Ward Hunt Ice Shelf Breaks In Two

heidi writes "CNN has this story on the breakup of the largest ice cap. A permanent feature for the previous 3,000 years, it has broken into two pieces. "The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, on the north coast of Ellesmere Island in Canada's Nunavut territory, broke into two main parts, themselves cut through with fissures. A freshwater lake drained into the sea, the researchers reported.""

Comments

So sad

[daeley]

Giant Arctic ice shelf breaks up

In a statement, the Giant Arctic ice shelf hoped they would be able to remain friends despite the breakup. ;)

Re:So sad

[G-funk]

No, global warming is simply something that happens... The earth gets warmer for a few millenia, then it gets colder for a few millenia.

Shit happens.

Re:So sad

[gerardrj]

No.. global warming is not a myth, there is solid data to show that the averge global temperature is rising.
What isn't certain is WHY.

Is it "greenhouse gassses"?
Is it that humans are generating more heat through burning of fuels, and throwing off the balance? IE: even if "green house gasses" were brought to 100 year ago levels, temps would still rise
Is is that the Earth is going through a "warmer" part of the Galaxy/Universe?
Is it that there is some change in the Earth's core causing more heat?
Is the Sun putting out more energy on some long period that we don't yet know about?
Is it all those satellites that capture energy that normally passes the planet and direct some of back at us?
It it aliens beaning an interplanetery "slow death ray" at us?
Is it something else we can't think of yet?

Re:So sad

[Anonymous Coward]

So global warming is still a myth ? Let's try to keep it that way.

Global Warming is more than a myth, it is a European plot to undermine the US economy! They're all out to get us, because they're jealous of our way of living. That's why they've been drilling holes in the ice shelf for the last decade!

So hop into your SUV, drive home, turn up all your air conditioners (my hasn't it been hot lately), and relax! Overconsumption is your patriotic duty. Any more of this talk about anthropogenic climate change, and we'll send you to Camp X-ray, where you belong you terrorist!

Re:So sad

[Capsaicin]

Clearly Occam's Razor dictates that we go with the alien slow death ray theory!

Re:So sad

[daeley]

I vote for the new Occam's Death Ray theory!

Re:So sad

[kfg]

Oh, I thought it was all the hot gasses wafting out from SCO.

I told them they should avoid the brown acid and cut back on the burritos, but would they listen?

Nooooooooooooooooo!

KFG

Re:So sad

[WhiteBandit]

To add to that:

The Pleistocene ended roughly 10,000 years ago (which was the last of the great ice ages). What happens when you come out of an ice age? You warm up.

Granted, this is just another one of the many theories around that try to explain for the increase in average temperatures.

Re:So sad

[CyberDave]

The professor of one of my anthropology courses mentioned that one of his colleagues has another theory for global warming.

If I remember correctly, it goes something like this:

Since about the 1960s or so, temperatures from monitoring stations in Siberia were no longer included in the figures uses to compute the average temperature of the Earth. Since it's cold there, those numbers would decrease the overall average. But since those numbers aren't being included, the average temperature appears to have risen.

Now this is just another possible explanation for global warming that I've heard. I've not looked into it myself to see if it has any basis in fact.

Personally, I don't dispute that global warming is happening. I do, however, strongly dispute the general idea that excess greenhouse gases generated by man are the sole cause of global warming. I think there just simply not enough evidence to draw any solid conclusions at this point; everything is just a guess.

I think I have even seen evidence based on rocks or some other geological evidence that suggest that variations in the Earth's temperature are normal over many thousands of years.

(My opinion: it's probably a combination of factors that is leading to global warming. Greenhouse gases, solar radiation, and a few other things).

(I got in an argument once with a professor about global warming and I ended up losing, mostly because he was stubborn and wouldn't accept any of the claims I was trying to present, most of which are on the list in the parent post. Pardon me if I sound a bit bitter because of that.)

CyberDave

Re:So sad

[SubtleNuance]

No, global warming is simply something that happens... The earth gets warmer for a few millenia, then it gets colder for a few millenia.

Well, yes and no... what you describe, the natural cycle of the planet, warming and cooling, does happen.

But, what is ALSO happening, is that humans are creating the Green House Effect. This is due to our releases of gases into the atmosphere.

just because what you describe is true, does NOT mean that the Green House Effect, caused by humans is untrue.

Even though this article says that one of the researches isnt comfortable IMMEDIATELY pointing the finger @ the Green House Effect (GHE) doesnt mean that the GHE hasnt been contributing to warming in Northern Canada.

in short, the GHE *is* warming the planet, AND the Planet's climate cycles.

Re:So sad

[Gilmoure]

While humans are pumping a lot of greenhouse type gasses into the atmosphere, it's by no means certain that this is directly responsible for global warming. A good Krakatoa size eruption can dwarf 100 years of human output in a day, concerning CO release. And don't forget the giant caldera volcano under Yellowstone is scheduled to erupt 'any time now'.

Personally, I'm just bummed I never got to see the great central sea that covered the great plains. Stupid climactic variation. Why can't everything stay exactly as it was, the day I was born? Except for computers, of course. And space exploration (wait a minute, we went to the moon a year after I was born). And internet porn. And tv channels. Need more channels. And surround sound. My 5.1 setup is so outdated, women who wouldn't have noticed me before and now really not noticing me. But wait until I get my 7.1 setup. Then they'll...still ignore me. But I'll have 7.1 channels of surround sound, with which I'll enjoy...Road Trip? Dare Devil? Gaahh! Movies suck!

Re:So sad

[mlong]

It seems quite obvious to me that the alien death ray is intended to slowly raise the temperature of our planet in order to teraform it for the alien invasion of 2012, as shown on the Mayan calendar. Also any person with a brain can see that the aliens are from Pluto. They are sick of the cold and want a nice place for summer vacation.

Re:So sad

[Waffle Iron]

A good Krakatoa size eruption can dwarf 100 years of human output in a day, concerning CO release.

Reality check:

I can't seem to find direct figures on CO2 release from Krakatoa. However, we can do a ballpark estimate. Various sources state that it ejected 5 cubic miles of material. Other sources indicate that magma saturated with volatile compounds holds up to 6% compressed gasses, most of it water. Let's assume that Krakatoa's magma was 2% CO2. So that's 2% of 5*1609^3 = 416 million cubic meters of CO2. At 1070 kg/m^3 (liquid phase), that's 445 megatons of CO2.

Even if my estimates are off by a factor of 10, Krakatoa spewed no more than a few thousand megatons of CO2.

As for human emissions, the estimates I find are 6,500 megatons of carbon per year (about 1 ton per person on the planet), which when combined with oxygen make about 24,000 megatons of CO2.

So you say that the Krakatoa eruption dwarfs 100 years of human activity, and I calculate that Krakatoa ~== 1 week of human activity. My estimates would have to be off by 3-1/2 orders of magnitude if your statement were correct. If you can find any numbers to back up your assertion, I would be happy to see them.

Re:So sad

[aminorex]

According to the BP statistical review, June 2002,
global consumption of liquid fossil fuels comes to
5595 KBbl/diem gasoline, 9247 KBbl/d. kerosene,
4873 KBbl/d. fuel oil, or 264, 435, and 230 MT/an,
respectively, for a total of ~929 MT/an. The
remainder of liquid fossil fuel production is
consumed by manufacture of materials or consists
of loss. Accepting BPs loss estimates, and assuming
all losses are gassified, that's 220 MT/an.

