Slashdot Mirror
Abrupt Climatic Change Coming Soon?
rRaAnNiI writes "Just read an extremely interesting article about the possibility of having a 'little ice age' quite soon - within a decade.
The frightening thing is that it makes a lot of sense to me. Does anyone know how to build an igloo?"
Quoth the article: When I say "dramatic," I mean: Average winter temperatures could drop by 5 degrees Fahrenheit over much of the United States, and by 10 degrees in the northeastern United States and in Europe. That's enough to send mountain glaciers advancing down from the Alps. To freeze rivers and harbors and bind North Atlantic shipping lanes in ice.
While this could/perhaps will affect quite a bit, changing the weather by 5-10 degrees lower won't put us into what we think of as an 'ice age'. It could screw up quite a bit, but it won't be too bad. To me it seems that it would be more winterlike for a month or two as the general affect (which most plants and animals could tolerate I think).
Don't start thinking that it's gonna be like the Pixar movie 'Ice Age' in New Mexico...
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Bonehead - this climate change is BECAUSE OF global warming. At least read the article before calling people "nutcases."
That mentality will drive our species to extinction. For proof, read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. For more immediate information, read this. Some of your points are good, i.e. that there are checks and balances in place. However, in the last 10000 years alone humans have seized the role of proprietor on this planet and have single-handedly changed permanently these mechanisms. If you're as observant as your post suggests, you owe it to yourself to read the book I have listed above... it would clear up a lot of the confusion you must feel.
Dismantle globally, renew locally.
... that it is us causing this?
Almost everyone knows that the Earth's climate shifts over time, sometimes dramatically. What is still unclear (despite best efforts of people to firmly convince you one way or the other) is how much impact human activity has on the climate. Volcanic emissions dwarf global emissions due to human activities, for some gases and chemicals. The past has seen dramatic climate changes without humans having anything to do with it
The question is not if we are bringing about an ice age or a warmer period (depending which scare of the day is going around). The question is if we are accelerating the change and by how much. If we bring an ice age about 100 years sooner than it would have occurred naturally, it hardly matters in the long run (but this generation might think otherwise). I believe in cutting back emissions and energy usage, cleaner factories and recycling and all that. But I am tired of the "we are killing the Earth" line.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I have no doubt that drastic climate flucuations have occured consistently in the past and will in the future if left on its own. But there is one distinct difference today than in all the Billions of years of climat history - we have the technology. Right now is the first time in Earth's History where we have the capability (but do we have the will?) to change the weather.
There has been tons of research into technologically induced climate change. Keep in mind these climate changes are happening as a result of gas changes in the atmosphere. Changing the mixture of gases is not a big technological hurdle now. Simply adding iron to the oceans could decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Now, coming soon, nanotechnology will enable us to effect the mixture of atmospheric gases substantially. If we do start to get some dramatic cooling effects, procedures could be set into motion to change the gas mixtures to compensate for said cooling. And as the decades go on, our capability in this are will only accelerate. If not, its probably because the humans blew themselves up.
www.enthea.org
Planets do not have self-correction mechanisms. They are not alive.
I do agree with your broader point that it is foolish to expect to "freeze" nature at a particular point. You're right - life will go on. Bacteria and the cockroaches will probably be just fine.
However, it is downright idiotic to just throw up your hands and let anything go. The future is largely in our hands, and we can determine what kind of environment we will live in. (e.g. Our cities and waterways are less polluted now than 100 years ago because of a profound cultural shift and stringent regulations, not because they just "got better").
You can choose to live in a world without old-growth forest or spotted owls or wild areas, a world with a Sahara desert covering half of Africa and matching deserts on each continent. I'd rather be a little more careful and preserve some of the pretty stuff for my grandkids.
Just ask Venus and Mars whether they "self-corrected" their climate change...
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
Social programs cannot stop global warming.
You can throw more money each year at telling people to turn down the heating, but each year the human population increases closer to (or perhaps beyond) the carrying capacity of the planet. This is the real problem. I have perfect confidence in the ability of life on this planet to survive a 5-10 F drop in temperature (its been done before). The human race is no exception - we are a non-specialist species with an ability to live in many climates. The article seems more worried about a decline in economic prosperity in the developed world;
"it could soon trigger a dramatic and abrupt cooling throughout the North Atlantic region--where, not incidentally, some 60 percent of the world's economy is based."
Sounds like that would be something you are in favour of.
P.S. saying that it must be right because it was written by the head of the WHOI is arguing to the person an not a valid scientific argument. There is no mention of peer review of this article, and it has a single author
What I want to know is what he left out of his extremely euro-american view of the world.
