come up with who knows what explanations about why the Earth is not warming up. Why is it so? Do they teach you at school that the Earth may not warm up and thus it is perfectly safe to pump more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere?
There still is an ozone hole. The Earth is warming up. Okay, the ozone hole is not so large as it was a few years ago, but this was because ozone-layer eating gasses were banned.
Think about it, if everyone had thought "what a bunch of hippie communist propaganda, ozone-schmozone, ha" things would be different now. In that scenario you had better not go to Southern Australia for a vacation.
So, please explain what drives especially people from the US to close their eyes from the facts and cite corporate spin doctors who offer "proof" about why the planet is NOT warming and hence it is safe NOT to invest in expensive modifications of manufacturing plants or environmentally friendly technology.
I would love to create stockholder value, but I'm constipated right now.
In the beginning, we just had mindless spelling flames. Now we have something better: trolls mocking mispellings which were actually not in the quoted article! How much more silly can you get?
Could one of the editors please change the headline to something else that's not completely inaccurate?
I'm noticing a disturbing trend of headlines on Slashdot that completely contradict the article they reference. In this instance, a study has shown that thermal energy from the atmosphere penetrates surface rock layers, which then store that heat as a record of historical climate, much the same as rings on a tree indicate its age. If this study is to be believed, it is strong evidence that the earth's atmosphere has warmed dramatically in the last hundred years.
The headline implies precisely the opposite; that the earth's crust is being warmed by its molten core. This is misinformation.
I'd appreciate seeing a little more careful work on the part of the editors. Lots of people are going to see that headline, not bother reading the article to find out the details, and then wander off assuming that global warming has been resolved and that it doesn't matter if they buy that Ford Explorer they've been thinking about.
I know I'm going to be flamed by people who don't buy the concept of global warming, or think that the study is flawed. That's not the issue. The issue is that this study is being represented as evidence for one side of the debate, when in fact it is evidence for the other.
Slashdot is a clearinghouse for information that influences a lot of people. That's only a positive thing if great care is taken to not spread misinformation. Inaccurate or misleading information is worse than no information at all, and just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio.
Monkeytreats
All these geophysical changes are due to the coming cataclysmic flyby of Planet X according to http://www.metatech.org/planet_x_nibiru_earth_chan ges.html
No one's going to listen to you here. Slashdot these days is full of scientifically ignorant right wing bums.
.. it IS a greenhouse gas you know .. how many ways are there to pretend it isn't. Let the slashdotters count the ways. Maybe the Earth is just plain getting warmer ... many measurements indicate the fastest rate of warming since the start of the holocene, which is kind of an amazing coincidence that it should happen when we are pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere.
... they object , find ways around it blah blah .. then the fishing stocks crash bye bye industry. Wonderful planning guys. Total idiots.
I mean they fuckin even got the basis of this article wrong. It is heat conducting down from the surface. Similar measurements, on permafrost, have been done for the last decade. The earth is getting warmer, there is absolutely no doubt on that. Is it due to CO2. Well fuck me
Am I a greenie ? Nope. Do I think global warming is going to stuff things up big time ? Yep. Do I think humans will actually do anything to stop it ? No. Just look at history. Humans aren't really good at planning long term. Better still look at all the fishing grounds and the reaction when scientists point out the consequences of continued levels of fishing
Normally I don't get this pissed off. But the level of ignorance is totally frightening. Oh well that's what natural selection is for.
Bitter and proud of it.
The whole "are humans causing global warming" is such a red herring. Does it matter? Is it not enough to argue that reducing emissions, polutants, and generally being more sustainable is beneficial because: i) it would improve air quality; ii) improved water quality; iii) more sustainable use of *local* resources. In a nutshell, it would improve our quality of living.
Who are you to judge what's nonsense and what's not?
when people say humans are causing an increase in the global temperature (whether you agree with this or not), what they mean is that humans are generating atmospheric gases blah blah.