Coal consumption is 71.0% and natural gas is 60.0%
oil equivalent. To be generous, I include
production and refining losses to get a total
global annual carbon injection of
(1.00+0.600+0.710) * (220+264+435+230) MT
which comes to 2654 MegaTonnes annually, or
less than 443 Kg per person, annually.
This represents 90% carbon, which is 12/44 of
C02, for a total CO2 injection into the carbon
cycle of 1.46 metric tonnes per annum per capita,
or 8,750 MT/an total.

As you say, Krakatoa might conceivably have
emitted a few thousand megatons, but the human
emissions at that time were vanishingly small
in comparison to their current levels, so that
the eruption probably injected more CO2 than all
human activity during the *preceeding* century,
but in my estimation certainly injected an order
of magnitude less than the human activity during
the *following* century.

Perhaps it was equivalent to a century of human
injection at the rate prevailing at the time
the original estimation was made, and this statement
was later carried forward, and quoted on slashdot,
long after it was no longer accurate.

Jeez

[Exiler]

That'd make ALOT of slushies!
Thank you, come again... and again... and again, for the love of god, we're swimming in slushie, COME AGAIN!

[Correction] Largest *ARTIC* ice shelf

[Meridun]

The poster obviously missed a significant point, that this is the largest arctic ice shelf, not the largest ice shelf. While still quite significant, that is not quite as ominous as the article would indicate

Re:[Correction] Largest *ARTIC* ice shelf

[ChozCunningham]

The poster obviously missed a significant point, that this was the largest arctic ice shelf.

Ploy

[Pompatus]

It's all a ploy by Microsoft in their new "kill the penguin" buisness strategy.

Re:Ploy

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst... there are no penquins in the arctic.

Re:Ploy

[red floyd]

It's a bug. They'll fix it in Microsoft MeltingIceShelf(tm) 2.0.

huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

so why should we believe that this ice shelf actually broke, or even existed to begin with? because some environmentalists say so? call me a skeptic but i'll believe this when i hear it in church

Shit happens.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, oil will run out. Then you'll WISH we had global warming.

Global Warming & The One World Government

[Anonymous Coward]

It is probably a good time to post this:

Bush covers up climate research (again)

Re:Global Warming & The One World Government

[wagonlips]

Even if the pollution our industries create isn't causing this, plenty of reasons to not dump pollution into our environment exist. It's obvious, really. The debate over global warming can be a sort of smoke-screen obscuring the simple truth: don't sh*t in your own backyard. And when you think about it, it's all our backyard.

Here's another good one: EPA definitely full of sh*t

The global conveyer

[MrLint]

I wonder what, if any, effect the draining of the fresh water lake into the sea will have on "the global conveyer. There was some speculation that the melting ice caps will release so much fresh water into the system the salinity and temperature difference that dries this engine will break down, and the CO2 that it deposits in the deep water will also stop. Is anyone an oceanologist?

Re:The global conveyer

[Metzli]

On the global scale, I'd agree that the volume of seawater may be too large. But, is it possible that a localized event (like this one) could disrupt part of the system? Think of it this way: My mass and volume are much smaller than that of a large truck, but I can cause a disruption to that large system by tinkering with the battery and/or alternator. Is it possible that the influx of freshwater in this area can have an effect on the global process? I honestly don't know, but my hunch is that it may have some effect, even if only slight.

Re:The global conveyer

[bm_luethke]

No, but I did go through many years of geology and paleontology, so I can comment on what occured before. At one time there were almost no appreciable ice caps - the earth seemed to do pretty well during those times and survive (unless of course we are all zombies). Since we check temps during several of those periods by testing the amount of calcium carbonate deposited on the ocean floor (carbon dissolved into the ocean is an acid and dissolves calcium carbonate, temperature effects how much carbon can be dissolved in the water, thus average depth that it can dissolve the calcium carbonate is indicative of temps)I would also imagine that it would continue to do so this time around also.

I would suppose it would handle the same thing that has happened thousands of times the same way it has the other thousands of time regardless of who or what causes it (and it has happened faster than what we are seeing now well before humans existed). Note: that is not all life dies, all currents halt, all geologic processes halt, though they will most likely work somewhat differently.

Re:The global conveyer

[kfg]

Is anyone an oceanologist?

I assume someone, somewhere, must be. Otherwise why would they bother to have the name?

KFG

Re:The global conveyer

[DCowern]

I, too, spent some time with geology and I prefer the "pack up the coastal cities scenario" to the "Snowball Earth" scenario (or even an ice age on the magnitude of the last one, for that matter).

In short, it's postulated that a "snowball Earth" occured approximately 600-700 million years ago (shortly before the Cambrian explosion) where glacial ice spaned from the polar regions to the equator. Several theories have emerged to explain this but they all revolve around the idea that something happened to cool the Earth (e.g. severe drops in the levels of greenhouse gasses) which lead to more land being exposed which in turn lead to a lessened absorption on solar radiation which lead to even lower temperatures, more land being exposed, even less solar radiation, etc, etc, etc.

Seriously though, I don't think we fully understand the role that natural forces such as tectonics, volcanism, and global weather patterns play in the Earth's climate. While it's pretty obvious that polluting the atmosphere is a Bad Thing, our contribution is probably just a drop in the bucket.

Besides, even if we do screw things up so badly that we suffocate ourselves, the Earth has shown a remarkable resiliency in it's geologic past. In a couple million years, things will be pretty much back to normal and the race of uber intelligent cockroaches will be wondering how these silly bipedal organisms in the fossil record went extinct. ;-)

Re:The global conveyer

[daniel_howell]

No, but I do have a PhD in modelling glacial systems during the last Ice Age, so I'll give it a go (appolgies for only using examples from the gulf stream in the N.E.Atlantic, that's the region that I know).

There is a potential risk to the warm surface currents from the loss of floating ice, though it isn't to do with a one-off influx of fresh water. This will rapidly disperse over the ocean and make no perceptable difference.

However, the 'pump' driving the global conveyer is the constant differential melting and freezing at the base of the sea ice. Sea ice is essentially floating fresh water. If you freeze part of sea water into fresh water you are left with dense, cold, salty water. This sinks to the bottom, and then flows south from the arctic. Warm, surface water then flows north to replace it, forming the Gulf Stream (and other similar currents around the world).

Over the last few decades the extent of sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk noticably. There must be a point at which this will have an effect on these currents[1].

It is not clear what the level of sea-ice required to maintain the currents is, nor on quite how the currents will respond (gradually decreasing or simply shutting down). However there is evidence from the sedimentary record of the last interglacial that the gulf stream in the North East Antlantic, at least, switched on and off a number of times, and that the switch from 'on' to 'off' was very rapid.