If he is right, and such an occurence happened and plunged the northa atlantic into another ica age, would the equatorial areas become even more desertified than they are now because there would no longer be a stream of cold water coming down from the north? If that were to happen, not only would is fsck up the entire equatorial climate as well as the north american one, those changes would cause even more drastic shifts in the southern hemisphere's climate.
"It is reasonable to assume that drinking alcohol can exacerbate the possibility of being involved in a serious automobile accident."
Hardly a statement that I killed those two kids "BECAUSE OF" my drunk driving.
If you read the newspapers, you will learn that automobile accidents are common. They have happened many times in the past, and will most likely happen again in the future.
Guess I might as well get liquored up every time I get behind the wheel, since being drunk doesn't make it certain that I'll get into an accident, and not drinking does not make it certain that I won't get into an accident.
Why is it that people are capable of dealing with probabilities and common sense when dealing with everyday life, but they insist that everything be 100% certain when dealing with climate change?
The thing that gets me about such stories, especially from scientists is the simple conclusion: What they are saying is either true, or false. We have no idea if he is right or wrong. But it is a fact that it is true or false.
Given the news in the headlines about such massively important earth changing risks that is reported in the press I believe we all tend to dismiss any doomsayers. We have become oversaturated by the news that comes almost monthly. I don't know if this is a fault of the media or of people's inability to accept the possibility of danger. In either case, the I believe the observation is true. People just don't care because they don't know what to believe anymore.
So is this the Boy who cried wolf or are have we been warned warned of impending danger? Personally, I just don't know, but the implications are sure as hell worth some serious, multi-national investigation.
--
A sudden change in crop growing patterns would be very, very destabilising to international security. It's bothered me for some time that the WTO and free-trade politicians in general believe that food is just another commodity. And yet they are elected (one of the fundamental underpinnings of democracy) to provide security. That doesn't just mean hi-tech armed forces in my book, it means ensuring consistency of supply of the basics needed for survival - amongst those are the crucial elements of water, food, shelter and fuel.
:)
The politicos seem to 'get' the argument about physical security, but where is the discussion of security of food supply? Living in the UK - as I do - it alarms me to see that the only argument about agricultural subsidy is one based on trade. So before long we could easily be in a position where to feed the population there is total dependency on shipping the staple part of the diet over thousands of miles. What happens if there is a huge oil price shock? Or some similar catastrophe that disrupts the supply and which can't easily be fixed.
Seems to me that there is a fundamental duty of care amongst the elected elite that famine should be guarded *very* carefully against. It's not that long since significant starvation occurred in Europe, but I don't hear voices clamouring to ensure it doesn't again.
And before flaming me about ignoring the poor souls in the rest of the world who are starving already, or telling me it doesn't matter 'cos you live somewhere else, that's not what my post was about
You can always put on more clothing, but you can only take off so much. Given a choice, I'll take colder over hotter anyday.
... Yes, seriously.
Provided we're not looking at severe glaciation, just a mini-ice-age like we had a few centuries ago, Europe can probably take it. Most of us live in artificial urban environments anyway, and there's plenty of room to improve our insulation. A colder climate could devastate our agriculture, but Brussels already pays out billions of euros to people just for them _not_ to farm!
And, to be honest, we're fantastically rich by global standards. Look for English and Germans to go buying places in Spain, Italy and north Africa if things start getting a little chilly at home...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
This is a common misconception. Just because its hard to understand small parts of the system, does not mean that it is impossible to understand the whole system. For example, heisenbergs uncertainty principle states that you cannot know the exact position or velocity of a single subatomic particle. however, if that subatomic particle happens to be in my car, and im going down the freeway at 60 mph, and ive got my gps on, Ive got a pretty good idea not only of its position and velocity, but the position and velocity of its surrounding particles. Each particle is going to have lots of other velocities due to heat, collisions etc, but I know that at least one component is 60mph. My point is, its hard to predict what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, its relatively easy to predict what the weather trend is going to be, warming cooling, wetter, drier. Take el-nino for example. We know that when el-nino occurs, it will be a milder winter. We dont know that its going to snow on the 21st of december in buffalo, but we do know that when the winter is over, buffalo should have recieved less snow than normal.
When will people realize that "begs the question" means asking a question that has already been answered. It does not mean "presents the next logical question!" Think circular reasoning, not linear reasoning.
After all, even one degree is the difference between freezing and melting point, no?
Go back to elementary physics class, doodyhead. "Freezing point" and "melting point" are the same damn thing, therefore NO degrees of difference. It's a heat transfer thing, man.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Now go take that bad mood and your dumb joke and shove it somewhere else.
Bleh!
