Slashdot Mirror
Siberian Permafrost Melting
TeknoHog writes "New
Scientist Reports on a remarkable runaway process of global warming
that has been going on in Siberia for the past few years. 'Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3C in the last 40 years.' As a result, a million
square kilometers (the area of France and Germany) of frozen peat bog have
been found to be melting, according to Russian and international
scientists. This releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which
contributes to further global warming."
... and can I tell you about another source of methane? Just ask my roommate!
Slap a Stirling on that thar peat bog!
Cue neo-con denial in 3... 2... 1...
La-la-la-la-la! MMMMM!!! I can't hear your!!! La-la-la-la-la!!
The war is going well, we plan to fix Social Security if the stubborn opponents would just see reason! I have political capital to spend and I'm going to spend it!
La-la-la-la-la! MMMMM!!! Hoo-Hah! Yellow rose of Texas .. HMMM MMM MMM MMM MMM MMMMMMM!!! La-la-la! (Dick see if we can round up some more troops and invade Siberberia, lookin' for weapons, setting up democracy sorta thing) La-la-la-la!!!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
i think maybe its all the gas from dupe posts
lameness filter thwarted.
Again, from all the science it seems like global warming will be a catastrophe, but it would be nice to find a few more bog people.
And yes, I have a degree in anthropology.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I think their server has been warmed by more than 3C.
With all that methane being produced, you could surely turn that area into a methane farm. We've got engines that can run off methane, and those could be used as generators for power into the grid. This would be a good thing for Russia. Might as well take advantage of the energy that's about to come your way.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
... to Tempafrost.
Global warming is faux science while intelligent design is worth teach as an alternative - yeah ok I buy that!
... the globe warms YOU
oh noes!!! we're going to be pwned by peat bog!!!
- Aetheral Research -
THE world's largest frozen peat bog is melting. An area stretching for a million square kilometres across the permafrost of western Siberia is turning into a mass of shallow lakes as the ground melts, according to Russian researchers just back from the region.
The sudden melting of a bog the size of France and Germany combined could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.
The news of the dramatic transformation of one of the world's least visited landscapes comes from Sergei Kirpotin, a botanist at Tomsk State University, Russia, and Judith Marquand at the University of Oxford.
Kirpotin describes an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He says that the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt, and this "has all happened in the last three or four years".
What was until recently a featureless expanse of frozen peat is turning into a watery landscape of lakes, some more than a kilometre across. Kirpotin suspects that some unknown critical threshold has been crossed, triggering the melting.
Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3 C in the last 40 years. The warming is believed to be a combination of man-made climate change, a cyclical change in atmospheric circulation known as the Arctic oscillation, plus feedbacks caused by melting ice, which exposes bare ground and ocean. These absorb more solar heat than white ice and snow.
Similar warming has also been taking place in Alaska: earlier this summer Jon Pelletier of the University of Arizona in Tucson reported a major expansion of lakes on the North Slope fringing the Arctic Ocean.
The findings from western Siberia follow a report two months ago that thousands of lakes in eastern Siberia have disappeared in the last 30 years, also because of climate change (New Scientist, 11 June, p 16). This apparent contradiction arises because the two events represent opposite end of the same process, known as thermokarsk.
In this process, rising air temperatures first create "frost-heave", which turns the flat permafrost into a series of hollows and hummocks known as salsas. Then as the permafrost begins to melt, water collects on the surface, forming ponds that are prevented from draining away by the frozen bog beneath. The ponds coalesce into ever larger lakes until, finally, the last permafrost melts and the lakes drain away underground.
Siberia's peat bogs formed around 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. Since then they have been generating methane, most of which has been trapped within the permafrost, and sometimes deeper in ice-like structures known as clathrates. Larry Smith of the University of California, Los Angeles, estimates that the west Siberian bog alone contains some 70 billion tonnes of methane, a quarter of all the methane stored on the land surface worldwide.
His colleague Karen Frey says if the bogs dry out as they warm, the methane will oxidise and escape into the air as carbon dioxide. But if the bogs remain wet, as is the case in western Siberia today, then the methane will be released straight into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
In May this year, Katey Walter of the University of Alaska Fairbanks told a meeting in Washington of the Arctic Research Consortium of the US that she had found methane hotspots in eastern Siberia, where the gas was bubbling from thawing permafrost so fast it was preventing the surface from freezing, even in the midst of winter.
An international research partnership known as the Global Carbon Project earlier this year identified melting permafrost as a major source of feedbacks that could accelerate climate change by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. "Several hundred billion tonnes of carbon could be released," said the project's chief scientist, Pep Canadell of the CSIRO Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research in Canberra, Australia.
I'm will to bet you won't hear that many people in Siberia complaining.
Of course all of the liberals are going to turn around and claim that this validates their so-called "theory" of "global warming", and that therefore we can reverse this problem by imposing socialist restrictions on the right of industrial corporations to do business as they please. But the truth is, solid science suggests that its simply a result of natural changes in the ecosystem, and the solution is to allow markets to develop solutions that allow everyone to live better in the warmer world of the future.
And the fact of the matter is, we need more habitable land to accomodate the world's rising population, and getting rid of permafrost is a sure-fire way to increase the supply. If the methane is really a problem, the solution is to allow free enterprise to trap the gas and use it as an energy source. But it may be a better idea to let it rise, which will allow more people to enjoy warmer temperatures and probably boost the tourism industry in many parts of the world that are now too cold to be year-round vacation destinations. One thing is for sure: If anyone knows that Communism is a failure, it is the Russians, so there is no doubt that we are going to see a proactive solution instead of more socialist regulation.
We all know how the comments are going to go. Everyone will get angry, no minds will be changed, and nothing new will be said. So moderators, I implore you to mod down every on-topic comment and up the off-topics and trolls. Spare us all this stupid argument again and fill this space with penis birds and goatse links. For the sake of the children.
People who live in an area considered the "frozen hell" of this world are complaining about it finally warming up?
American Left scientist: This is bald proof that Global Warming is occuring and causing climatic changes in our lifetime. The rise in greenhouse gasses since the advent of the Industrial Revolution matches the rise in global temperatures, giving further proof that humans are a key component in the climatic puzzle. By drastically reducing our fossil fuel emissions and other man-made greenhouse gasses, it should be possible to manage the expected warming trend. Acting now is absolutely necessary to keeping pristine environments like the Siberian taiga in their pristine state.
American Right scientist: This is interesting data. However a few degrees change over a short span of only 40 years is not indicative of any long-term trend towards either a cooling cycle or a heating cycle. Nevertheless, as the historical temperature has fluctuated greatly in the past and it seems that we are actually coming out of a trough, it seems reasonable to assume that a warming trend would be on the horizon. At the least, it should indicate that we need more study of the phenomenon.
European scientists: Ziss is clearly ze work of ze fat, stinking Americans and zer fat, stinking wives and cars.
Siberian citizens: Ya, I am sinkink dat I like za balmy weather.
"Ok, the data about the .. uh .. beachfront property in Austin is lookin like we have some extra water from somewhere. We're lookin into it and as soon as we have some good, hard data, we'll have some esplanations."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Clearly, Bush is deliberately doing nothing about global warming, so that the methane released by these peat bogs can be used as fuel when hes helped use up all the oil on the planet.
That aside, one wonders what presidents eat when they get into the White House. How can one protect American jobs while exporting our entire industrial base with the so called out-sourcing?
PS: I am speaking as an American.
But as a native of Western Siberia I can confirm some very unusual weather patterns. For instance this summer has been so far very tropics-like. Around 35C during the day with 80%+ humidity. Very unusual...
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
http://www.waverley.gov.uk/waste/peat.asp#What%20i s%20Peat?
Peat is made of incompletely decomposed plant remains, which accumulate in waterlogged soils over thousands of years. It occurs because the natural processes of decay are prevented by the acidic water logging and depleted oxygen.
If the Siberian wasteland was covered with plants and water for thousands of years, doesn't that imply that during that time the wasteland was not frozen?
And, if it was not frozen, doesn't that imply that it was warmer in the distant past than it was in the recent past?
So, the question is, what caused that warming thousands of years ago and what is the "proper" temperature for the earth?
If the earth wants to return the tundra to a boglike state, more power to him!
Geeks: Do yourself a favor and find a more credible source for science news, one less prone to editorializing and baseless speculation. You don't need your science articles to try to do your thinking for you.
I'm sure our esteemed leader will put it in proper perspective just like he did with CO2 levels.
"We expel methane all the time...well, Laura and I do"
David Bellamy said, "We criticise people from the third world countries for not conserving their rainforests, but when it comes to our peat bogs which are actually a rarer habitat than the tropical rainforest, we are doing a much worse job". (The Times, Saturday November 25, 2000).
Exploitation by afforestation, conversion to agriculture and commercial peat extraction has destroyed much of our peat lands. In the last century we lost 75% of our blanket bogs and 94% of our raised bogs. Gardeners and horticulture used a staggering 2.55 million cubic metres of peat each year. In the UK there is less than 9,500 acres of near natural raised bog left.
In Soviet Russia, frozen peat bog melts you!
My sig is permanently on strike.