There is thus the possibility that current climate trends will result in a situation in which the flow of warm water to the N.E.Atlantic may cease (or dramatically reduce) over a timespan of years or decades, producing dramatic climate changes in north Western Europe (especially Iceland and North Norway, but Britain, Ireland and France are also major beneficaries of the Gulf Stream). The lack of transfer of heat from the warmer regions may also result in higher sea-surface temperatures in those regions, which in turn could provide more energy for severe bad weather and hurricanes. There are futher possible effects from the lack of the cold water current. These are important in carrying oxygen around the oceans, and when they upwell against continental shelves they bring nutrients from the deep ocean to the surface, producing rich fishing grounds.

[1] It is also, incidentally, having a major effect on polar bears, which rely on sea ice in their hunting.

Re:The global conveyer

[bm_luethke]

Hmm, what? I agree there (was the above post meant to disagree with me?) - that just wasn't the answer to the question asked (what would happen to the oceans).

I basically said the same thing you said to someone else below. Nothing now is extreme - people worry about how a non-extreme setting is going to affect everything (usually with dire consequences). Usually those same people have no real idea how rapid or extreme differences have been in the past. Obviously something happened back then to cause both the cooling and subsequent heating. Obviously it wasn't us. It can be shown to have happened VERY rapidly. And, as you say, who knows why?

I ended my college career in CS (the geology depart had two professors leave, two die, and one half retire over a single summer pretty much killing the dept). Since then I worked for several years at a national lab in the cluster computing dept, many of the weather people ran thier codes on our clusters. It was amazing having them call and complain that the cluster is slow only to find out that they spawned all thier processes on the head node instead of across the 64 nodes (what - you mean I need to add machines to the virtual machine?). I always wondered how accurate thier models were after seeing that simple of a thing screwed up - even assuming that they actually understood the geological processes.

Re:The global conveyer

[Archangel_Azazel]

Just FYI, YES, the amount of ocean water is staggering. BUT, it doesn't take that much fresh water to muck about with what's going on in the "conveyor" system. I'm too tired to search out sources, but check my journal later on today/tomorrow, I'll do it when I wake up ;-D. From what I've read, it's actually a pretty delicate balance...

Amazing

[Henry V .009]

Local warming of the climate is to blame, they said -- adding that they did not have the evidence needed to link the melting ice to the steady, planet-wide climate change known as global warming.

My God, an actual declaration of their limited knowledge. I never expected to see those words in a CNN article on polar ice melting. How did this happen? Someone needs to stop these people before they piss away more millions in grant money.

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

That just shows it's good, objective science. Meaning that despite their suspicion global warming is playing a part in this, they are remaining healthfully skeptical.

Skepticism is the cornerstone to good research. Unfortunately, global warming naysayers view it as weakness or a lack of confidence. Even Einstein's Noble Prize made no mention of relativity, because it was still a little too unprovable at the time.

Re:Amazing

[Malcontent]

Yes. We should all sit on our asses and do nothing until we are 100% sure.

Global Warming

[used_rugs]

Earlier this year we learnt that the ozone layer is much healthier than in previous years, apparently due to recent restrictions on CFC levels and industry etc.

But as we can see.. the world is getting warmer.

Global warming is a natural occurance, however it IS being accelerated by high levels of industry.

Something to think about as we sit in our 18degC constantly cooled server rooms.

Re:Global Warming

[Martin Blank]

RTFA, in particular the following two passages:

Local warming of the climate is to blame, they said -- adding that they did not have the evidence needed to link the melting ice to the steady, planet-wide climate change known as global warming.

"There's a regional trend in warming that cycles back 150 years," Mueller said in a telephone interview. "I am not comfortable linking it to global warming. It is difficult to tease out what is due to global warming and what is due to regional warming."

The Arctic region is warming far faster than the rest of the world (I seem to recall estimates of five times faster), if the rest of the world is indeed warming at all, and its related to natural shifts in water and wind currents. Even if the world temperature was stagnant, this area would still likely be warming, and the shelf would have cracked anyway.

Out of curiosity...

[kevinatilusa]

How much more serious of an issue would this have been if a shelf of the same size broke off in Antarctica (where the ice is anchored to land) than in the Arctic (where it was floating before and thus won't raise sea levels)?

Truly Terrifying

[foo fighter]

I've been on large, frozen lakes before ice-fishing when they split. I forget the technical term, but basically a huge, long crack appears out of nowhere with a horrifying sound. (Devils Lake, ND is the second largest closed basin lake in North America, after the Great Salt Lake. When Devils Lake splits you don't want to be near it. I was on it when it happened a few years ago, and I damn near literally shit my pants.)

I can't even imagine the terror of an entire ice shelf splitting. The reuters article doesn't mention if this was a slow or fast occurance.

Even scarier, we're several thousand years past due on the next ice age. This "global warming" thing could actually be the precursor to the beginning of the next, depending on which cadre of scientists you believe.

Re:Truly Terrifying

[YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT]

I forget the technical term, but basically a huge, long crack appears out of nowhere with a horrifying sound.

Leads? There's a word for the actual cracking and fracturing process "calving", but I think that only applies to glaciers and icebergs.

YLFI

Re:Truly Terrifying

[evilWurst]

"Even scarier, we're several thousand years past due on the next ice age. This "global warming" thing could actually be the precursor to the beginning of the next, depending on which cadre of scientists you believe."

The ice age stats aren't quite that precise - there are up to tens of thousands of years of wiggle room. I'm more worried about the vast amounts of fresh water dumped into the arctic by this - fresh and salt water in the arctic actually stay seperate, and if the fresh water flow pushes far enough south it'll change the warm/cold ocean currents. It might not cause a global ice age, but it sure could make a big chunk of Europe uninhabitable (by making it as cold as other places at the same latitude are).

Arctic meltdown...

[Black Parrot]

The October 2003 Scientific American has a feature article on all the warming problems the Arctic has been undergoing. This is just one more in the pile...

According to the article, scientists are witholding judgement over whether this is a symptom of global warming: the arctic is such a complex place with so many feedback and self-regulating systems that the case simply isn't clear yet.

Now remember kiddies

[Gortbusters.org]

The ice is already in the water (ocean), so melting it is not going to increase the sea levels. Remember, water expands when it freezes and it goes back down when you melt it. If you don't believe me, fill a glass full of water and put it in the freezer.

As the earth is still coming out of its last ice age, we shouldn't be too concerned about global warming. What we should be concerned about is desertification due to the lack of vegitation and depletion of the Ozone. Given the natural course of things, the earth will make big dinosaurs, not silly monkeys who play on computers and bitch at eachother.

Anyone else up for a nice honda civic hybrid yet? :)

Re:Now remember kiddies

[bm_luethke]

The ice is already in the water (ocean), so melting it is not going to increase the sea levels. Remember, water expands when it freezes and it goes back down when you melt it. If you don't believe me, fill a glass full of water and put it in the freezer.

The article seemed to imply that this was one of the ice masses that sits on land instead of floating in the water (many do) thus the level would increase. I do not know for sure and am too lazy too look it up for sure.

As the earth is still coming out of its last ice age, we shouldn't be too concerned about global warming. What we should be concerned about is desertification due to the lack of vegitation and depletion of the Ozone. Given the natural course of things, the earth will make big dinosaurs, not silly monkeys who play on computers and bitch at eachother.

well, I sorta agree - the article says they just know it was due to local heating (the area I live in has had two VERY mild summers in a row - we usually have at least a month of 105-110 degree weather - we haven't had a day above 98 in *two* years and average upper 80's to lwoer 90's, about 10 degrees cooler average). that being said many of the emissions aren't good for you - they aggrivate my chronic lung problems (probably cause them), kill off some more sensitive species, and many other things. I would advocate something in between what most seem to want (total reduction, do nothing).