What they mean is that humans do have an impact on the weather. There is no question about it - they're either 14th centuary hippies or selfproclaimed gods.
and you're a typical slashdrone, dreaming you know something.
- the heat comes from the sun.
as much as i don't really thing global warming is anything than just one of earths regular changes in temperature (people.. X years from now will be reasearching 'global cooling' aka. the 'igloo effect')
:)
what if (IF its real) the problem is like somthing that no one would even think of.. for instance, all these tree's that are cut down.
(this is a theory just like anything else)
me and my brother walk to the store quite often
and those tree's that are so perfect and provide 100% shade are always cool underneath.
now.. where we previously lived was one of those stupid lego housing areas... there was not a single tree in sight. if i wanted to be cool i had to go inside.
now think how the earth feels in both instances.... she just wants some shady lovin from her tree hair
-zer0
the only fact is that everything is an opinion
Please stop posting these farcical threads on global warming! If you want to bitch about changes in the weather, look at the BIG picture, not your narrow slice of time!
Getting to hot outside? Blame it on global warming!
Getting to cold outside? Blame it on global warming!
Ice breaking apart up north? Blame it on global warming!
Car won't start? Blame in on global warming!
Bush's wife won't sleep with him? Blame it on global warming!
ps. Thank you shaboz melik muhummed achmed jabbar, for your hilarious pandering that makes me laugh until this very day!
Anaerobic bacteria live far below the surface of the earth, even where pressures are extradordinarily large. And...guess what...anaerobic bacteria create _heat_. Probably much more than conduction from the surface above. So are they measuring the conduction of heat that came from the surface 100 years ago...or just the amount of anaerobic bacteria that is in their
soil sample.
What we would really need to see is their actual method of sampling and measurement taking. Too many possible inaccuracies.
Salis
Favorite
They can get that from boring holes? Wonder what they could get from interesting holes?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
If 70 degree days in the middle of January are the "price" of car pollution, you'll forgive me if I keep my old Pontiac.
--Your Emmy Award-winning host, Kent Brockman
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Uh, yes. Just ask your neighborhood tree or plant what they like to eat. They'll tell you they like water (which there will be more of if the earth warms and there is more evaporation) and CO2 (which apparently we're poisoning the atmosphere with).
So, yes, thanks to the plants CO2 does disappear.
Uh, no. We're taking carbon from deep underground (oil) and putting it into the atmosphere. Plants may take that carbon back out of the atmosphere but it's just temporary. As soon as that plant dies and burns/rots the carbon goes back into the atmosphere. The carbon never makes it back underground from where it originally came.
The way I see it the only environmentally safe fuel to burn is hydrogen. Solar/wind power can be stored in the form of hydrogen that can used to power automobiles. I guess alcohols based from grains/plants would also be good as they wouldn't change the CO2 ratio of the atmosphere. Either way, it all comes from solar power.
Willy
the real problem is that the message you try to get across is obscured by your lack of integrity (yes, character DOES matter), thus pushing people away. Use the truth, and approach problems with logic and reason. As specifically about the environment, this is even more important, because you have to make sure you don't 'overcorrect' and cause even more problems
Who are you to judge what's nonsense and what's not?
Hahahahaha.... what an idiot.
Dinosaurs did not pollute,
Humans do
Dinosaurs probably where not thinkers,
Humans do, though know they do pollute
Dino's did not know their extinction,
Humans might know
The dino's could not change earths destiny
Maybe humans can
after all, earth might stay here, shaking off humans, maybe another cycle of earths life
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
"Irony" ... look it up.
Man is incredibly capable of affecting his environment. He just sucks at predicting consequences. The question of whether Man or Nature is doing this warming is stupid. Change happens. The current change is warming. This is a Bad Thing- The sea levels are just fine where they're at, and droughts suck. What little groundwater that we haven't polluted yet isn't enough for us to drink, wash our cars and water our lawns forever.