Oh, wouldn't it be lovely? Lovely... lovely.
Does this mean that the movie "The Day After" is comming true ? I mean its going to have its ups and downs I can imagine the sale of Ski's will skyrocket and the sale of swimming pools will plumet... all jokeing aside this isnt good...
Hello, we are coming out of an ice age! I know I am one of the 'unwashed masses' when it comes to the science of Global Warming, so don't take this as an authority, but last I heard, the Earth fluctuates quite frequently (geologic time) in temperature, and the dinosaurs were enjoying world-wide tropics.
We very well may be causing this, which would be bad, but what if we are not?
Before you mod me down, remember, good scientists ask lots of questions, annoying questions.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other" -John Ada
"The sky is falling! It's all our fault!"
The climate on planet Earth has gotten less than a degree warmer in the last 150 years.
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm#graph
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Not only that, but the waste products would be water and carbon dioxide. CO2 is of course a greenhouse gas, but one far less potent than methane. IIRC, it's a factor of about 100 to 1, which means that if one molecule of methane produces one molecule of CO2 when burned, you're solving 99% of the problem.
It is debatable whether 99% remediation is sufficient, but surely it's a good start. At the very least, it would be nice to use some of the energy produced in combustion to sequester the CO2 rather than dump it into the atmosphere.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
There is already methane in the atmosphere, but at too low a concentration for us to smell.
Methane being basically fart gas, what I want to know is at what concentration will living on Planet Earth smell like being inside a fat mans pants?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
We wouldn't want any serious questions or conversation. It's much more fun to sling high school insults at a world leader. So, please, shut up.
Mod me as off topic - but hasn't GM promised to deliver the first hydrogen fuel cell car by 2010? We're still burning fossil fuels like crazy, oil topped $66 dollars a barrel today (up 50%+ vs two years ago), and the new Chines middle class is the first generation buying cars.... We're fcuked.
The Big Yuan - tracking mainland China
the worst ice age the earth ever saw was caused by methane deposits warming the globe rapidly and throwing the earth into a sever and quick ice age soon after.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Well, it looks like the permafrost isn't so permanent. Maybe a change of title is in order?
Just like the "perms" my wife Betty-Lou get's down at the dang booteek or whateer that durned place is called. Yeap -- they call it a "permunant", but it just a stinkin bunch of moppy curls that done go way after a few weeks. And I always tell that woman she's throwin her $5 away, but she won't do no listenen!
But about this "perma" snow or whartever -- can you believe that?? Leave it to them Russkies to not even know how to make snow. Why them commies ain't never done nuthin right. Ain't nothin like good ol' USA snow, though I don't ever really see any here in Tennessee, American snow is the best. And I bet is stays frosty much longer than that phony snow from any commie or french country.
How about the BBC, is that credible enough for you?
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
...this will trigger a cooling trend. And reverse-immigration. See you at Cinco de Mayo.
"ecological landslide that is probably irreversible"
"undoubtedly connected to climatic warming"
"The warming is believed to be a combination of...."
"suspects that some unknown critical threshold has been crossed"
It's stunning that this "sudden" event wasn't foreseen, and yet an often crushing certainty is paraded to explain it, and warn that it was inevitable, irreversible, etc. Exactly how often can the sky fall? Does anyone wonder why they're not taken seriously any more?
The problem isn't so much that it's happenning, but the speed (relatively speaking) at which it's happenning. Also our contribution may be putting higher peaks, and deeper valleys in that curve.
I know humans are probably causing some of the current global warming that has been going on, but is there any proof that this isn't a normal part of the earths climate cycle? I am all for being careful, and trying to reduce our affect on increasing global warming. BUT. Isn't possible that this IS a normal part of the earths climate cycle? For example the heat up before another ice age?
Anyone have any actual scientific input on this?
The Good Life
The last 100 years has been just one big huge orgy of mass consumption and it still continues, spreading to developing countries like China. But anyone who thinks we can just continue to rape the globe forever with no consquences is delusional.
Question is, are we going to be stupid enough to continue down this wreckless path? Does humanity secretly have an unfulfilled death wish? Was World War II just a fluke or was it a flash of the selfish inhumanity really lies within each of us?
Listen I'm willing to admit I'm part of the problem. I recognize things have to change. Each of needs to wake up, find a way to snap out of these unsustainable lifestyles we all lead and avoid the terrible consequences that surely await us if we don't.
Let's quit being fucking idiots. What do we need to do?
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
I've heard that one of the reasons that the Russians didn't sign the Kyoto Agreement was because they are tired of the cold and *want* a warmer country.
Global warming may be good for *some* countries.
Table-ized A.I.
..this submission is a good example of why your statistics aren't representative of the real picture of climate change. When you say, "Hey, it's not even 1 degree warmer! Bok bok bok!", you're talking about average temperatures.
Meanwhile, some places -- like Siberia -- are heating up, while others -- like warm ocean currents that heat air -- are cooling down. So it's not surprising that some areas are getting hotter and some are getting cooler. The point is that we can see evidence that a climactic equilibrium that has existed for hundreds of years is now becoming much more dynamic and unpredictable. And we're probably to blame for at least some of it, and maybe most of it.
Anyway, the short version of this speech is: Averages are often terribly misleading statistics.
...le déluge.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
'Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3C in the last 40 years.'
Hmm. Sounds like local warming, not global warming.
In my opinion, you can't believe anything you read about "global warming" or "climate change" -- for or against the idea -- because there's so much bullshit coming from both sides pushing their agendas.
I am listening to Michael Crichton's STATE OF FEAR book, and I'll admit I have my doubts now about global warming claims. Or at least I'm more skeptical now about claims from either side. Suffice it to say, Crichton is normally a very astute researcher for his books, even though he obviously bends the truth to make his fiction more interesting.
What if we just all try to not waste as much stuff (food, electricity, natural resources), and assume it'll help?
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
The earth hasn't really been steadily warming up for the last thousand years. What it did was suddenly and drastically warm up about ten thousand years ago. Since then it has been relatively steady in a single place.
Aside from this, the problem with global warming is that it does not represent the earth steadily warming up-- even if the earth had been steadily warming before human-caused global warming started. Instead, what we see is a decidedly non-steady, drastic, sudden, and accelerating trend in increasing temperatures right at the beginning of the industrial age.
We very well may be causing this, which would be bad, but what if we are not?
Then we're going to have to come up with entirely new models of how climate and atmosphere works, because the ones we have right now all say at the most basic level that if you drastically increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (and humanity has definitely done this) the climate changes.
Aside from this, think of it like this. Driving while drunk might kill you. However, what if it will not? Well, to what extent does the answer to this question matter? Because that's an outside chance at best.
Before you mod me down, remember, good scientists ask lots of questions, annoying questions.
Indeed, so in future if I were you I would stick to asking questions rather than randomly positing statements like "the earth has been steadily warming up for the last several thousand years" without finding backup for that.
Hopefully it doesnt build up too fast and explode.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
GOOFUS has a PhD.
GALLANT has a PhD in a field unrelated to his research.
GOOFUS gets little respect as a scientist outside the scientific community.
GALLANT gets little respect as a scientist inside the scientific community.
GOOFUS drives a beat-up old car.
GALLANT drives a BMW unless his chauffeur is driving.
GOOFUS wears street clothes to work, maybe a lab suit on occasion.
GALLANT wears three piece suits at all times.
GOOFUS is employed by a "university", a "hospital", or a "laboratory".
GALLANT is employed by a "Coalition", an "Institute", an "Association", a "Foundation", a "Council", or a "White House".
GOOFUS earns $30000 per year unless they cut his funding.
GALLANT earns $200000 per year but makes his real money from speaking fees.
GOOFUS lives anywhere in the country.
GALLANT lives in a wealthy area near Washington DC, but may have additional homes elsewhere.
GOOFUS may sometimes be filmed standing in front of big melting icebergs.
GALLANT may be filmed sitting in front of a bookcase or standing behind a podium at a $2000 per plate fundraiser, although there may be ice melting in his drink.
GOOFUS is a dues-paying member of several scientific grassroots organizations.
GALLANT is on the payroll of several scientific astroturf organizations.
GOOFUS gets summoned for jury duty but is never picked as a juror.
GALLANT claims "the jury is still out" on evolution or global warming, since he considers himself to be on the jury.
GOOFUS maintains the world is five billion years old.
GALLANT isn't really saying, but creationists distribute his pamphlets all the time.
GOOFUS claims the world is warming as a direct result of human activity.
GALLANT either claims that climate change doesn't exist, or if it does, that humans have nothing to do with it.
GOOFUS and his graduate students do the dirty work of collecting raw data and looking for conclusions to be drawn from it.
GALLANT does the dirty work of discrediting GOOFUS by manipulating his data in Excel with statistically invalid techniques.
GOOFUS writes scientific papers and grant proposals.
GALLANT writes the nation's environmental legislation and a column for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
GOOFUS draws scientific conclusions from the data he collects that usually come out in agreement with the scientific consensus.
GALLANT paints the scientific consensus as being entirely political in nature and enjoys comparing himself to Galileo.
GOOFUS is heavily trained to be a skeptic and to treat information from all sources with a skeptical mind.