As for the natural outgrowth being big dinno's - I don't really think so. The longest period with anything above single celled organisms (paleozoic) had fairly smallish creaturs - usually about the size of many of ours today - they died out (by far the largest extinction - well over 80 percent of *genuses* - one above species which the loss of a few many seem to think will destroy the earth - died out, though not that that is a good thing either). The next period had the giants - they died out. The only constant has been small bugs and down - they rule the earth, have for millions of years, and will for millions more. So this go around seems to be the silly monkeys bitching at each other as the top of the food chain.

Re:Now remember kiddies

[PeterGreen]

"The ice is already in the water (ocean), so melting it is not going to increase the sea levels."

I'm not sure if you're just talking about this ice shelf, but there's a helluva lot of ice sitting on Antarctica (ie land).

Re:Now remember kiddies

[Orne]

"What we should be concerned about is desertification due to the lack of veg(e)tation"

Yet, science is uncovering that the opposite is happening, as an increase in CO2 levels may help forests to start reclaiming the world's deserts, as forests are encroaching on the Negev desert. Higher CO2 concentrations reduces water absorption of trees, leaving more available for the surrounding regions, which resulted in more vegetation.

NASA & DOE found the same thing, as did the National Academy of Sciences when they found that grasslands become wetter as temperatures rise. Hotter temperatures kills off certain species of grasses that are poor water storers, leaving more room for more efficient species like oaks and summer flowers, with a net increase in water retention.

The more we do true research into global warming, the more we find that our models are wrong, our assumtions are wrong, and our predjudices are wrong.

If I were a LONG-TERM investor...

[product byproduct]

I'd buy a beachfront property on Ellesmere Island while it's cheap, and start building a tropical resort there.

3000 years is nothing.

[Tristan Tzara]

On the geological timescale, 3000 years of solid Ward Hunt Ice Shelf is really just a little blip. For all the worries about human greenhouse gases, we should probably also take a serious look at natural cycles. Only 12,000 years ago, you could walk out to the Farallon Islands outside SF.

All part of the cycle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Had we been living 50,000 years ago, I wonder if we would have blamed the melting of the Bering Strait ice bridge on global warming.

Cool.

[sinserve]

Is there a paved road to there? I will drive my SUV to take a look. Hope they
have diet refreshements.

Northwest Passage

[SiliconEntity]

The fabled Northwest Passage is at hand, reducing voyages from Europe to Asia by 5000 miles.

It's been sought by adventurers and explorers for hundreds of years, and only now is the northern boundary of the American continent becoming free of ice to allow passage. No longer will the Panama Canal or Cape Horn be the only routes between the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Not all changes are bad. Sometimes the world actually changes for the better, contrary as this is to the worldview with which we have been indoctrinated.

Re:Has to be asked.

[vekotin]

Nerds are good people. We really do care about nature, even though we only see it via opengl.

Re:God more fuel for the obsessives

[fmaxwell]

How long until the pro-global warming myth lot start blaming this on global warming?

According to the article, Derek Mueller of Laval University said "It is difficult to tease out what is due to global warming and what is due to regional warming." He didn't call global warming a "myth." He accepted global warming as fact and only said that there was impossible to say whether it, or regional warming, was the cause of this particular event.

Here's an excerpt from the EPA's web site:

What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.

If the EPA web site under Bush/Cheney (who are pawns of the oil industry) acknowledges global warming as fact, that should give you head-in-the-sand types a clue. Wouldn't it be terrible if we reduced pollution and it didn't fix global warming? Oh the horror!

3000 years is a lot longer than I'll live...

[mt-biker]

On the geological timescale, 3000 years of solid Ward Hunt Ice Shelf is really just a little blip.

Yeah, and the rocks really don't care if they're above or below water.

I, on the other hand...

Global warming or not?

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

As the environment warms (be it from us or from nature), ocean water warms up on the surface.

As the warm water of the atlantic follows the Gulf Stream northward along north america, and then towards europe, it cools and sinks, then following other currents southward. This heat transfer cycle is why Europe is not a lot colder than it is.

If the surface water heats up enough, it won't be able to cool off enough to sink when it gets to europe, the water underneath being cooler, the warm water will stay at the top.... shutting down the Gulf stream and cutting off the the flow of heat giving water to Europe. (The warm water moderates the weather helping to warm Europe).

With the Gulf Stream shut down, Europe will freeze until such time that the cycle is able to spontaneously start up again. The effects would be felt around the world.

Has this happened before? - in the mid 1600's. lasting for around 100 years (or 300 years depending on where you choose to pick the start and finish), the 'little ice age' gripped europe, eradicated viking settlements in Greenland and North America (before columbus). Inuit people kayaked as far south as Scotland. And people couldnt grow the food they needed to live. As late as the late 1700's, New York harbour froze solid in winter.

Fluctuations in solar output compounded with volcanic ash in the atmosphere may have been the cause of the little ice age, but the effect of a gulf stream shutting down may be the same ... global warming may in fact lead to a few hundred years of arctic weather.

This is serious stuff folks ...

[whjwhj]

This is not a good development for the ecosystem of our planet.

First, I must mention that those who rush to blame anything and everything on climate change are just as irrational and stupid and those who rush to the assumption that climate change has nothing to do with anything. Both assumptions are erronous, unlearned, and emotionally modivated.

What we need to do hear folks is educate ourselves. As one who has done a fair amount of reading on the subject, I can assure you that although the world isn't going to end tomorrow, the effects of climate change (and man's contibution to climate change) are well worth taking seriously. Instead of blowing it all off as has been done with this subject on this forum in the past, I think we all need to grow up and at least seriously consider the very real possibility that this is in fact a very real problem and that perhaps we should rethink our dependence on fossil fuel and the rest. Because let me tell you folks, if it's half as bad as many scientists predict it is, we'd better get moving on this right now!

So please put aside your impulsive reactions for a bit and go out and learn more about this subject. It's important enough to offer it the benefit of the doubt.

Re:This is serious stuff folks ...

[argStyopa]

This is not a good development for the ecosystem of our planet.

Well, no. This may not be a good development for the HUMAN inhabitants of the planet, but the ecosystem will chug merrily along without noticing at all if the humans are all gone.

Is it not a fact that at least until the end of the 'dinosaur era' the planet's temperature was SIGNIFICANTLY warmer than it is now? So how is a increase or decrease in global temperature of tiny amounts going to affect the planet? The answer is, of course, it WON'T. It may affect humans. In fact, we may be losers in the next great die-off. So sad, too bad. THAT is the nature of fauna on this planet.

We could pave the Earth, light up two or threee thousand nuclear warheads, all drive SUV's until the oil is gone, even smoke unfiltered cigarettes and kill ourselves off and you know what? In about a million years, the Earth will look much like it did about a million years ago.

