Slashdot Mirror


Major Climate Change 5,200 Years Ago Could Repeat

An anonymous reader writes "The climate was altered suddenly some 5,200 years ago with severe impacts. Famouse glaciologist professor Lonnie Thompson have found clues that show history repeating itself. Thompson has spent his career trekking to the far corners of the world to find remote ice fields and then bring back cores drilled from their centers. Within those cores are the records of ancient climate from across the globe. He outlined his fears today at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. 'The evidence clearly points back to this point in history and to some event that occurred. It also points to similar changes occurring in today's climate as well,' he said."

6 of 845 comments (clear)

  1. More information from osu by djplurvert · · Score: 3, Informative
  2. Re:Climate Change by malsbert · · Score: 3, Informative

    i do not think climate change is junk science.
    that aside i would like to see a more balanced view in mainstream research. all to many simply view human society as the culprit and leave it at that. this paper says it happend 5200 years ago and now its happening again. well human outlet of green house gases were not responsible then, are they now? i reasonly watched a television program on the subject and the most interesting thing was that several of the researchers cliamed that when looking at temperature raise in atmosphere (as opposed to ground level) only a 1/3 of the projected raise was seen! they further claimed the reason for this discrepancy was the fact that many of the early temperature measuring stations was set up in or around citys dos measuring not global warming but local warming as a result of city expansion. now this is not to say the green house thing is wrong just that it may be more complex then "green house gases did it!!".
    just my 2 cent (euro cent!)

    --
    "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot.
  3. Re:fp? by Cally · · Score: 5, Informative
    > I'll believe in global warming the minute "scientists" find something to agree on.

    Hey, fella, guess what? You're in luck!The consensus on human CO2 emissions causing climate change is about as solid as you can get - despite what the oil-lobby, uninformed trolls and assorted net.kooks would have you believe.

    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  4. laugh while you can, monkey boy by jeif1k · · Score: 3, Informative
    Did you even bother to read the story? This study shows that abrupt climate change can and does occur. Maybe it was triggered by a volcanic eruption. Maybe it was triggered by unusually strong forest fires. Maybe it was those in combination with some other factors. Maybe it was a surge in solar output, as the story suggests. The point is: short-term climate change can happen and it can have devastating consequences. As the author of the study says:
    "The climate system is remarkably sensitive to natural variability," he said. "It's likely that it is equally sensitive to effects brought on by human activity, changes like increased greenhouse gases, altered land-use policies and fossil-fuel dependence.

    "Any prudent person would agree that we don't yet understand the complexities with the climate system and, since we don't, we should be extremely cautious in how much we 'tweak' the system," he said.

    "The evidence is clear that a major climate change is underway."
    You know, people like you are one reason why the possibility of climate change wiping out the human race is perhaps not such a bad thing: investing as many resources in maintaining a big brain as the human body does is only worth it if it leads to better survival. But a species that ignores such serious warning signs as we have had about global climate change perhaps just doesn't have an evolutionary advantage compared to, say, rats or cockroaches. And they will survive climate change because their needs are more modest; they don't need to maintain big brains and all the complications that entails.
  5. Re: Dumb Democrat? by Long-EZ · · Score: 5, Informative

    show me a solution to the problem and will back it

    The problems are:

    1) Convention. We have infrastructure in place to burn fossil fuels, and inertia being what it is, we continue along that course. Maintaining the status quo is bad for the environment. It also results in an unfavorable balance of trade for the US. I was amused by the public service announcements equating drug use with funding terrorists. The US is addicted to oil from the Middle East, and that addiction is the real source of funding for Middle Eastern terrorists.