The "Elfstedentocht" (meaning "The 11 cities marathon") is a both competetive as well as non-competetive skating event done whenever possible in the Dutch province of Friesland or Frylân in it's own dialect. The Frysian people have allot of customs and habits that differentiate the Frysian culture from the dutch one, but one of the most notable things is the Elfstedentocht, a long (nearly 200km) skating marathon, charatarized by both the massive number of participants as well as the massive number of spectators.
The Elfstedentocht itself is divided in two main events, the time-trail of which most participants are professionals and the tour, of which most participants are amateurs. Both follow the same rules, where skaters are to collect stamps at designated and sometimes hidden checkpoints. Only when all stamps are collected and the skater finishes the Elfstedentocht in time, will it be considered as complete. In the end, there are no real prizes to be won except a small but coveted medal called an "Elfstedenkruisje". (Cross of the 11 cities) The only thing other then that is cult status for the winner of the time-trail.
Lately, this event is becoming more and more rare due to soft winters we experience here in the Netherlands, though when it does happen, it nearly equeals itself with the football/soccer World Cup events in popularity. Also, it's a different side of the Netherlands most people don't know about. If you can skate, if you know some dutch people and if you got quite some endurance, be sure to sign up for this. It is far less of a commercial event then most other sporting events and it's a refreshing break from the normal stereotype that enshrouds us Dutchies. (No, we do not wear clogs all day, we do not all live in windmills, we do not each have our own cannabis garden nor do we all walk around sticking our fingers in dykes or large mounds of earth bordering rivers. Thank you.)
Hate me!
It's ridiculous to draw conclusions from a sample of 2 data points.
Especially when the second data point, has a beginning, but no fixed end yet. You really don't know anything about the length of the second time period.
So in reality you're taking a single observable fact, the length of the historic ice age, and extrapolating wildly from that single point of data.
Completely meaningless conclusions are all you can draw from a single point of data.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Yes the article is a bunch of what ifs and maybes, but what if it wasn't. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend that everything will be ok in ten years just because it is now. We need to think about these issues, weigh the evidence or lack therof, and make policy/personal decisions to prepare for the future. If the evidence points to the fact there is a low likelihood of dramatic global change then we are none the worse for thinking about the possibility. But if dramatic global changes happen and humankind is completely unaware and unprepared, then we are screwed.
You haven't debunked anything. You said he was wrong, called him names, and made a statement wihtout providing any references or supporting arguments.
'Debunking' usually involves proving, to some degree, that the data and premises the theory is based on are incomplete or inadequate, the logic combining the data and premises is flawed, or that there are other (possibly more likely) conclusions that can be drawn from the same data.
You haven't done any of that!
In leu of this, I see nothing wrong with the theory. Earth warms, icecaps melt, ocean salts get diluted, transport of heat stops, earth cools, ice forms, ocean salts become concentrated, transportation of heat resumes. Lather, rinse, repeat.
If you're going to cling to the current "global warming" theory, that CO2 production and other man-made gasses are causing the earth to trap more heat, then I'd like to know how the whole Medieval Warm Period came about... I don't think it was because of all those Knights and Kings driving their Cadillac SUVs.
That article also discusses history of global climate in general. It's a good read, especially since it indicates that maybe mankind hasn't managed to make THAT big a dent in the environment... yet...
=Smidge=
The only accurate model of climate/weather is a full-scale model which cannot be simulated electronically. The fact that they are depending on computer modeling to predict amything renders their predictions about as valuable as a random guess.
Sorry, I can't agree with you here. The only way to achieve prefect accuracy would be a "full-scale" model (if I understand your use of that phrase correctly); however, you do not need perfect accuracy to make useful scientific predictions about the behavior of complex systems. The question is: are the models accurate enough? Now, we can have a long, drawn-out argument about that, but unless either of us is a climate modeler, there isn't much point. However, I really have to take exception to the claim that a complex system must be perfectly modeled before useful predictions can be made. That is an unreasonable expectation, and is not at all how science works. All of experimental science is about taking a natural phenomenon and simplifying it in the lab or in a computer simulation until a particular behavior can be isolated and understood. That's how it's been done since Galileo.
That said, I actually agree that the Earth's climate is an extremely complex system, and that it is not obvious which current model predictions (if any) can be trusted. However, even if we restrict ourselves to things that we are reasonably sure about, I submit there is still cause for concern.
These are the facts:
1. The Earth's climate is a poorl-understood, very complex system. We both agree on this, but I think this fact should make us worry more, not less. The climate has shown extremely volatile behavior in its past. It does not appear that its present state is any kind of stable equilibrium point; indeed the stability of the climate over the last few thousand years is quite an anomaly if you compare it to earlier epochs.