For every organism that I know of, as soon as it can outcompete other creatures in its niche, it will overpopulate until the population collapses. That's what humanity is doing now. Big deal, so we're acting like lemmings with thumbs, why is this SUCH a surprise? This is far more the 'natural cycle' of things than some silly effort by environmentalists to "stop time" so Earth remains forever a place perfectly-suited for OUR existence.

Ironically, environmentalists are simply species-centric humanists of the worst order.

A slashdot poll

[Chuck Chunder]

would no doubt be the perfect tool to solve this conundrum.

certainty

[js7a]

duh!

Re:certainty

[gerardrj]

Coincidence.
There are a lot of other graphs that show similar growth rates.

To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science. There's no evidence to back it up. We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.

In my list I mentioned at least four very plausible reasons for global temperature rise that do not depend on an increase in CO2. Environmentalists continually shout about the GhGs because it's easy to make slogans out of and it furthers their agenda.

I have no agenda but to get at truth. In my experince, accepting the first piece of data that fits your assumptions is not the way to get at truth, but a way to sell books and get on the 6:00 news.

Re:certainty

[Daetrin]

I agree it would be a mistake to say that greenhouse gasses are definitely the problem. However we have a theory about how greenhouse gasses could be causing the problem, and it's something we can take relatively easy steps to correct (as opposed to stopping an alien death ray.)

Therefore it would seem to me to be reasonable to state that greenhouse gasses seem a likely cause and take action to reduce them while simultaneously doing more research on the subject to figure out what the cause is for sure.

Re:certainty

[Znork]

Very nice graph. It does make me wonder however, how does it correlate with, for example, the temperature peak during the medieval warm period when temperatures were on average a degree C warmer than today?

Personally, I dont think CO2 emissions really make a big difference. Even if we did manage to completely stop all CO2 emissions (which I think we should do anyway) we'd still get global warming. Historical temperature data tends to point out that we're not even in a very warm period for the moment, and with or without human interference we'll get far larger variations than we've seen the last century.

So, not buying that beachfront property might be a good idea. You never know when mother nature will conspire to make your house an experimental submerged water dwelling.

Re:certainty

[Anonymous Coward]

Coincidence.

The fact that temperature changes coincide with increasing levels of a known greenhouse forcing gas, is actually fairly pursuasive. Or did you mean 'mere coincidence.' ;)

To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science. There's no evidence to back it up. We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.

No serious scientist is arguing 'undeniability.' The large majority of scientists, however, are pursuaded that anthorpogenic carbon dioxide (and other gases) are making a major contribution to the observed climatic changes.

You are simply wrong about a lack of experimental data. The greenhous forcing potential of CO2 has been recognised since the time of Avernius. The mechanism by which heat is trapped (it's actually diffracted), is also well known. What is more the various indicies of heat forcing potential for CO2 and other 'greenhouse gasses,' has been quantified.

On the balance of probabilities, it seems to me that right about 10-20 years ago we should have stopped buring the planet's carbon sinks and moved over to nuclear.

I have no agenda but to get at truth.

If that is so, the best starting point would be the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change site. Providing, of course you prefer a scientific gloss on the issue rather than an ideological one.

Re:certainty

[thue]

There is a bit more reason to believe CO2 is causing the warmup than corrolation.

Scientists are running climate models on supercomputers, and simulating the effect with and without the human-emitted CO2. When the scientists recommend cutting CO2 emition is desireable it is probably because they have run the numbers through their simulations.

Re:certainty

[troc]

I'll go with that one. Hopefully the new hybrid cars will help there. Even in the 'states, hybrids should do well - you guys can still buy an SUV with all the power and erm, SUVness that you think you require (or have been conned into requiring through advertising and peer pressure like all those dammed women in the UK with huge 4x4 and one kid to drive the 100m to school) but with double the fuel efficiency.

It looks like the first models will be out next year. The general idea is either to have electric motors to all wheels and an IC engine to "top up" the electrics when necessary or (and this seems the most sensible and common idea) to have electrics driving 2 of the wheels and an IC for the others. This allows for lots of clever 4 wheel drive stuff, on braking you get energy back into the car etc etc

troc

Re:certainty

[God! Awful 2]

To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science. There's no evidence to back it up. We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.

Good point.

Let's do a giant experiment using the Earth as a testbed. If the Earth is still habitable in 50 years, you were probably right.

-a

Re:certainty

[troc]

True, I guess I was being a little sexist but usually it's the mothers that have the inappropriate 4x4 and the fathers that have the inappropriate company car or BMW 3 series (at least in Surrey it appears that every house comes with one 4x4 and one 3 series, you just choose the colours to match your front door :)

It's partly peer pressure (ooh, next door have a RAV 4, we NEED a Freelander, the high seats make me feel safer) and partly crap public transport I guess.

I live in holland now and since we arrived, we got rid of one car and the other one is only used for long trips and stuff. The public transport gets us most places quickly (but not as well as it used to) and I can cycle/rollerblade/walk/tram/train/bus/canoe (or drive I guess) to work depending on the weather and how long it takes me to get up. Fastest is bike and slowest is walking.

Troc

Ps No I have not actually canoed to work but I could do. I have ice-skated to work.

Re:certainty

[Karellen]

To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science

Well, yes.

However, it is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that we release loads of it every year. There also have been some correlations made, even though they've not yet been proven.

Now, given the potential problems that could be generated by global warming (flooding of coastal cities, alteration and possible destruction of major ecosystems due to changed animal migration or plant survival/dispersal patterns - the latter possibly caused by changes in wind patterns of deep sea current shifts) don't you think it might be a good idea to stop pumping out as much CO2 as we currently to in case it's the problem.

Or do you want to bet the lives of millions (billions?) of people on the case that it turns out not to be the problem?

If you have no idea what the result of a course of action is going to be, but are aware that it might affect the whole planet in a very real and negative way, don't do it!

Please, I don't want to get 20 years down the line, find out CO2 was the problem all along, but that it's too late to do anything about now and is all fucked beyond repair.

Re:certainty

[awol]

The fact that temperature changes coincide with increasing levels of a known greenhouse forcing gas, is actually fairly pursuasive.

In the absence of other factors that may even be true but in the presence of factors like the percentage of reradiated wavelengths being absorbed by atmosphere being already at 100% for the wavelengths absorbable by CO2 mean that CO2 as cause is a poor explainer at best

Re:certainty

[delong]

That's false even by the scientists' own admission. The models are not predictive. Part of the obvious falsity of the claims made by the IPC is that the computer models project warming at the surface, and in the upper atmosphere. The upper atmosphere has actually cooled. If the model is not predictive - it is worthless. The models can not even manage predictiveness for known past climate events.

Re:certainty

[dcw3]

I agree it would be a mistake to say that greenhouse gasses are definitely the problem. However we have a theory about how greenhouse gasses could be causing the problem, and it's something we can take relatively easy steps to correct (as opposed to stopping an alien death ray.)

Therefore it would seem to me to be reasonable to state that greenhouse gasses seem a likely cause and take action to reduce them while simultaneously doing more research on the subject to figure out what the cause is for sure.

Yes, relatively ease, and extremely expensive. It's not reasonable to spend billions of dollars to "take action" on this (or any other theory) without significant scientific evidence that that's the real cause of the problem. Certainly it should continue to be investigated, but we shouldn't have to change our lifestyle for every Chicken Little that comes along!