GALLANT is heavily marketed as a skeptic but reserves his skepticism for GOOFUS.
GOOFUS isn't paid much attention by the press since his opinions are commonplace among scientists.
GALLANT holds maverick opinions for a scientist which keeps him busy running from one balanced talk show to the next.
GOOFUS has no PR skills.
GALLANT leverages his PR experience all the time, although he has access to paid PR staff.
GOOFUS claims the sky is falling and we have to take painful steps to reduce CO2 emissions now.
GALLANT claims the free market will take care of it and recommends solving the problem by conning Zimbabwe out of their pollution credits.
GOOFUS advises his kids not to go into science.
GALLANT advises the president.
I wish I had mod points...
-- The doctor said I wouldn't get so many nose bleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!
No, you should not make observations like that. It is pure heresy and you will burn in the hell of global warming. The tundra was created by the Gods in an intelligent design, to confuse us and make us think that the earth is older than 6000 years. Also, the increased farming area that the tundra offers, will destroy the whole famine and food aid industry - therefore we need to keep the earth cool.
Oh well, what the hell...
How can we pass new legislation!!!!@$#$ How can we legislate human nature@!#Q#^&%
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
If you want to win a debate but don't really have anything to say, you can just make up something stupid and put it in the other guy's mouth. Congratulations! You've won!
We're fucked!
Siberia is going to melt!
Florida is going to be underwater!
This will all happen very soon!
Whether we do anything or not, our destiny is foretold!
Anyone not agreeing with this is a "Person receiving large amounts of cash from an oil company"!
I use lots exclamation points to give my points more weight!
Just hits me strange.
So what was this frozen peat bog before? How did peat grow in ice?
And this, among other reasons, is why scientists talk about "global climate change" and not "global temperature change". It may be helpful to find out what those words mean.
In the meantime, trying to blow off a 0.5 degree and increasing increase in global average yearly temperatures as meaningless betrays a massive lack of knowledge about how the atmosphere works. Weather systems are complex, hair-trigger systems, and even truly tiny variations in long-term temperatures can have surprising and drastic effects. As a comparison, the localized El Nino phenomenon is at its lower end 0.5 degrees of temperature variance, but that doesn't stop it from having many, varied and large-scale effects.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Neocons refuse to accept blame.
The planet did not experience "dramtic" global warming of this scale. It appears that our current changes are the fastest they have been.
Not so "perma" after all, I suppose...
Why does your political leaning have anything to do with whether you believe humankind is causing global warming? If you're that far gone, you're not judging the issue on the evidence; you're believing whatever fits most comfortably with your pre-established worldview.
I should buy some cement.
According to the article, the bogs are producing methane which in turn contributes to global warming.
It sounds like the earth is going to warm up no matter what we do. What's the point in stopping our contributions to global warming if the earth itself is doing it at a rate we cannot hope to outdo?
Everybody knows it happens every few million years! It's a pure coincidence that it's happening now. Once something happens, it has a probability=1, after all.
No, really, the shuttle thing is priceless. Man, you just made my weekend.
Nothing a neo-con likes more than BBQ astronaut. Nixon wanted to have "We came in pieces" on that plaque, but there was a typo on the soundstage.
I tip my tin-foil hat to you, sir.
If it melts as the planet warms, and then (gasp!) refreezes again as temps go back down, then can it be called permanent?
Does it run Linux?
So, wait....if it's not natural for this formerly "permafrost" peat bog to be melting, how is it that this peat moss was, at some point, able to grow in the first place?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Unfortunately, the earth's climate is chaotic and nonlinear, where runaway processes can very quickly and probably irreversibly magnify small changes (e.g., melting ice sheets releasing trapped CO2 causing further warming on one hand, or another situation where a cold summer not melting as much snow in the north, causing the earth to reflect more heat, causing it to be even colder next summer, etc) Furthermore, an increase in global temperatures by a few degrees doesn't simply mean that everywhere goes up a few degrees and that's that--more likely is it would cause shifts in air and ocean currents, probably causing hard to predict changes everywhere. The Western Europeans, who depend on the gulf stream staying where it is, are probably more vulnerable. If currently productive growing regions become infertile, that will be quite disruptive, especially to those of us in the "First World" who would most likely lose out in any reshuffling of the climate deck.
While it may seem paradoxical that even though we can't be sure if changes could lead to sudden warming or sudden cooling, pumping out tons and tons of greenhouse gasses into the air is basically performing a huge, uncontrolled experiment in global climate change. Oh, yeah, and a billion Chinese people would like to buy cars and run their air conditioner all summer, and if we Americans haven't set such a good example of self restraint, we can hardly ask them to be mindful of their CO2 emissions?
actual scientific input
What!? Dude. Every single country in the UN signed the Kyoto protocol, including Russia. Two, the US and Australia, have since changed their minds and won't ratify it. There are only four other countries that haven't yet ratified it: Croatia, Kazakhstan, Monaco, and Zambia.
The Kyoto Protocol isn't some little thing. It's a pact between 141 countries to tackle global warming, even though the planet's #1 greenhouse gas polluter refuses to help.
I should buy some cement.
Since it's going to screw up your golden age regardless of what's causing it, why aren't you interested in doing whatever is possible to reverse it?
If you don't mind, I'll take a run at this one, speaking only for myself, of course.
As a child of the 60's and 70's (I got to see the moon shots on live TV! Woo0t!1!) I remember a long, long parade of weepeers, whiners, moaners, groaners, tooth-gnashers, hand-wringers and other assorted chicken-little types. The ones that said we'd run out of food. We'd have to stand up because of the population explosion. We'd have to wear gas masks when we went outside, because of air pollution. The seas would be covered with oil. We'd be out of oil (evidently it was all floating in the ocean). The sonic boom would stop the chickens laying. DDT was the scourge of the world. Alligators dangled on the thread of extinction. And, yes, the Coming Ice Age would freeze us all. And our Pet Rocks would join forces with the Mood rings to enslave all of humanity! (OK, I made that last one up)
And given that track record I cast a rather jaundiced eye on the Doom Scenario De Jour and go "Meh". Particularly since the scientists of my youth managed to get from Kitty Hawk to Luna, and the current crop have been jerking off in low-earth orbit for the past few decades. Excuse my lack of gee-whizicles, but impressed I ain't.
Reality check: How often does the average member of the Slashdot community trot out the ancient and well-worn "640k is enough for anybody" canard while conveniently ignoring all the other "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE REAL SOON!!!!1!" failed predictions?
I say again: Global Warning? Meh. Take a number, you'll find the dispenser next to the Y2k countdown calendar.
Now if you'll pardon me I have to chase those kids off my lawn...
That might just explain recent floods in Bulgaria...
I read someplace that a large oak tree provides about 10,000BTU of evaporative cooling underneath it. If everyone in the world planted 1 tree, we would have about 60,000,000,000,000BTU of cooling in about 25 years.
"How come you're so terrible / My sweet neo-liberal?"
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20 967,1075786,00.html
"David Keith never expected to get a summons from the White House. But in September 2001, officials with the President's Climate Change Technology Program invited him and more than two dozen other scientists to participate in a roundtable discussion called "Response Options to Rapid or Severe Climate Change." While administration officials were insisting in public that there was no firm proof that the planet was warming, they were quietly exploring potential ways to turn down the heat.
Most of the world's industrialized nations had already vowed to combat global warming by reining in their emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief "greenhouse gas" blamed for trapping heat in Earth's atmosphere. But in March 2001 President George W. Bush had withdrawn U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty mandating limits on CO2 emissions, and asked his administration to begin studying other options."
A post yesterday said the worst ice age was produced some 2 billion years ago when bacteria learned to break down water and produced an abundance of oxygen.
make up your mind people!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Yeah, the whole world is going to suddenly abandon consuming and find the comfortable medium where we can have both convenience and a healthy environment.
This including third-world countries.
Oh, and in enough time to make a difference.
This is the part where you mod this post funny.
masterblaster run bartertown
The end of the world...caused by peat bog?
Almost anti-climatic. Farting, cows and peat bog destroyed this planet!
[cx]
this was reported on the 6 o'clock news - around 2 hours after the slashdot article..
There's an article on WorldChanging.com today about this very topic. They discuss the viability of terraforming techniques to address this problem.
The nearest terraforming solution would be the use of methanotrophes, a bacteria that is known to consume methane.
It's worth a read (it's enviro-techy, a good combination).
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003283.html
World Changing - News for Humans, Stuff about our planet
There was a recent article in the New York Times about this and now there is this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1730079, 00.html
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Those lefties want to leave it there, can you believe that? It is the will of God that we dig it up and burn it -- NOW!
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
A camera, that can take pictures, that can easily send the pcitures, I don't know, across some kind of net... net work... inter..network...internet, with computers, and could show an image from 3 years ago of frozen landscape, and an image today of the kilometer sized lakes.
Wow... Talk about a picture being worth a thousand words.
Anyone have photos of this? any aerial ones I can overlay on google earth?
