Slashdot Mirror
A New Ice Age?
barakn writes "Scientists have savaged the new movie The Day After Tomorrow, which depicts global warming causing a new ice age and freezing New York solid. The movie follows on the heels of a report to the Department of Defense in February, written by two guys who are not climatologists, about the implications of global warming triggering the growth of ice sheets in the northern hemisphere. There is a plausible theory which suggests that melting ice may release enough fresh water to halt circulation of warm water from the Gulf Stream, thus significantly cooling Europe and the east coast of North America. Note that this theory depends on melting ice, not growing ice, which may be one reason scientists find the ice age scenario so hard to swallow. New satellite evidence suggests a part of this circulation may already be slowing down. Those on the North American west coast will not have to worry about ice sheets, but changes in Arctic ice could mean the western drought will be permanent. For those of you who would rather do something before it's too late, iron seems to work, but the long-term ecological implications are still unknown."
Um no...he means loose.
loose ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ls)
adj. looser, loosest
1. Not fastened, restrained, or contained: loose bricks.
2. Not taut, fixed, or rigid: a loose anchor line; a loose chair leg.
3. Free from confinement or imprisonment; unfettered: criminals loose in the neighborhood; dogs that are loose on the streets.
4. Not tight-fitting or tightly fitted: loose shoes.
5. Not bound, bundled, stapled, or gathered together: loose papers.
6. Not compact or dense in arrangement or structure: loose gravel.
7. Lacking a sense of restraint or responsibility; idle: loose talk.
8. Not formal; relaxed: a loose atmosphere at the club.
9. Lacking conventional moral restraint in sexual behavior.
10. Not literal or exact: a loose translation.
11. Characterized by a free movement of fluids in the body: a loose cough; loose bowels.
Advanced users are users too!
This is Slashdot, one of the great cultural centers of technophilia.
1) All Technology And Its Results Are Good. (Except Microsoft.)
2) Any Possible Bad Side Effects Are Luddite Hysteria.
3) If It's Bad But Hasn't Happened Yet, It Never Will Happen.
4) If It's Good But Hasn't Happened Yet, It Inevitably Will Happen.
It's not universal here, obviously, but it's certainly annoyingly common.
Do you know that the US produces and consumes 25 percent of the world's power and yet has only 4 percent of the world's population?
So what? Because some third world dirt grubber doesn't have electricity, I shouldn't either? Or is there simply a fixed some of energy, and I'm taking more than my fair share? Either way, I say "go to hell" to you.
Your other concerns are somewhat valid, but exaggerated for some kind of political effect. I've seen too many producitve intellectual conversations killed outright by eco fanatics, who want us living in some kind of stone age.
gee i dont know, maybe because our needs our greater? what are you trying to say?
the last time i checked we paid good money for our oil, oil which makes up 40 % of our energy consumption.
are you trying to say that it is because of the evil USA that the 3rd world doesnt have infrastructure that requires power? if you were to travel a little you would quickly realize that outside of this pleasant place that we call the USA, is a dark place that is governed by corruption so massive that it is unbelieveable. it is because of this corruption (take latin america, for example) that the ppl are bentover and given a stiff ass-pounding. and it has been that way for several hundred years, long before the USA was involved so the catch-all "evil USA" argument just doesnt hold water.
Let me give you an example. Germany, which is trying to be green installed a huge number of wind powered generators in the North Sea. They have just found out that because of all those generators the coast is getting 10% more sunshine and 10% less rain. I then ask the question, are we not dammed if we do and dammed if we do not?
If you're gonna make outlandish claims, at least provide a reference. I'm personally really skeptical that any measurable changes has occurred and even more skeptical that causation has been proven. Until I see a real link, your little theory goes into
The problem is that the energy produced in the U.S. is largely from burning greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels. Therefore
Not much argument there, though we come to that conclusion for different reasons, I'm sure.
a) we're a big part of the current problem (rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere)
It's likely that extra (and especially unnecessary) greenhouse gases are going to cause us some kind of problem, it's less clear that we will be unable to undo the damage before the consequences catch up with us, or that we're anywhere near some some fatal line that if we cross it, there will be hell to pay.
b) we're setting a bad example for the developing nations, who want the same standard of living as us
I didn't realize that we were obligated to be a role model, and I laugh at ridiculousness of your suggestion that we should be. Even if we wanted to, and took the proper steps, half the world hates the USA, and the other half tries to ignore it.
c) we're passing up an opportunity, something uncharacteristic of Americans. If we are smart we will start investing heavily in R&D into alternative energy
We are missing one. But it isn't some pansy-assed alternative energy that you suggest. It isn't windmills, it isn't solar arrays, it isn't homes built of compacted peat moss. The only true friendly energy source is fusion, which we can't do, and the next closest thing is fission, which we can, but idiots like you have demonized to the point that no one would tolerate it.
The american auto makers would be a good place to start, they are going to get their asses handed to them (for the umpteenth time) by the Japanese and Germans, who are both taking fuel cell research seriously.
Well, that may or may not happen, but they're barking up the wrong tree anyway. Electric cars are the only way to go, and if we had fusion, or something comparable, they'd be affordable. No one will trade an $80 a month gasoline bill for the $400 a month electric (charging car) that would replace it. Besides, until the power plant is also clean, charging it only looks to be the case, but just means the utility company is burning coal or oil and belching the smoke for you. Not much of an improvement.
hat question man made global warming when there really isn't much question among honest scientists.
There are always questions among scientists. Far more than there are ever any answers, let alone certain answers. To suggest otherwise, is to ignore the truth. Hell, look at the two possibilities: On one hand, the arctic circle becomes a tropical paradise, and anything south of it a baked wasteland. On the other hand, everything freezes into a planet earth popsicle. Which is it? Is it possible there is a third, choice, a happy middle? You're simply angry that your pseudoscientist propaganda specialists aren't being heard over the top of the other sides propaganda specialists. I don't care to hear either side of it.
They want to burn oil like they intend to set the world on fire, and you want me living in some hippy adobe hut using 3 watt hours of power a year. Sorry, I want a third option.
Accepting the theorie that global warming just *might* be human induced is not the same as making it your new religion and personally I have never been attacked by animals because of it :)
Since you accept the theory that global warming *might* be human-induced, then will you accept the theory that global warming *might* be alien-induced?
It *might* also be ghost-induced for that matter, and it *might* be demon-induced.
You will probably attempt to counter this by stating that "we know that humans exist, while we don't know about the other ones." That's beside the point. They all *might* exist, right?
This is why I reject all "might-based" arguments. I will accept your argument if the evidence is sufficient and the reasoning is sound. Otherwise, it *might* be true that our brains are all controlled by robots from another dimension. Why not believe that, if we're going to accept what *might* be true?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Danger will robinson: Parent poster has no idea what he is talking about!