Re:certainty

[delong]

Europe experienced a heat wave this summer because a North African warm front jumped north. In other words - local natural climate variation. Just because it is the "hottest" in "recorded history" does not mean it is not "natural." It just means that you've hit the probability bump in the road.

And by the way - CO2 isn't "air pollution."

Re:certainty

[Cyno01]

Let's do a giant experiment using the Earth as a testbed.

Sorry, but we're already being used as an experiment by the mice. :p

Re:certainty

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not reasonable to spend billions of dollars to "take action" on this (or any other theory) without significant scientific evidence...

Three words: War In Iraq

Re:certainty

[RayBender]

Coincidence. There are a lot of other graphs that show similar growth rates.

There are a lot of temperature graphs that show increases in the last 100 years. There is also a nice graph showing an increase in CO2 levels from coal and oil burning. That's not just a coincidence, given that the physics behind the temperature increase is pretty straightforward (greenhouse effect). in fact, in order for surface tempertures not to rise with increasing CO2 levels requires some rather fancy footwork; you have to invoke the existence of various negatiuve feedback cycles, like increased cloudiness (which may actually have a net warming effect after all) etc. The radiative-tranfer physics behind the greenhouse effect is a lot more solid than our understanding of cloud formation.

To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science.

In science nothing is "undeniable". However, some things are more or less plausible, likely, belivable etc. A good scientist working on something realitively new will always hedge. But sooner or later the evidence starts to build up to the point where only cranks deny it. Hence most scientists think e.g. evolution is pretty solid. The same goes for general relativity, QED, etc. Climate change due to increased CO2 levels is getting to be such a strong theory (or so says the NAS here and here, and the IPCC).

There's no evidence to back it up.

That is simply hogwash. There is a lot of evidence for a coupling between CO2 and temperature rise. It may be challenging to directly link CO2 to this particular ice shelf, but I ask you this: if global and regional temperatures are rising due to increasing CO2 levels, are you surprised that we are seeing more ice melt?

We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.

We always need more data (I'm a scientist after all), but we have the basis to act now, and the longer we wait the harder the problem will be.

In my list I mentioned at least four very plausible reasons for global temperature rise that do not depend on an increase in CO2.

I'm going to hope it is the "alien death ray", personally. Seriously, though, greenhouse gases are about the only plausible ones in your list. The Earths core is pretty stable in it's heat output, not to mention that it's about a factor of 100 lower than the heat input from the Sun. To raise temperatures by the observed amount you'd have to increase the core heat output by a factor of about 4. Not likely.

Is the Sun putting out more energy on some long period that we don't yet know about?

First of all, there is not a lot of evidence for such a change (we can measure the solar constant afetr all). Second, you'd then have to explain how the increasing CO2 wasn't causing a rise, while at the same time the Sun caused a rise that coincides very nicely with the CO2 increase.

The rest of the list is just silly.

Re:certainty

[pcb]

It's not reasonable to spend billions of dollars to "take action" on this (or any other theory)

Your argument is very poor. The problem needs to be addressed from a "risk assessment" point of view, where the risk of doing nothing is also taken into account. Your "I believe this is not true, I need more proof" point of view is foolish and short sighted. Decisions are always done with incomplete information, but sometimes the *risk* of doing nothing is greater than doing something. Currently, the odds are pretty good that greenhouses gases are causing global warming (not 100%, but reasonably good - ask any glaciologist about the state of the earth glaciers and you'll get an earful). Therefore, the possible outcomes are:

Action: Do nothing
Outcome:

(A) Global warming was all BS, nothing happens...
(B) Global warming was true, bad things happen, polar caps melt, etc. (unknown outcome)

Action: Do something...hopefully in time
Outcome:

(A) Global warming was all BS, nothing happens...
(B) Global warming was true, nothing happens...hopefully

So if you were in charge, what action would you take to minimize risk? What will the cost be of doing nothing if global warming happens to be true? 10,000 words, due friday!

PCB

Article discussed Global Warming

[billstewart]

If you RTFA, you'll see them discussing that they don't know whether this is global warming or just regional warming.
Not mentioned in the article, but relevant, is that in some parts of the Canadian Arctic, I think including this area, the local Inuit had stopped making kayaks for some centuries, and had to relearn in the mid-1800s when the weather got enough warmer that kayaks were useful again. Don't know if that's global warming or just regional either.

Re:Article discussed Global Warming

[heretic9]

This is well-attested in older historical sources. For example, in the reign of Elizabeth I of England (1558-1603), the Thames regularly froze over in winter. The English used to skate on the ice in London. Therefore we know it used to be colder than it is today.

Older annals show that the Vikings sailed out of Norwegian ports that are permanently ice-bound today in the 7th and 8th centuries. Therefore we know it used to be warmer than it is today.

Ice Age

[Tekoneiric]

Food for thought related to this. http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/ climatechange_wef.html

Ozone Hole at record size in 2003.

[sakarada]

"ozone layer is much healthier than in previous years"

In fact the WMO has realeased findings that say the ozone layer hole above the antartic has this year already reached the record size of 2000.

"The 2003 ozone hole remains similar to that observed in 2000, although more circular and
apparently more stable. The size of the ozone hole has increased from the 25 M km2 reported two weeks ago to
28 M km2, matching the record size observed during mid-September 2000. This is larger than the combined
areas of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, and contrasts the exceptionally small ozone hole last year that
split in two during late September. In recent years, the ozone hole has usually attained its maximum size
during mid-September. However, it is too early to predict with certainty whether the area has peaked this year." - From WMO report 18 Sep 2003.

where's the map?

[Jamie Zawinski]

Has anyone found a before/after map of what happened to the shelf? That "90% of the shelf is gone" doesn't mean much without a sense of how big it was to begin with...

Re:where's the map?

[gowen]

It was about several hundred square miles in extent at greatest (in winter), and it has been shedding Ice Islands for 40 years (last one in the mid-80s).

Last count, it was about 10 miles across, IIRC. The extent of ice cover out to sea varies a lot with season.

Notes to self...

[LanceDBoyles]

To do list:

Buy Milk.
Call Dentist.
Sell all Florida real estate.
Pick kids up after soccer.
Mow lawn.

www.climateprediction.net

[LarsWestergren]

I'm giving up on debating global warming on Slashdot, it seems just about everyone is convinced its bunk. With the weather getting more and more extreme, could you at least understand why we are worried?

Well, I just wanted to make everyone aware of the new distributed project - www.climateprediction.net.
Whether you agree with the theory of human caused global warming or not, with this you can help getting the world scientific community more accurate climate models.

Unfortunately only a Windows client available at the moment, but a Linux one is in development. Personally I think this project and the
Folding at Home distributed project are much more deserving of peoples' clock cycles than Seti or distributed.net.

Cheers,
Lars

MEDIA KIT: Debunking Pseudo-Scholarship: Things a journalist should know about The Skeptical Environmentalist

Re:www.climateprediction.net

[gerardrj]

All this "Save the environment" stuff is bunk. What people are trying to save is themselves/the human race.
Regardless of what humans do, short of blasting Earth in to tiny bits, the environment will be fine. In the geologic/astonomical timescale we are insignificant to the planet, and this global warming thing is like a small pimple you had back in 7th grade on Wednesday night.