To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: staggers
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
It is an surprice to me that nobody actually consider this climat change to be natrual. But i must also note that there is an other research out there that says that if it was not for human industry, the planet where already in the phase of new ice age. I am sure that the pepole of the future will be complaning about global cooling. There is also kown that volcano eruptions, big one that is cool down the plant, often by many degress. So there is always an option that global warming get cancelled out by an super eruption one day.
it still means another push behind the current observed warming trend. That means some hard-to-calculate but important effect on humans.
it's simple. the ice melts in summer, exposing the previous years layer of dead moss. on top of that, a new layer grows. in the winter, that moss dies, and becomes the dead layer the next years layer grows on, and so on. this has been happening for thousands of years straight. sometimes much much longer.
the bottom layers of moss (pete, decomposed moss) haven't defrosted in millenia, and they now are. and staying that way. I think that's the news.
I haven't read the article, mind you, and this explanation is from memory of biology 10. so I may be waaaaay off. someone, feel free to confirm or deny this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat
hey, guess what. I didn't read the wikipedia article either, but I glanced at it, and I think it agrees. w00t!
"The climate on the planet earth is about five degrees warmer than it was at the peak of the last glaciation twenty thousand years ago." How do you know this? How can you determine what the atmospheric temperature was thousands of years before writen records were kept?
Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I wish "New Scientist" stories would have more science in them, this seems pretty sensationalist.
Snow Covered Swamp
Land
Tap: Add B to your mana pool.
They'll be, uh, hot. If it's melting, it ain't exactly permafrost, is it?
I'm not going to even try to be diplomatic about it: basically your whole post, like most of the eco-scare propaganda, boils down to "everyone who disaggrees with my Holy Truth is an heretic, and furthermore _paid_ to attack our Holy Truth."
Which, sad to say, isn't how science works. Science has _no_ absolute set-in-stone sacred truths. In science you're _supposed_ to question everything, regardless of why. (Research into, say, magnetic materials paid for by IBM isn't any less valid than any other research, just because it's paid for by a corporation.) Science is that-a-way, absolute truths that noone should dare question are that other way, through the door marked "Religion."
And another thing these whole pseudo-science political/religious groups don't seem to get either: science isn't a prom-queen popularity contest either. Whether a theory looks valid or not, that will be decided by scientists, based on the data it has. Not by piling enough "it contradicts my _dogma_, so let's drown it into self-righteous protests" pieces of garbage like what you just wrote.
Do _you_ have a Ph.D. in the domain? I'm willing to bet the answer is "nope". Yet you feel qualified to judge someone and their calculations (which you probably didn't even see, much less understand) and damn them just because they contradict with what your religious leaders told you. It _has_ to be some sinister plot, because god forbid that your religion could possibly be less than 100% right, or that its answers might be anything less than 100% definitive.
Yes, it may be wrapped in pretentious-sound pseudo-science babble, and use funny graphs as its holy symbols, but religion it is. I don't care how many words it borrowed (and perverted) from the real science, the moment it has definitive truths that noone should dare question, it's nowhere _near_ being science any more.
So which is the real scientist? Well, after reading that "everyone disaggreeing with me is a paid astroturfer" piece of brain-damage, it sure as hell isn't you. So go back to your "church of the global warming", and leave judging who's a scientist and who isn't to the real scientists.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
GOOFUS is so real, that he can't really exist. GALLANT is different. He is so grotesque, that he plays^H^H^H^H lives for sure.
This Is Not a Sig
That's an interesting point, burning ourselves clean out of resources. Anyone know if someone has done a study to estimate/project global warming if we burned ourselves completely out of fossil fuels (based on current/estimated amounts, etc.)? Or at what point the damage will become irreversible? kind of like the big bang, dark matter and universe expansion but for fossil fuels and global warming. Of course you'd have to take into account things like this article and it accelerating effects on the process... but a projection would be nice and scary!
Let's say that Global Warming (with capital letters) happens, just as the environmentalists tell us. Ice caps melt, Earth heats up several degrees, etc.
What would the world be like after that? Are we looking at 100ft of snow in the Amazon basin? Tropical paradise in Antarctica? Venus-like humidity and Jupiter-like storms all over the world all the time?
Or is it just going to be much like it is now. Maybe a little bit warmer. Maybe a little bit rainier. Some coastal flooding that will be adapted to by those folks moving inland.
What are we really facing here? Yes, I know. THE UTTER DESTRUCTION OF ALL CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT!!!11
But seriously, are we worried about something really bad or just kinda bad or even just somewhat uncomfortable?
... See you down in Arizona Bay.
Hello. I am an alien who has transformed himself into this textfile. As you are reading this, I am having sex with your eyeballs. I know you like it because you are smiling.
I live in Romania and the wather has gone bad here too. And I'm not talking about "oh, I didn't get my perfect tan" changes. I'm talking about floodings on a massive scale. I'm talking about thousands of people loosing EVERYTHING they have: houses, animals, crops. I'm talking about people dying. I'm talking about parents desperatly looking for their children for days, only to find them dead - if they find their bodies at all.
Definetly gives you an entirely new view on the global warming, because now it hits very close to home. It's not just another story in the evening news, it's something that affects you and the ones close to you.
So now when I read about this in Siberia, my first thought was: "Great! So in following years even more people will die or loose their houses..."
I'm getting married this year. And I find myself alarmingly often asking myself if I really want to raise a child in this world...
In the 70s we were going for an ice age. Give us money to help stop it. Now, we are going to burn up and somehow breath in more methane than ever (I suspect someones never sat down and had chili and baked beans with his family) Give us money to stop it...because if it raised 4c over 40 years...we can of course do a lot to stop it.
Then you need to factor in every single extinct homonid species and subspecies that did NOT make it.
Sure, humanity survived without technology. Mind you, we weren't exactly causing this level of pollution a million years ago, either. Even with just "natural causes" to contend with, the vast majority of hominids did NOT make it and we damn near didn't, either.
Will we survive global warming? Possibly. Humans are sufficiently numerous and sufficiently mobile that it would take a total collapse of the ecosystem to finish off the race. That could happen, though. It is possible.
Will it decimate humanity? Oh, very likely. I suspect the human population will be in the hundreds of millions, by the end of the century, rather than the projected tens of billions. It depends on just how much the environment lags behind the input.
If the lag is sufficiently small, we're seeing the major effects of what we're doing now right now. This means a 5C rise over the last century would result in a 5C rise this century (we've had exponential growth, so far, but efficiency is beginning to catch up, so we can't just do a simple extrapolation). A 10C total rise would finish off life in the tropics and severely reduce it in the subtropics.
If, however, the lag is closer to a century (much more likely) then we're barely seeing the effects of the Industrial Revolution. A 5C rise now could translate to a cumulative 20-25C rise over a century from now, with no additional input from us. That's just from what we've put into the environment already, allowing for the time lags inherent in a global scale.
But, of course, humans aren't going to stop the pollution tomorrow. And if efficiency does NOT improve to reduce pollution, then the 20-25C rise will be an underestimate. In that case, a few hamlets might survive on the antarctic continent, but the rest of the planet will resemble Death Valley.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Is it Jesus? I bet it is. You know I met that guy one time. He's actually really pretentous. Kind of a know it all. You know? But he said that, "yeah the global warming guys were right".
PS. Did you learm how to read in church? cuz your real good at rightin.
Eh, saving the planet doesn't do me much good if I am dead... which is what I would be if I grew up on a happy little communist style farm due to health reasons when I was younger. You need to attack such a problem for a moralistic point of view.
If you look at it from the point of 'nature', humans really don't mean anything. It is just another species. Is it wrecking the finely tuned order of things? Sure, but so do asteroids. In the end things will adapt and evolve. We couldn't wipe out all the life on this planet if we tried. We might be able to kill off all the large mammals, but thinking that nature values large mammals over rats and cockroaches is more then a little human centric.
If you look at it from the perspective of humanity, then you need to ask yourself what is best? Is the ultimate good to have as many people enjoy life as possible? Is it to have a few people enjoy life as much as possible? What is the best good? Is it better to have 6 billion people living longer then ever before, or 100,000 living with nature to the age of 30?
Finally, you can just be a greedy bastard. What is best? Whatever keeps me around kicking and happy. Part of my happiness might be altruism, but it is hard to enjoy the fruits of altruism when you are dead.
Unless you decide to personify nature as some sort of humanoid thinking entity that really likes large mammals, I think the only reasonable choice left is to, well, be selfish. Being completely selfish, the best course of action isn't to drastically reduce our standard of living and hope that earth remains as it is. The best thing to do is to try and avoid fucking up anything too bad, plow ahead, and hope to hell that technology fixes things as fast as they come.
People have argued that technology has created more problems then it solves. This blatantly ignores one undeniable fact. There are more humans living longer then at any other time in history. So far technology has done us damn good. My parents lived longer then their parents. I will live longer then they will live. People simply keep living longer and longer. At least as far as humans go, technology seems to be fixing problems faster then it creates them well enough that we keep on living longer and longer. Until someone has a better solution other then to sit on our hands and hack years off how long we live. I see no reason to give up on technology yet. Sure, try not to fuck the place up too bad, but trusting in technology to fix the problems of today seems to have worked so far.