Unless the warming is mainly because Earth's orbit is decaying a bit and we're getting closer to the sun, we can affect it. The niche we've evolved into is changing, folks. I don't want to find myself owning property that suddenly turned into beachfront. We're better off changing our behavior to maintain the status quo than changing our behavior because we don't have the port cities or crop production levels that we got so used to.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
I don't know how scientific issues manage to become political issues, but in this particular case, both sides here are arguing outcomes that they cannot possibly predict.
If the data shows a warming trend in the last century, I'll buy that. But what does it mean? Do we expect that the earth's temperature is invariant? Can we prove causation? I just don't see a strong case either way. If there continues to be a warming trend, what will be the result of that? How do we know if it will be good or bad? I can't see how we could. The weather is like the ultimate 3 body problem, involving the interactions of countless variables. I defy anyone to make a simulation that can predict the weather in a statistically significant way for even short term trends.
My personal view is that we should alter our energy usage policies for more obvious reasons, such as dwindling petroleum supplies, smog, and self-reliance from foreign energy sources.
Am I nuts?
Really? Are you sure? This is Slashdot we're posting on...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
We're seeing typoes on some otherwise quite respectable sites recently, so this isn't as obvious an incompetence indicator as it once was. Sad, really.
Regardless of typoes and propaganda sites, there are at least 25,000 card-carrying scientists in the USA alone who reckon that evolution is a non-starter.
Evolution is only one of a very large number of sacred cows which should be on the conveyor-belt headed towards the mincer. As textbooks still occasionally hawk the centuries-ago-disproven ontogeny-recapitulates-phylogeny lie, so they also still tell us that aeroplanes stay up because of the Bernoulli principle (and so they fly upside-down how...?), and that oil is formed from the compressed bodies of dinosaurs (and so the domes are refilling themselves how...?).
Aside from the fact that many of them are also raving loonies, and aside from observing the many honest scientists I know, I'm occasionally tempted to agree with the concensus-reality crowd's view of science, ie, that all scientific conclusions are based on ideological assumptions so of course the answers will fit same ideologies. As with many things in life, it seems to have a thread of truth running through it, but not nearly enough to make the whole deal worth taking aboard.
So I settle for a general air of skepticism and tossing the odd spanner into the works. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Good point. Are these methane-fixers you're talking about?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Zetatalk is a good starting point for information on that theory.
This was a very intriguing post! Now if you would actually back up some of what you are saying, I would be most impressed.
:-)
As for reckoning, scientists are free to think whatever they like. If their beliefs are to be restricted, that is the duty of their respective governments or religions, not their scientific principles. What an individual scientist believes is only scientifically significant so far as they are willing to submit the belief to validation via the scientific method. That said, where did you pull this figure of 25K from, and where can I buy one of these cards?
Where was the recapitulation of phylogeny via ontogeny disproven? I don't believe that the theory exen existed for multiple centuries, much less that it was disproven over 199 years ago. There are many theories of evolution, Charles Darwin held one significantly different than his grandfather Erasmus, or Lamark did.
There is no reason that the Bernoulli principle only works in one direction - do Iomega Bernoulli drives or standard winchester hard-drives fail when they are mounted upside down? Passengar aircraft don't fly upside down, because that is illegal. While air foils are more efficient when designed for non-interable flight, there is no reson that a symmetric wind can't be used. The more significant problem is that of keeping the fluids available to the engine during upside-down flight.
Oil is indeed formed from pressurized organic material dating from prehistoric times. What domes are refilling themselves? Do you mean that oil is a renewable resource? We won't have to tap ANWR after all, because previous cachets of oil are refilling themselves? That is great news!
A general air of skepticism can be healthy, but only if you proactively work with what's available. Our current system of science, while not perfect, can handle the odd monkey wrench now and then. It has much less success dealing with innuendo and vapor. I suppose I settle for general airs of open-mindedness, and tossing the odd goat to the trolls.