The environment is self healing. If we cause it to get too hot (and I'm not sure we're responsible), humans and a bunch of other life forms will die off. Evolution and the geoligic processeses will reform the terrain and biosphere such that new life forms will become prevelant, and perhaps dominant.

The planet seems to have been here for 4.5 billion years, it's traveled trillions upon trillions of miles and been bombarded by untold tons of material large and small. It's been through stages of liquid rock and solid water covering the surface, it likely will go through such stages again.

As for your project, I have a few problems with it:

1. It doesn't seem to incorporate any external changes to the system. ie: it treats the Earth as a closed system and ignores interactions with surrounding space and the local star. At least that's what I gather from the brief reading I've done so far.
2. Its conclusion will be based on the "most popular" result being the most likely. The idea as I see it is: "We'll make a bunch of guesses based on assumptions and very rough modeling, and the most often guessed result is the winner." Sounds a little less than very useful to me.

Re:www.climateprediction.net

[mabu]

The environment is self healing. If we cause it to get too hot (and I'm not sure we're responsible), humans and a bunch of other life forms will die off. Evolution and the geoligic processeses will reform the terrain and biosphere such that new life forms will become prevelant, and perhaps dominant.

Yes, technically the environment is "self-healing". It remains to be seen if humankind is.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is? Entropy rules and it's a waste of time to interfere? And you want to argue symantics? Where's the value of such a diatribe?

There has been extensive research into humankind's impact on the global climate. Citing the absence of criteria doesn't invalidate the innumerable amount of hardcore information which indicates that human activities are causing climate change at a radical rate.

The issue of global warming will continue to be debated, but what is the more enlightened premise: assuming our activities have an averse impact and trying to do something about it, or ignoring or discounting the possibility? It seems to me to be a no-brainer.. where is the liability in assuming that this is a serious issue that warrants more attention?

Re:No, we should be already out of last ice age

[ComaVN]

Transitions between ice-ages and warmer periods are extremely abrupt, in the order of decades rather than thousands of years. Furthermore, the *average* time between ice-ages might be 20000 years, but they are not particularly regular. Combined with "normal" fluctuations (mini ice-ages like in the 17th century), this means very little can be predicted from these variations in temperature.

Of course, it's still a good idea to minimize air pollution for other reasons, like actually being able to breath in a big city in summer.

Hello Juan Carlos, this is Jeb

[LanceDBoyles]

It may not be too late to Give Florida Back to Spain.
I think we may still have the Receipt around here somehwhere...

On the other hand, at an average height of just 4 feet above sea level, this may be Governor Jeb's covert attempt at "wetlands" reclamation.

Re:Riddle me this...

[Troed]

We do not know enough about how the Earth handles CO2 to be able to say whether it will get warmer or colder, if it has any impact whatsoever.

The myth about Global Warming

Re:Interesting ?

[robinjo]

You, sir, are so wrong it hurts my eyes to read!

Place a big chunk of ice in a container and fill it with water. Then sit back and see how the melting of ice does not rise the water level. Then get back to your physics books and figure out why it doesn't.

The problem with global warming is not with floating ice. It's with Antarctica where ice is sitting on the continent. Melting of that ice will rise the sea levels.

Re:Just another point on the curve?

[MickLinux]

Norway and Sweden, if I understand correctly, already are good farmland. You just have to know how to farm it. Slightly to the south are Latvia and Lithuania, and the gardens there are incredible.

First of all, they build shiltunamai (warm houses they say, we say green houses) for their start seeds and for their tomatos. The tomato plants grow 6-8 feet high, so the green houses are good for that. Then, they alternate potatos with grain. Grain is for the cattle; potatos are for the humans; the alternation helps refresh the land, as *did* the spring flooding of the rivers. [That's less often nowadays, though].

In the spring they harvest strawberries.

Then, they run beets, onions, carrots, Swiss Chard, Currants, bilberries, and raspberries, through the year. Sunflowers, apples, plums, and grapes are common autumn foods. Flowers of all kinds are grown in quantity as well.

From the forests, they harvest mushrooms.

Each garden also has a bee hive to help fertilize things.

Unfortunately, the area is being deforested now, which means that less rain falls, and the fields don't flood. But I can say that the Baltic region is definitely good farmland already.

No truth in it.

[Shivetya]

We still don't know all of the sources of CO2 on this planet. Everything these scientists believe they have all climate affecting variables nailed down another pops up.

Just recently they found that the AMAZON RIVER dumps more CO2 into the air than all the surrounding region. Go figure.

In our egotistical view we give ourselves too much credit over the influence of the weather. Sorry, but we ain't that "good" yet.

Re:Well now,

[OpenSourcerer]

It was just past its shelf life

Story on BBC News with map

[cjellibebi]

Arctic ice shelf splits

Not warming, ice age.

[SmurfButcher Bob]

The operative word in that story was "salinity".

Warm salt water floats. Cold salt water sinks. BUT... cold fresh water floats on warm salt water. And when it does, it displaces the warm salt water towards the south. And that, of course, pushes the "great conveyor" to the south.

What's that mean? Well, for an ice-age to happen in the past, it means there had to be one heck of a lot of fresh water disrupting the conveyor up north.

So, to the experts who scream, "See? Warming!" I might suggest that you consider that the fresh water doesn't just *go away* when it has melted. It has a definite impact, and it doesn't make things warmer, either.

Next time, learn a little before you open your mouth.

Correlation != Causation

[goldspider]

"The fact that temperature changes coincide with increasing levels of a known greenhouse forcing gas, is actually fairly pursuasive. Or did you mean 'mere coincidence.' ;)"

Anybody who deals in logic and facts will tell you that CORRELATION != CAUSATION! I'm surprise you've never heard that before.

Just remember, 30 years ago, some of these same crackpot hippy 'scientists' were predicting an impending ICE AGE! So which is it? Depends on what gets them more government funding, I suppose.

Burden of proof

[rwa2]

Why is it up to the environmentalists to show that global warming is happening so that we might try to become more responsible about our energy utilization?

The burden of proof should fall on the businesses and enterprises to quantify how much environmental impact their new factory will produce. Then they can pay for all of the research.

Granted, this makes way for more biased research, but (1) there are ways around this (oversight committees, etc.) (2) the research gets done (3) we're not sticking our heads in the sand, building stuff that reaps resources from the environment, while waiting for some non-profit environmental research firm to finally proove that global warming is happening and you need to eliminate your excess C02 emissions 5 years ago or we'll sink under the sea in 2.

Re:Burden of proof

[Theaetetus]

Why is it up to the environmentalists to show that global warming is happening so that we might try to become more responsible about our energy utilization?

Because you've got burden of proof backwards...

Simple example - take something easy like birth-control pills. They've been around for several decades, but not as long as a single lifetime. Do they have an effect on long-term health? We don't know. Doesn't seem like it, but we can't be sure. What about the long-term health and lifespan of children whose mothers took birth control prior to their pregnancies? Again, we don't know. To prove they had no effect, we'd have to watch the mothers, the children, the grandchildren, the great-grandchildren, etc., for hundreds of years, with multiple control groups going.

To prove they do have an effect, we just need a handful of examples.