Eh, I wouldn't hold your breath. The global climate is not really going to hurt the first world. The US is not going to suddenly explode because of global warming. Even if the seas were to raise, the US and Europe would just build higher and hold it back. The first world really does have the ability to hold back the tide. At worst, people will move crops around to take advantage of the changing weather patterns. Each new hurricane will just result in stronger buildings being built in their place to deal with the weather. To be honest, if the entire world was a big happy first world nation, I wouldn't pay global warming much mind and just rack it up to an expense you need to suck up to keep moving forward.
The real Hollywood style death and destruction will be in the third world. It is in the third world were they wont be holding back the tides or merrily swapping around their crops to deal with changing weather patterns. It is the third world where hurricanes kill more then a few idiots that didn't leave their beach front property. Global warming won't wipe out humans by a long shot. Your average American or European won't even notice beyond the fact that they might need to crank up their AC a little higher. It could seriously fuck up the third world though. If there is a reason to slow down global warming, it is so that those without piles of cash to make proper preparations to have a chance.
If wonder what environmentalists will say if this melted "Perma"frost turns into rain forest.
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
10 men are sailing in a whaler on a whale hunt. The boat, being an older boat made of wood, it leaks a little. But after sailing about for a few hours, many men begin to notice that the amount of water in the boat seems to have increased quite significantly, much more than what is usual or expected. What should the men do?
a) Take more measurements and get conclusive evidence that their boat is actually going to sink before they can make it back to shore.
OR
b) Start bailing.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
And speaking of "bullshit", did you know that bovine flatulence is a major soure of atmoshperic methane?
Surprisingly, bovine flatulence is not where the cow methane comes from. According to recent research at UC Davis (in California) the methane come out of the mouth when the cow is chewing it's cud. Read that in a paper newspaper a couple weeks ago.
Qxe4
Can't we artificially increase albedo of the Earth, at least in unhabitated area? I remember some years ago an artist from US did large "instalations" in landscape - square miles of draperies put on the large land objects. I suppose if it was affordable for an artist then civilization can pull out orders of magnitude more cash. It doesn't have to be a fabric or metal foil, perhaps some pale fine floatable dust or foam would do just fine.
Second, in tropics, where seawater is colder then air, we may introduce "fountain platform farms" which would be solar powered and would spray the water in the air, trading air-trapped heat for moisture (and wash some water solvable CO2 from the air), which would cause more clouds - more albedo in tropics and more rainfall in higher latitude - basically I say let's spend more of Sun's heat on mechanical work, lifting (water vapor) weight or something (Yes, I know that it EVENTUALLY disipates completely back into heat but this way we get a delay and various side effects which may help shielding the irradiation from the sun). Besides, if we could irrigate (perhaps by causing more rain) more land, more CO2 would get trapped in biomass (talking about "sequestration" of CO2).
I am part of the problem. From my point of view, the turnaround of lifestyle required from every individual in developed nations to combat global warming seems insurmountable. Americans are all about freedom: freedom to drive to the mall (to buy plastic, oil-derived products that we don't need), freedom to drive to the movies, freedom to drive to McDonald's with your kids. How do you even begin to change culture centered around mobility? Nearly all of my peers have their own vehicle and use it extensively. How can we not? We have been raised to NEED one. If I didn't have my beat up old VW, I don't have a clue how I'd cope. My job and University are both too far to bike or walk to. Bus transportation isn't very extensive where I live. Forget trains.
Where do we even begin?
ah, and Intelligent Design is...?
--- blackironprison, where ignorance is bliss....
the crashed webserver causes 1 c increase in earth's temperature.
We need to get him to believe it's thinly veiled religious doctrine masquerading as valid science. Say we can't imagine any plausible natural reason for these increasing temperatures, so there must be some intelligent entity deliberately altering our climate through means we can't detect. Since we found these things we can't explain by looking at scientific data we didn't understand, this should be treated as a scientific theory, and taught in schools.
Call it "Intelligent Warming".
Finally Bush will declare that "we should teach the controversy", and that people should be "exposed to different views". Bush's support will help get the religous right on board, and we'll have the problem licked in no time.
Oblig reading on Worldchanging: Terraforming Earth IV: The Question of Methane, in which Jamais Cascio explores different avenues to engineering the climate to avoid a catastrophe.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
The only place where des discussion about global warming is on is in america (and mabe australia). The rest of the developed world is pretty much convinced that global warming is a fact.
Why is it in that people in the US dont get the message..
Global Warming = higher average temperature = more energy in the atmosphere = more hurricans + tornados + floods + draughts = lots of problems
Permafrost causes more pollution than automobiles do.
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
"Perhaps all of human history, from the discovery of fire right up to the flight of Discovery last week. Not a single sane person on the planet can say that we'd be better off without technology."
I would say that depends on your perspective and how far you are willing to take it.No man should be able to wield the power to wipe out any race.
Is there any relationship between this phenomenon and the Earth's magnetic fields weakening?
I read that the Earth is due for a reversal of its poles.
While human activity on the planet is undoubtedly contributing to global warming, are there other forces at work here that may be larger than the sum of the individual parts?
If anyone needs me, I'll be holed up in the main branch of the New York Public Library, with Emmy Rossum.
Send Dennis Quaid to find us when it's over, mmkay? Thanks!
"Wikipedia, while a good general overview, is not supposed to be used for direct referencial evidence, because the information there-in is subject to the next editor's opinion. Try another source."
Perhaps you haven't heard of the WikiProject Fact and Reference Check?
Google it, and notice that all facts are slowly, but surely, being referenced. After the first go though, each fact will be referenced multiple times.
What more valid source of information do you want other than one that is referenced multiple times with other sources of information?
Wikipedia, or something quite similiar, has the potential to become the ultimate authority of human knowledge.
Stop subsidising your fuel. Petrol in the UK is now almost £1 per litre, which is approximately $7 per gallon. The difference in price is entirely government controlled (taxes in the UK, subsidy in the US). If petrol cost that much in the states, do you think people would be more interested in fuel efficient cars?
Cheers,
quetzyl
Does anyone remember Issac Asimov's description of the planet Trantor - with the black heat radiators extending out into space, dissipating in the infra-red the planet's surplus heat.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
How can people think, that mankind's effect on global warming must be proven completely true before acting on it? The fact that there is no consensus among scientists should be enough. Why, you might ask? What is the possible cost of not acting on it? What is the potential gain we win if we do not? What is the worst case scenario? Destruction of civilisation as we know it? Might not be but eveng semi-neglible possibility alone scares the sh*t out of me, especially when we compare it to potential gain of not losing couple of jobs. Btw. Anyone familiar with the Butterfly Effect? Very interesting reading indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect Mankind working almost as a whole to pump atmosphere full of CO2 and methane is a bit more than a butterfly flapping its wings. - Jussi
I suggest we equip earth with a pair of giant cooling fins radiating the heat into outer space!
Alternatively, why can't we just get Zalman on the case to build us a properly sized fan?
and on greenland they have noticed gletchers which move more than a kilometer *a day* now - that's some speed for what is essentially a mountain!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
We know that the release of methane would trigger a positive feedback loop, at least in the Siberian region, as more warming leads to more methane being released. My question regards another feedback, however: What effect would the melting peat bogs have on the surface albedo of the region?
So things might change. Why does this throw everyone in such a panic?
Not that long ago in the history of the earth ice completely covered the north 1/3 of the USA. Even as far south as central California the famous Yosemite valley was carved by a glacier. So it has ALREADY been getting warmer for a long time, and life adapted if not improved as a result.
Is it written somewhere that nothing must change ever? If so I have bad news. Every known object in the universe (except black holes) is in the business of shedding heat out into space and thus cooling off. That's what powers the volcanos of Hawaii and elsewhere, the movement of the tectonic plates, and earthquakes that cause tsunamis. Long term, it is going to be colder around here, not hotter.
But either way, things will change over time. So what?
I don't want to sound like I'm in denial too much, but could there be anohter reason for the rise in earth temperature? Could it be the earth (ground) itself that is heating up from some internal source? I really have no idea if this is even a remote possibility. Does anyone with actual knowledge on these sort of things have any thoughts about this?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Allied troops were suffering from American friendly fire in WWII.
Those in turn existed because some people (e.g., Galileo) dared question the existing model...
As the OP said, GALLANT paints the scientific consensus as being entirely political in nature and enjoys comparing himself to Galileo.
They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein... but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. To compare fake science bought and paid for by folks with a huge monetary stake in the results to the work of Galileo or Einstein is an insult to every scientist who ever honestly questioned dogma.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I'll say 50 years and we're running in marsh lands! Bank to the beginning.
Java Oracle Linux Enthusiast
I recently read Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance", which he wrote before he was VP. His idea of a global Marshall Plan seems more farsighted and intelligent every day. Decades from now, people will look back and remember that some leaders really did see the immense problems on the horizon, and tried not just to warn, but to solve them. What a tragedy we went in the direction we did.
This sounds awful. If it were true, it would be. It is not true.
First, the bulk of CO2 emissions comes from out-gassing in the oceans near the edges of the tectonic plates.