2. We are just becoming aware that ocean currents play a critical role in determining the climate, especially for the mid-latiudes. The ocean is basically a global thermal conveyor belt. If its route is shifted, extreme changes in climate are likely.
3. The polar caps are receding. This is well-correlated with the spike in global average temperatures since the industrial revolution. Set aside the argument about the cause of this increase in global temperature, and the subsequent receding of the polar ice; the existence of both is verified by repeatable, empirical evidence.
4. Computer models show that a little more melting of polar ice will likely result in significant shifts in global ocean currents. Because the system is complex, they cannot of course be certain how the currents will shift, or exactly what the consequences are; however, by exploring parameter space it is possible to get an idea how likely certain outcomes are. The outcome of a mini-ice age has a significant probability in the models. You can hope that there's some systematic error or missing piece in the models, and perhaps there is. But to dismiss the model predictions altogether based on this assumption of error seems, well, ill-advised.
The assumption that the earth's climate is unstable enough to be thrown out of whack by the activities of such tiny bugs as we humans is the ultimate ego trip. You talk about scale, but you clearly have no idea of how insignificant we are.
Nor do you. Anyway, everything I've said in this post stands, even if we hypothetically accept that current climatological changes have nothing to do with human activity.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
A stream is chaotical system, too. Almost every little thing in the whole universe is chaotic.
And then there are people, who've heard from some butterfly and will bash the poor guy(girl?) to death by blaming it all on it and displaying their general lack of knowledge on chaos theory.
Chaos does not mean unpredictable.
It means non-deterministic or limited predictability and possibly unpredictability.
The river is chaotic and fairly unpredictable in its behaviour. Still, no one is amazed to see it streaming downwards.
The magnetic pendulum with two magnetic attractors, another classical example for chaotic behaviour in physics. Is it unpredictable? I think: "It will stop on either magnet" is a fairly accurate prediction. On the other hand it is nearly impossible to predict which.
The human body is pretty much a multitude of chaotic systems.
> I think its foolish to believe that we can predict the [...]
I think, it is foolish to think you know it better than people who are actually working at it.
You know, there are actually smart people out there. And imagine, some of those do work besides CS. Furthermore, the most knowing people in this field are actually climatologists and imagine, they know about chaos theory.
They do not claim to determine the future climate in all its eternity. What they predict is a increase of several degrees in the mean temperature in a fairly restricted amount of time (200y). Your exhilaration on the title may be reduced on the misconception that global warming is the opposite from ice age.
It is not. Global warming is the name for the rapid change of global climate (Rapid for a global climate change). In contrast, Ice Age is the name for a global climatic period.
The abrupt increase of temperature may well trigger a Ice Age. That is what the article is about.
The problem is, the short period of time is for us a lot of time.
> Global warming theory [...]
No, you are assuming that global warming theory assumes.
Actually, global climate models are much more complex. and incorporate several components. Additional to the reflective and absorptive properties of atmospheric water vapor,they include among others greenhouse gas emissions, ozone and sulphate aerosol levels, solar variations, and volcanic aerosols, ice boundaries, earth, and not to mention the ocean in heat absorption, reflection and transportation.
>a change of that magnitude can set off a chain reaction then we would have been gone a long time ago.
Well, we actually see the effects quite clearly. It's not the hot summer this year, or El Nino some years ago.
Have a look at the stats of Munich Re, one of the world largest reinsurace companies.
Have a look at the glaciers.
Do you have the same position towards M.D.s and medicin concerning the chaotic behaviour of the human body?
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
In Australia we had a problem with a couple of types of insect eating our sugar cane crops. So we imported 60 non-native cane toads from the Americas to eat the bug... they quickly multiplied, but failed to impact on the cane destroying insects.
Now there are millions of poisonous cane toads slowly spreading throughout northern Australia. The have become a pest and compete with native species.
The moral? Be wary of quick fixes, no matter how scientific (i.e. GM!). Mother Nature is complex and can react in unforseen ways and the possiblity of unintended negative impacts is very real!
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
"You can throw more money each year at telling people to turn down the heating, but each year the human population increases closer to (or perhaps beyond) the carrying capacity of the planet. This is the real problem"
No, the real problem is the economic/real wars that will start over
the remaining resources...which would make the deaths from the actual
problem look like an exercise in trivial math.
Anyone think that such wars would not happen? Read your history.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
I hate to break it to you but the smog got cleaned because the environmentalists pushed for it. The republicans, the chamber of commerce and the rest of industrial complex fought it every step of the way like they always do but thank god they lost. If the world was full of people like you then the smog would be even worse.
War is necrophilia.