That's how burden of proof works. In the case of something like this, proving the negative - that birth control has no long-term effects, or that a factory's output has no long-term effect for thousands of years into the future - is nigh impossible. Proving the positive - show increased rates of cervical cancer, or more cases of lung cancer downwind of the factory - is relatively easy.

That's why burden of proof is on the environmentalists rather than the business. Might not be fair, but that's way the logic works.

-T

Not quite

[Spunk]

A freshwater lake drained into the sea, the researchers reported. I think CNN is misinterpreting the following comment, also from the article: all of the fresh water poured out of the 20 mile (30 km) long Disraeli Fjord.

Disraeli Fjord is (was) freshwater on top and saltwater on bottom. The freshwater was due to the ice shelf, with the boundary at the bottom of the shelf. It would make sense that only the fresh part was drained. It's sad that this unique body of water is no longer that way.

global warming differences North & South poles

[peter303]

The effects of global warming are not uniformly spread around the world. The arctic, both land and sea, are clearly warming. The equatorial areas may not be warming as much. The antarctic shows both warming and cooling: cooling in the the interior and warming.melting at the edges. Being a large, mountainous land mass complicates the climate there.

Spin vs. Facts

[Arker]

That's your belief. Scientific evidence to support that belief is not in evidence, however.

Despite politically motivated statements to the contrary by some politically funded researchers with obvious interest in spinning things that way, the evidence suggests instead that human action has little, if any, net affect on the global temperature average. Humans produce greenhouse gasses, yes. Humans also do things with the opposite effect. One good volcanic eruption has a lot more effect than years of human activity.

We're in an interglacial period. Icepacks are receding. Natural, normal, and on the whole a good thing for humans and most other species as well. Why people want to spin this as some kind of disaster is beyond me, excepting those with an obvious political motivation of course.

Earths climate is never static. If the icepacks weren't receding, they'd be expanding, and that would be much more like a disaster.

Re:Spin vs. Facts

[Catbeller]

There is no "political motivation" to buck the status quo. It takes guts to tell the people of Earth that they must change their ways. There is no up side to telling people what they do not want to hear.

There is an up side to telling them what they want to hear: "Go on and do whatever you like, and don't listen to these longhaired intellectuals over there".

The vast majority of scientists qualified to hold an opinion have settled this matter as fact. They have no "political advantage" to uphold; as a matter of fact, the present administration of the US has made it abundantly clear than scientists who hold this unpopular-with-industry opinion are no longer welcome to share their opinions, or even to work for the administration.

The only "spin" here are those who want to shout down those who calmly stating the facts. The arguments against the accepted facts closely resemble those against natural selection -- ad hominem nonsense.

Re:Spin vs. Facts

[Dun Malg]

There is no up side to telling people what they do not want to hear.

Hogwash. There's no government grant money if you say "everything's fine". If you say "this might be a problem, it needs study", the money comes rolling in.

Re:Spin vs. Facts

[Tyler Durden]

Uh, gee, the vast majority of scientists do not believe that human activity is a substantial part of global warming. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way.

I probably shouldn't be responding to an AC, but how can you make a charge for others ignoring "facts" when you provide no evidence for said facts? Most scientists don't believe humans are a significant factor for global warming you say. What study shows this? Can you cite it? Do most of these scientists come from fields relevant to the issue? If you can't answer these questions then you shouldn't have bothered writing your post in the first place as it has no worth.

From what I've seen, if you look through articles in Scientific American regarding humanity affecting global warming there are pretty convincing arguments from both sides of the coin. The issue is far from settled either way. If someone would like to prove me wrong I'd be more than happy to see your case.

You are wrong...

[rmdyer]

Political bias either way doesn't matter. What you've stated is true, but the "facts" are that geologic changes take more time than you account for. What we've seen in the last 100-200 years is simply astounding by geo-time. The amount of time considered here is simply so small that on a larger time scale (5,000-25,000 years) would not ordinarily be noticed.

I suggest you stand back and get a bigger picture of just how long this planet has been in flux. From that perspective you can see that the match head has just been scratched!

+1

Probably redunant

[ducomputergeek]

People seem to confuse the issue of "Global Warming". The earth's average tempature is rising, anyone disputing that needs to really look at the resources. The answer: The tempature is rising.

The issue is "What, if any, effect has human industry had on the warming effect?" That is the question that people are attempting to answer and truefully we don't know. People point to a study that shows the average tempature rising at an increasing rate over the last 80 years or so when they began the study.

To me, 80 years in the scheme of things isn't enough to say one way or the other. Now we know that we caused the hole in the Ozone layer, and it looks as though the problem maybe starting to correct itself after banning the wide-spread use of CFC's, but its an important lesson: The earth is enduring until the sun gobbles it up in another 4 Billion years or so.

If the north pole ice cap melted, it would not raise the ocean 1 inch since it already displaces its own weight in water. I think the water in a cup and add ice example has been given, now the question is, how much ice is down there in the south pole? People predict horrid flooding of coastal cities, but I have read some documents that say that if all that water is realeased and dispursed throughout the world, it would raise the oceans by only a few inches. Sucks to be you if you own a beach house.

The biggest threat seems to be the breaking of the Atlantic Conveyer with a large influx of fresh water. I think there is some evidence of this happening about 60k years ago, but again I am not a geologist, just an avid reader of things. If that breaks, then a rapid global cooling may take place and the return to a new expansion of the polar caps.

Oh yeah, this would be a good point to note that WE ARE STILL IN AN ICE AGE. There is still ice, isn't there?

As far as weather goes, look at Europe circa 500 AD, a great cooling happened, if I remember my history correctly, that lead to many problems with farming and crop cycles. The other factor is Media. I mean, people really didn't here much about the weather around the world until the last 50 years. How do know that weather hasn't had these odd years with extremes before? Oh wait, I think it has, but there wasn't a media to record and have slow news days with nothing else to bitch about.

Endgame: we need more solid info besides some corralations. There is a famous Missourian named Mark Twain that once wrote, "There are lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" and that is the truth. Stats can be manipulated like markets. My first thought is usually ignore them as evidence and look at the raw data before drawing conclusions. After the Earth will survive: its mankind that is fucked. George Carlin stated that once, and you know, he's right....

whoa man.. get your facts right

[CowBovNeal]

What is preventing the ice on the mainland from melting? The sheet ice!
Once the sheet ice goes, its like a domino effect. The ice on the mainland will start to melt faster.

Thats essentially what I meant about the animals and so.

Vegans or not vegans.. it doesn't matter.
Animals in the arctic are specially suited only to the arctic! You take them away from their habitat, they will adapt, but only if they are left alone for the next 50 generations. And that is not going to happen because of man's intervention.
Do you find polar bears in texas? No.

Your using the " shallow analysis" method.
Its like stating, if spammers didn't spam, how would they survive? What will happen to the telemarketers once the do no call list goes into operation?

The people who benefit from this is miniscule.
10 times as more people will be the victim of stronger hurricanes, fishermen will have to contend with less yield etc..
Then even the bankers,insurers and sundry won't benefit.

I don't care if you take it as flamebait. Because it WAS flamebait.
Your statement about tankers or so benefitting from the opening of the passage was so illogical and uninformed that anybody with a saner mind can deal with it as flamebait.