Second, there is a Global chemical interaction called the carbonic acid cycle that allows for local fluctuations in CO2 levels but ultimately maintains a balance because it is an interlocking set of chemical processes that must move toward equilibium.
Gee, when the area covered by the intense cold of the Siberian High winter pattern gets warmer, it warms more than other places. How about that? When one of the coldest places warms up, it warms faster than warm places do. How insightful.
What's so funny about a Strawman?
p.s. Why can the GP poke fun at conservatives, but no one is allowed to poke fun at liberals?
Gee, I must have forgotten to say hello to the liberal firing squad on my way in. Careful with that crimethink, citizen, or it's room 101 for you!
You can poke fun at liberals all you want. It's another issue entirely whether your criticisms are valid or not. Biased "research" is a real problem.
We're all here for a good, honest exchange of idea. (Well, not the trolls and crapflooders, but they don't count.) On the other hand, it's the right, nay, the responsibility of every poster here to tell you when you're wrong.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You have a horrible deadly condition. It might be congenital and there's nothing you can do about it. Or it might be curable with a lot of expensive drugs. You're not sure. Do you a) do nothing and clamor for surety, even as you lay on your death bed, or b) begin treatment with the best information available, while continuing to study the condition?
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Someone develop better sunscreen.
For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
I'm not going to even try to be diplomatic about it: basically your whole post, like most of the eco-scare propaganda, boils down to "everyone who disaggrees with my Holy Truth is an heretic, and furthermore _paid_ to attack our Holy Truth."
No, but it's a telling point when industry has to pay people to promulgate its dogma. See, his point is valid because scientists who disagree with his "holy truth", as you put it, are paid to attack it.
And just because you're (presumably) not on Exxon's payroll, that doesn't prove anything. You're not a scientist; you're not even a pretend scientist. You're just talking smack on Slashdot.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Oh, come on. The whole point is that the most vocal critics of climate change are paid off by companies with a huge stake in it. You can manufacture fantasies of power-mad ivory-tower cranks in white coats trying to destroy capitalism (If you don't imediately stop believing all else and do as we say, we're all doomed!), but the fact remains that reputable scientists don't have to be paid off by lobbyists to come to a conclusion. Those are not real scientists.
And you're just trying to muddy the waters, make it so that a casual reader of this discussion will conclude that there are crazy zealots on both sides and, gee, maybe we shouldn't do anything because science is divided on the issue. Which it ain't.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I suppose it's all the evil humans who are causing the global warming too. My only question to the scientest who belive in human caused global warming; When we came out of the ice age was that human cause global warming?
If Servia was always an ice cube, how did there come to be a peat bog up there? Hmmmmmmmmm?
...I imagine would make a fire that would make the Gulf War oil well fires look pretty tame by comparison. The huge amount of heat released would speed up the thawing and continued release of methane. Admittedly, it would become carbon dioxide and water vapour by means of the combustion but still it would be a big whack of heat on the local melting environment. And of course there is the possibility (probability?) of all that peat catching fire too.
The day GWB was selected, he turned on all the greenhouse gas machines and left his AC running with the front door open. This is why we must elect a Democrat in 2008, wehre the worst they ever did was lie.
The trouble is, when you post something like that which is easily and objectively verifiable to be an outright lie, you kinda detract from your position, you know?
(Yes, that's my web site. The citations to the official federal data are there. It's just easier to link to my own site than copy and paste, plus you get the pretty graphs.)
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
last week I had the strangest dream that
everything was exactly how it seemed
where there was never any mystery of who
shot john f. kennedy
it was just a man with something to prove
slightly bored and severly confused
he steadied his rifle with his target in the
center
and became famous on that day in november
don't wake me I plan on sleeping in
again last night I had that strange dream
where everything was exactly how it seemed
no concerns about the world getting warmer
people thought that they were just being
rewarded
for treating others as they'd like to be treated
for obeying stop signs and curing diseases
for mailing letters with the address of the
sender
now we can swim any day in november
don't wake me I plan on sleeping in
But I, for one, would gladly pay $200 per month for electricity instead of $80 if I knew we would greatly increase our chance of creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
/.) are practically a poster child for what you term "raping the planet".
Then DO IT. Buy your own solar cells or wind turbine. Get off the grid and make/collect your own electricity. While you're at it, grow your own food, make your own textiles, minimize/eliminate/build your electronics, travel by foot/bicycle, and do a host of other low-impact activities. (Yes, I've been there to some degree.)
Consider what you're doing instead: comfy chair, climate-controlled room, electricity from questionable sources, toxicly-produced resource-chowing computers & electronics, casual use of incredibly powerful instant communications, food from factory farms, and all of it transported to you via environment-pounding trucks/wires/ships/etc. - considering that half the planet's population lives on less than $2/day, and your position relative thereto in terms of resources you're using daily, you (like most on
It's not going to stop so long as YOU are doing what you criticize others for doing. Step one for "save the planet" is: get your fair share of the planet's land surface (6 acres now, I compute it periodically), disconnect from "the grid" (electricity & gasoline included), and live off that. No? you don't want to grow cotton to weave into cloth to make your own clothes? you'd rather drive to the mall and get a new made-in-China shirt that way? Love your luxury lifestyle (relative to most of the world's population), eh?
"Sustainable lifestyle" requires going a lot farther than paying twice as much for electricity; it means living a life where you KNOW every facet of your existance is in harmony with nature. Funny, most who live in "harmony with nature" try awfully hard to get away from it...
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
In the immortal words of Carlin... "The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked."
with an increase in average temperatures of some 3C in the last 40 years
;)
Funny, I wasn't aware temperature was measured in Coulombs.
Welcome to the foe list, you stupid cunt.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
... on a screenplay by a guy who has "agenda" written on his forehead.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
But the free market is happily 'solving' the problem of Co2 emissions.
;-) ) is to be supportive of measures that fund alternative energy (yes, nuclear power, even if you hate bush, nuclear power is most likely the only short-term way out of fossil fuel dependence at almost *any* price), and to be supportive of measures that increase the price of fossil fuels (no Alaskan oil exploration. no excess U.S. refinery permits).
Anyone notice the price of oil (and other fossil fuels, which have gone up dramatically as well) today?
Back when I was a debater, in college, virtually every proposal to counter Co2 emissions was dependant upon altering the prices of fossil fuels.
Sure, the mechanisms were different; some utilized high levels of taxes, implemented globally. Some used means of artificially limiting supply; when we agree to burn only x exajoules of energy, the price per unit goes up.
In any case, none of those proposals (all of which were directly from left leaning political panels on climate change) envisioned prices as high as they are now, or as high as they are projected to be in the near future. I do not believe there is anyway that political action will be able to unite all the major Co2 emitting countries under one policy. It's simply impossible.
Significantly higher oil prices? We'll have conservation out the wazoo, now, and alternate energy technologies (yes, including Nuclear, which is probably the best way out of fossil fuels in the short run (you take what you can get, and there is the potential for a really wonderful powersource, if the only idiotic nuclear companies would step out of the way for the latest and greatest designs being used in research throughout the world)) are on the short-term horizon.
Anyone notice the hybrid trend? Or walk into a honda dealership or a saturn dealership?
See all the signs about conservation? Fuel Efficiency? Mark my words-- If oil prices collapse again, all of this green-wave will vanish. Keep oil prices high, and we'll move off the fossil fuel economy in the near future.
Quite frankly, if you are really worried about emissions-related global warming, (which I'm not, there are many other factors which I believe account for warming better than industrial era emissions. Like humanities desire to clear forests, and the resulting desertification. Or conversion of various land types to ecologically useless farmland) your best bet is to vote for policies that keep oil prices high, and drive it up through the roof.
If oil was $120-200 a barrel, electric cars would be a reality, even with their dinky 100 mile range. If oil was that high, nuclear plants would be built *right-now*, and the major auto companies would be building a hydrogen economy in conjunction with the oil companies *right-now*. Oh, and oil is projected to be at these levels if demand patterns continue to grow at their current rate.
I never believed the supply-side problems presented by the dooms-dayers of the 70. Rather, I thought we would experience demand that slowly outstripped supply, allowing the market to adjust economic allocations to account for it. That's exactly what we are experiencing. These corporations already have their plans laid; they've been waiting for economic conditions to be right, so they can get the jump on their competitors.
Basically, I'm asking for people to stop clamoring for lower gas prices. It's a blessing in disguise. If oil prices had only gone up from their high in the 70s, we'd live in a different world today. It's really too bad that the Shah's regime collapsed; as the architech of the first-wave price hikes, he would have unknowingly corrected the world dependence on fossil fuels.
The next best step for concerned individuals to take (i.e. people who are not the dictators of statist regimes who can alter prices at whim
That's the way out of fossil fuel emissions. You'll *never*, *ever* get a pure political solution. Attack the economics of the problem, and the free market
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Oh man, I wish we had daily Featured Comments. This'd definitely make it.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The industrial revolution began 150 years ago. The question is, when did the current warming trend begin?
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Yes, global warming, terrible shame, that. On the other hand, supposedly there may be considerable mineral and oil deposits in Siberia- this may make them more accessible. If so, the Russians may not be in that big a hurry to contain the "problem".
I'm the stranger...posting to
Here are three questions to ponder regarding Global Warming:
1. When did the current trend of warming start?
2. Is this the hottest that the Earth has ever been?
3. Will the Earth ever cool down?
The answers, as I understand them:
1. 10,000 years ago...at the end of the last ice age.
2. The Earth has been previously warm enough to sustain a forest in Antarctica. Which it is not currently warm enough to do now. Which would mean that the Earth has been warmer.
3. The Earth has had many ice ages. It only stands to reason that there will be another. Which would require the Earth to cool down.
I suppose a final question is in order: are humans causing global warming?
Most of the "proof" I've seen of this is: Look, it's getting warming, so humans must be the cause!
I've never seen any study supporting global warming that dried to differentiate the natural warming trend and that which may be caused by humans.
I'm not saying everyone should drive electric but give people a choice. The fuel cost was estimated to be .5 to .3 of the cost of gas engine. The fight against global warming took a step back when GM killed the EV-1.
Hybrids are a step in the right direction but IMO electric cars also need to be sold.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
First off, yes, there were denials of warming by some neocons. At least until now:
w elt_naturschutz/bericht-47597.html
0 02377292_ocean13m.html8 .htme ws/community/friloc07.txt. html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/
Then there's the argument that, oh, the environment will just adjust and absorb the carbon. Nope:
http://www.sundayherald.com/51146
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/um
Oh, and why worry, it's just heat, right?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2949844
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/08/05/n
http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/pr/news/2005/news8474
Someone had to do it.
...for us in the gulags
I've heard more than one scientist remark that a big part of their job is "disproving what is commonly known."
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
I never see anyone discuss the other things that must also go along with thawing tundra. Life is what is causing the methane. Plants and animals that once grew there in a warmer time. In the cycle of the Earth, the frozen tundra hasn't always been that way, it will grow plants and animals again and the plants will start consuming CO2 and producing oxygen. Isn't anyone worried about this "unprcedented" vast area of land previously not working for the production of O2 and the conversion of CO2? Is there going to be too much O2? This ahs happened many times before without our help. Isn't it pretty arrogant to assume it's us with so little info to go on? I'm living in a world that was called impossible in the 1960's because the world couldn't feed and house this many people according to the top scientists then. The sky didn't fall.
You're predicting unsustainability on the premise that technology will never progress beyond what we have today - like all alarmists. As if the status quo this moment is all we're ever going to achieve, despite the fact that the entirety of human history contradicts this notion.
In order for technology to progress, someone has to realize it needs to change.
But you claim everybody who promotes change is an alarmist.
You're caught in a loop of illogic.
It's this pesky little problem called national borders. Many, if not most of them haven't been in place for hundreds of years, some only tens.
Everything I've heard about global warming suggests changes in sea level, which hits hardest on low-lying areas, with Bangladesh being frequently mentioned. So what happens when part of Bangladesh becomes the Indian Ocean, and a significant part of the rest has flooding problems? What happens when portions of northern European countries decide they'd rather be in the North Sea? How about when Florida seacoast becomes Atlantic and Gulf shallows?
Past tipping points were accompanied by extinctions of various sizes. I suspect humans WILL adapt just fine.
But I doubt our societies will. I expect there would be a lot of social strife, and more deaths would be caused by other humans than by climatic problems.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The scientists just have to build HUGE CO2 scrubbers the size of skyscrapers and all over the planet!!!
Congratulations! Our generations have achieved what man has long lusted after - immortalizing themselves in history. Those who are to come will never forget our deeds.
Now we are going to find the remains of all those people the Russian government has been sending to Siberia since the time of the Czars.
From TFA... "Kirpotin suspects that some unknown critical threshold has been crossed, triggering the melting." - i'm guessing it was somewhere around 32 degrees Farenheit :)
Green chips anyone?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Lot of heads buried in the sand here. Hi ho. You will notice soon ... hot enough for you?
... Standards and Practices !
PenGun
Do What Now ???
As bush and blair wield their military might to defend their right to the last of the dwindling oil supplies (ever wonder why the oil price keeps on rising?), the environment continues to get worse.
All this makes me ashamed to be born in western civilization.
I wonder by how much all this extra methane in the atmosphere will push forward that cascade date of 2050 that the climateologists are warning us about...
"Kirpotin suspects that some unknown critical threshold has been crossed, triggering the melting."
32 degrees Farenheit perhaps?
George Dubya'a right on it. Here's the news report.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
How wonderful. Now, instead of being frozen wasteland, Siberia will become usable.
People who don't get outside much (wussy city folks) think this is the end of the world.
However, this is merely a manifestation of the cooling/warming cycle the earth has gone through for eons. I can't buy into the idea that people somehow caused it any more than I can buy into the idea that Neanderthals caused the last ice age.
This is part of a cycle. The earth is supposed to be warming up right now.
We don't live in a Disney movie. This is how nature works.
Excessive polluting by certain countries will, of course, lead to a negative global effect (global warming for starters). This in turn will lead to international resentment of the polluting countries (it's already largely there and continuing to build). That will inevitably lead to action against said irresponsible countries, as you know that somewhere among the billions of people on earth are going to be people willing to use their own actions to stop it. This, I predict, will lead to deeming of said actions as "terrorism" by the people responsible for the pollution in the first place, in order to demonize those taking action against their inaction. But don't worry, because after the first incident or two, I'm fairly certain I can predict that any large source of pollution will then be heavily guarded, at the expense of that countries tax payers. Let the war begin.
As for who is "good" and who is "evil" in this predictable future conflict, I'm afraid I am going to have to side with those who are looking out for the best interests of me and my fellow humans. Those who aren't, you know who you are. Don't complain when you're held accountable by your fellow humans for your actions.
----- sXe
I hope that this trend reduces my heating bill this winter. Man last winter was too cold, I was wondering when this global warming would show up near my driveway.
Micheal Crichton is a spoon-bender. That's right, he believes that he can bend spoons with his mind. Those who don't believe are not being "open minded". Read his autobiography, it's a hoot!
Test 1 2 3 4
"How about when Florida seacoast becomes Atlantic and Gulf shallows?"
Thank God! Let me go out and start my car, just to speed things up! No more bitching about the 2000 elections, inane GTA: Vice City games, superficial celebrities spending millions on their quest for the perfect tan, bad Don Johnson television shows, or stupid pro-Cuba/anti-Cuba debates.
For that matter, take New York, too. We can move the financial markets to Chicago. But keep the UN underwater.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
was Re:Word From the Whitehouse
Ironically the modding on this story (up to 6.44 EDT) shows just how political 'environmental science' can be. Bush-bashing jokes and party-line posts will get modded up to +5, while entirely reasonable posts get marked down as 'Troll' or 'Redundant'.
I thought Slashdot's moderation had gotten better of late but clearly it still needs a lot of work. And the +1/-1 model works lousily for politically charged issues -- let's hope the Slashcode crew are able to work on a new modding system before long.
What needs to be fixed?
If the Bush-bashing party-line is modded up, and reasonable posts are modded down, it's proof that the Slashdot moderation system is working perfectly.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
1. cease driving an internal combustion vehicle.
Up until I had a bad accident my primary transportation was a bike.
2. shutting off power to your residence.
Not needed if you generate the power you use. Going Off the grid is being done more and more.
4. growing your own food and processing it.
Yeap, I love to garden and I like to can and otherwise preserve what I grow.
6. avoiding the use of anything that is made with plastic.
Again not needed. Plastics were originally made from plant material. Cellophane was made from the cellulose of plants. Hemp, aka marijuana and probably the most industrially versatile plant is a good plant source. On his Iron Mountain estate Henry Ford not only built an automobile using hemp for some of the material but was also powered by fuel made from hemp. Rudulph Diesel designed his diesel engine to run on most any oil made from plants. Both alcohol and biodiesel are carbon neutral and both can be made from hemp. Actually the reason hemp was made "illegal" via the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was because it posed a serious threat to some rich and powerful people. When congress was "debating" the act Dr James Woodward who was both a doctor and an attorney testified on behalf of the AMA. He said all of the testimony in support of the act was nothing more than tabloid sensationalism and that it could potentionally be a powerful medicine. During WWII hemp was so important the US government made the movie Hemp for Victory in 1942 in an effort to get farmers to grow it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Always those damn Monegasques!
The methane at the bottom of the ocean won't affect the greenhouse so much as the methane in the atmosphere.
It's my understanding that as the oceans warm they'll release the methane they contain, the cold water traps the methane.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I let out more peat gas after three meximelts than the peat in Siberia does.
Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
Please note and follow the link at the end.
let's tear up the Arctic Wilderness for a few extra weeks of oil
Luckily drilling in ANWR wasn't included in the bill that was passed.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you're sick of entitlements then why did you vote for someone who supports entitlements instead of voting for someone like Michael Badnarik who really would work to end entitlements?
FalconShould there be a Law?
They make so many of you go nuts with OT crap that gets moderated up. And ensures that any dissent is moderated down, no matter how reasonable. Enjoy preaching to the choir. Those of us with reasoned, intelligent thoughts that don't tow your party line will take them elsewhere.
Intellectual isolationism may feel good, but it makes you dumb.
everything in moderation
countries like China and India see how industrialization gives them a chance to improve their standards of living
China is seeing an improvement in quality if life and the economy but how long will it last when the country is being Deserified? How far will India get with water shortages there? Coca Cola bottling plants in India are pumping and drilling the aquafers, sources of fresh water, in India dry.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"The difference in temperature trends (winter minus summer) in the satellite data shows that the warming has been predominantly occurring in the coldest air masses over Siberia in the wintertime"
The main reason the US entered the war against Germany was because Germany formerly declared war on the US just days after Pearl Harbor.
We didn't oust Hitler because we didn't like him. We did it because he invaded most of Europe with his armies.
This defending democracy bullshit started with Kennedy. Lovely liberalism, but I'm tired of people distorting the ideal to fit imperialist goals.
On the negative side, the weather will become, well, less hospitable to our economy.
Something about hurricanes not many people may realize is that hurricanes love warm water and loose strength over land and cold water, How is a hurricane tamed? so as ocean temperatures increase there will be more of them. Look how Florida and other Gulf of Mexico states have been suffering from hurricanes the past couple of years. Florida had what seven punchs last year? As the Atlantic warms up there will be more. I'd think that if for no other reason insurance companies, especially property and health insurance, companies would back initiatives to combat global warming.
FalconShould there be a Law?
We are screwed if we keep going the way we do with SUV's and wars for resources to keep our current lifestyles going, even if those lifestyles are based on some pretty primitive tech. What we need is a massve manhattin styled project to develop nanotech so that we can have cheap self-growing products like solar cells, electric cars, space cables so that we can grow and launch sattelites that can reflect sone of the sunlight reaching earth before the runaway greenhouse process makes it real easy to, for example, solder printed circuit boards here on earth whithout using a soldering iron...
George bush has han incredibly BIG ASSHOLE. I think it is all of his FARTING that have caused the entire climate problem. No wonder he keeps denying that the problem exists. I think he is embarrassed about his farting problem...............
I suspect the human population will be in the hundreds of millions, by the end of the century, rather than the projected tens of billions.
In some places the population is already declining. The fertility rate for children is 2.1 yet many places have under 2 births per couple especially in western Europe. Fact is is that as education, equality, and income increases birht rates drop. China and India, the two largest countries in population, are both seeing declining fertility rates dropping in properous cities. Populations are starting to level off and in 20 to 50 year could be steadily declining at current rates. It's sad to say, to some anyway, that as wages raise the perception of the need to have children drops, where before people felt they had to have lots of kids so they can be taken care of in old age, people now feels having children gets in the way of their careers, lifestyles, and such.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sorry, I stopped reading right there ... Did they manage to fit the whole world inside of Siberia? Oh no that's right, its people generalizing localized data again.
Here's another analogy. There is a colored plastic cup upside-down on a table. Underneath is either a mini-cupcake or termite digging into the table. Scientists hear scratching noises through the cup, but can't lift it. Either we fix the problem (smash the cup) which might ruin a cupcake if that is under it, however if it's a termite, we stop an infestation before it enters the table. If we wait around and double check our readings to confirm a termite, it will burrow into the table and squishing it will no longer be possible
The odds on the cupcake making the scratching sounds are pretty low. Taking the risk and smashing that cup looks like the best option.
... this will make good fertile farmland when this wasteland thaws.
Ooo look out for the evil space bacteria!
Try this for some real sciencey stuff, easy on the fiction.
I remember the article you are talking about it was one of the longest ad hominem arguments I have ever seen. But never once did it ask the question "Is global warming actually occurring?". I found the article to be totally vacuous, and I can't believe anyone with any training in analysis could read it and take it seriously.
Some years back I read a book of Crichton's called "Travels" which was autobiographical. A very good book with interesting insights. But his attitude to science was very negative. He described psychic events in his life that warranted some investigation but his attitude was that science is filled with too many people with agendas to see the truth about anything. Hmmm. He may be trained as a medical doctor but he has gone native. He's done a Carlos Castaneda or whatever. I actually have a deep soft spot for the mystical view of the world but it has to be tempered with the scientific. Crichton fails dismally.
Bitter and proud of it.
Damn these children shouldn't be allowed to mod.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The only exception to the blanket statement above is if a plurality of large US-based enterprises come to the corporate conclusion that their mid-term profitability (10 years) will get seriously screwed without some major action. Given the gradual nature of the climate change, the chances for this are about zero.
So, if you want to even attempt effective action against global warming, your major thrusts are: 1) try to wake up the other stockholders at firms your 401(k) invests in, and 2) contribute money and time to elect a candidate that supports action, and has half a chance of getting a GOP or Democratic nomination.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Hey, in what sense did ou mean divided?
/ 5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT= &author1=oreskes&searchid=1103210845409_5389&store d_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31 /2004
Divided like 50-50, 60-40, 70-30, 80-20, 90-10, or 99-1?
What's funny here is that other scientists have researched the "consensus" of climate scientists. Either read their analysis or do your own and then get back once you've learned the answer. Then compare your new understanding to your use of the word divided and tell me how it compares to the splits above. You might learn that "A majority of climate scientists argue that global-warming has significant anthropogenic factors".
Semantics is important in this case because one could fairly say that "humanity is still divided on whether the Earth is flat." It is of course intellectually dishonest to frame the debate in such a way.
In summation, use precise language. Otherwise your statement is meaningless and adds nothing. But then again, saying "a minority of climate scientists discount human carbon forcing" (i.e., using a meaningful qualifier) undermines your agenda.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306
If you have a valid critique of this majority, feel free to submit it to Science, you might get published!
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
There is a reason why Greenland is called "Green"land. Because it used to be, well, green.
r eenland/history.htm# Norse_settlement
Are you kidding?
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/europe/g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
With the exception of some extra coastal areas during a brief period of north Atlantic warming, the majority of Greenland has been anything but green. Most consider the name as a bit of artistic license by a murderous exile. Is that ad hominem, I don't know; but if someone lead their whole life in the frozen north and then found a patch of mossy, rocky earth with minor permafrost and a couple months with vegetation he might consider that 'green' -- green like Siberia is green, green like any tundra is green. Florida is hardly any more floral than the rest of the unspoiled tropical wilderness was 1000 years ago... but we're stuck with that name too. I'm saying the names people give their homes/discoveries are hardly unbiased scientific data.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
It's also where you can get a +5 for saying "Bush Sux" and complaining about your -1.
So, you're saying that the consequences of waiting for truly empirical evidence could be catastrophic? Let's all obey the commandments and go to church! If we wait for empirical evidence of a Deity (i.e. we die and see him) we're screwed (going to hell).
See you Sunday!
The control for too much atmospheric O2 is relatively simple, and something we're already good at. You just have to burn stuff. If the level gets really extreme, stuff will burn on its own. It would be preferable to do it ourselves though, because with proper scrubbers we could sequester the CO2 output.
I wouldn't worry too much about excess O2, that's something we know how to control.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Near-extinction of homo sapiens
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
In a profound paper, "The Resolution of Technically Intensive Public Policy Disputes," [Science, Technology and Human Values 9(1), 39-50 (1984).] political scientist Harvey Brooks noted that when experts on nuclear energy were polled about three questions:
- How quickly is demand for electricity likely to rise over the next 20 years?
- How great are the reserves of high-grade uranium ore?
- How quickly will the cost to produce photovoltaic cells drop?
their opinions clustered. Although there is no reason for the demand for the supply of uranium to affect the cost of making of photovoltaics or vice-versa, almost all scientists believed either that- electricity demand would rise quickly,
- that uranium was in short supply,
- and that photovoltaics would remain expensive
or elseFurther interviews found that opinions on these three scientific questions (scientific in the sense that predictions could be proved true or false by comparing them to what actually transpired) correlated strongly with political opinions about the desirability of building fast breeder reactors: those in the first camp (high demand, little uranium, expensive solar power) favored a crash program to build lots of breeder reactors while those in the second camp (moderate demand, plentiful uranium, cheap solar power) tended to oppose a crash program to build breeder reactors.
This illustrates the extent to which, in cases where hypotheses cannot be conclusively proved or disproved (i.e., in Alvin Weinberg's term, the hypotheses are trans-scientific), scientists' opinions about purely scientific matters are inevitably colored by their political positions. This effect has been seen in many other cases, but Brooks was one of the first to identify it.
Shouldnt the intellectuals be making the decisions? Do we really have room for stupid decisions? One stupid decision can and most likely will end our world.
::Are climate scientists environmentalists? And ignoring that fallacy, if they [all] were, how would climate scientists "benefit greatly from a hamstringing of U.S. economic power through environmental regulation"?
:My take is that's who's issuing these global reports of gloom and doom.
How would the scientists, or anyone, "benefit greatly from a hamstringing of U.S. economic power through environmental regulation"?
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
This is important information about Siberia, but keep this in perspective. Antarctica is seeing INCREASES in ice thickness, and that's where more than 90% of the world's ice exists. Another 3% is in Greenland, which means all that Siberian ice is a sliver on the global scale.
Really, please, take my scientist.