    2) Subsidies. There are pseudo-subsidies which make it difficult for alternative energy to compete with fossil fuels. These aren't direct government subsidies to the oil industry, although some amount of that wouldn't surprise me. Many of the costs of burning fossil fuels are not paid by the fuel infrastructure. Pollution is paid for in a number of other places, including everything from the EPA budget, to the increased cost of insurance and health care relating to environmentally related illnesses, to the increased maintenance costs we all pay for tasks such as repainting because smog damages almost everything it touches. And who pays for medical care of coal miners with black lung? How much of our taxes does the US government contribute to cleaning up oil spills? If fossil fuels paid for all the problems they cause our society, solar and wind power would be more than cost effective in a fair comparison.

    3) Fuelish Government Policies. As one example, the US government offers a substantial tax break to businesses who buy trucks of a certain size. The idea was ostensibly to encourage small businesses to buy delivery trucks and farmers to buy farm related vehicles. But the policy was almost instantly exploited. It encouraged automakers to produce the land barge sized SUVs. Almost every auto maker has a model large enough to qualify, and they're sold to businesses that provide them as company cars. So the government is encouraging auto makers to build 12 mpg SUVs, by offering tax incentives for businesses to buy them.

    GM created the EV1 electric car. They leased them to many customers, and the customers loved them. They were very low maintenance, requiring no oil changes and even reduced brake wear because they employed regenerative braking. Best of all, there was never a need to stop for gas. It charges automatically while parked in the garage at night when the off peak electric rates are low. It's easy to imagine solar charging for the EV1. But GM decided to focus 30+ years down the road on the hope of hydrogen cars. Despite angry protests from their customers, they pulled the EV1 off lease. Some of their customers wanted to absolve GM of all liability and support for the EV1 and purchase it outright, after essentially already buying it during the lease period. GM refused. It sure looks like an attempt to suppress technology.

    So, here are the solutions to the problem. Start backing them.

    We could have electric cars today that pollute much less than internal combustion engine cars, even when they're ultimately powered by coal powered plants as an interim solution. Solar power is available almost everywhere and even though Moore's Law does not apply to solar cells, a similar effect seems likely. Once we converted our energy system to mostly solar, huge economies of scale apply and the price drops enormously. Solar panels have proven to be low maintenance with long term reliability. If we get the initial cost down, the payback period will be shorter and this technology will appeal even to short sighted American businesses.

    We need less expensive solar cells, more efficient energy storage devices, and a change in our infrastructure to support alternative energy solutions.

    Finally, one obviously simple technique that would have the single largest impact in our energy policy would be to drastically reduce the amount of fossil fuels being burned for space heating and water heating.

    --
    >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
  6. Re:It was clear 20 years ago we would be dead by n by Cally · · Score: 3, Informative
    it was clear that the oceans would die by the turn of the century, the ozone hole would be so large it would cover parts of Africa, people would be dieing of radiation poisoning from the sun... etc etc etc.
    No-one ever suggested any of this would happen. The ozone hole has stabilised and perhaps started to shrink because the world took notice of warnings from atmospheric physicists and chemists and agreed to phase out the use of CFCs. It was called the Montreal Protocol and is an excellent examlpe of worldwide action to counter an imminent threat to the whole planet.

    Weren't the ice caps supposed to be all gone soon?
    I defy you to find a single reputable scientist who made this prediction. Just because your eyes glaze over when the subject comes up so that yuo hear the equvialent of radio static when peiople use words with more than two syllables doesn't mean that people talk bollocks you know.

    Proof has been constantly cited since the 70s and yet all the dire predictions have come to naught.
    Look, this is just bullshit. You keep on making these wild assertions that have no basis in fact and then knocking them downas if that proves something. These are what we call 'straw man' arguments.

    A few good volcanoes provide visible effect that the public can see and in some cases experience.
    This is just not true, and if you're so stupid as to regurgitate such outright crap it indicates you haven't bothered doing the most cursory attempt to research any, like,... 'facts'. You have humiliated yourself in public, well done. I'm not sure I can be bothered going thru' the rest of your post. Go away and read some facts about the subject, then come back and apologise for spouting nonsense on a subject yuo know nothing about. A google search for 'FAQ climate change science' would be a good start. Otherwise I recommend:
    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe