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."
Slap a Stirling on that thar peat bog!
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.
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.
People who live in an area considered the "frozen hell" of this world are complaining about it finally warming up?
Yes, as a representative of Standard Oil Co....ehm...I mean, Exxon, Mobil, and other oil companies, I would like to assure all of the slashdot readers that there is no such things as global warming. These are lies spread by liberal commie scientists with an agenda. We, on the other hand, are completely impartial and unbiased.
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.
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!
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.
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
Yeah! That's what FOX is for!
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.
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
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.
hey, Global warming is just a THEORY...
oh, I guess I should add that ID is just an idea, but I will omit that in order to dupe the retarded public.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
...this will trigger a cooling trend. And reverse-immigration. See you at Cinco de Mayo.
Neo-con? Is that the Matrix prequel? Never heard of it. Happy now?
Google + neo con wiki = Definition.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
"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?
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.
The climate on planet Earth has gotten less than a degree warmer in the last 150 years.
I'd contribute it to the global cycle of change just like spring, summer, fall, and winter,
day and night, axial tilt, the tides, the ice age,
and the inevitability of mid-season on FOX.
But let's not jump to any conclusions.
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.
That graph can also be interpreted as showing a 0.4 degree rise in the last 20 years.
Methane doesn't have a smell, and it's not the primary component of farts. Profane Muthafucka has been working hard and long in his laboratory to answer the age-old question: what's in farts, why do they smell so bad, and why do I enjoy my own farts, but nobody else's?
The answer is that it's mostly hydrogen, which doesn't smell. The odor comes from organic compounds such as indole, skatole, and mercaptans, and the inorganic gas hydrogen sulfide. All of these compounds taken into the nose together, oddly enough, smell like poop.
The phenomenon of enjoyment of your own farts, but nobody else's farts is still something of a mystery to me. I am currently spending long hours in a closed box, alternately by myself and with a man eating Taco Bell burritos to find the answer. I am confident that this research might have some remote application to the war on terror, either for detecting bin Ladin, or for flushing him out. Literally.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Pure methane is odorless, but when used commercially is usually mixed with small quantities of strongly-smelling sulfur compounds such as ethyl mercaptan to enable the detection of leaks.
(from wikipedia)
'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
Methane is odorless. That's why they have to add that rotten egg smell to natural gas utilities to make sure people notice gas leaks.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
Methane is an odorless gas. Need to go back and open your chemistry book...
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.
No comrad, it's the vodka.
I think we found the exception to the rule !!
It's a mistake to think of this as a linear trend. It is accelerating; also it takes some decades to warm up to a given forcing. What we see now is the warming we already committed to in 1980. What's more, policies themselves take time to develop and implement, so really what we see now was pretty much the inevitable warming that we had in place by 1960 or so.
In effect, we are already committed to fifty years of more warming. If we don't get a grip on it, there is no reason to expect it won't accelerate, and go on for a very long time. If we do nothing as far as policy is concerned, the science tells us pretty clearly that things will keep getting more out of whack and faster.
The question is, when do we decide to do something about it? Until the coal runs out or we get it into our heads that it is time to act, whatever we see at any given moment will be a small fraction of what we are already committed to.
When I first started studying this matter in 1991, I believed that the world would start taking action by about now, so I did not believe people who saw this as the biggest problem around.
I was wrong.
At this point we are in big trouble and still lots of folks are coming up with irrational arguments for ignoring it.
mt
No, because it even says "NEW SCIENTIST REPORTS"
But let's not get stupid little things like that get in our way, dumbass.
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.
We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind. We maintain that climate change is a natural part of the planet's life cycle. The planet experienced dramatic global warming following the last ice age -- my car's not that old, is yours?
I am not left-handed, either!
You seem to be assuming that mankind is the cause of global warming. History shows that the climate warms then cools then warms then cools. All without mankind's assistance.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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
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.
Just how much greenhouse gass like methane is being released from the earth? If it gets to be too much, we won't be able to do anything at all to counterbalance it. It'll be out of our hands.
> We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind. We maintain that climate change is a natural part of the planet's life cycle.
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?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
sure, the temperature has changed in that past. but it has never changed as fast as it is changing now
Just another crappy blog
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.
Why those rotten scientists! They conveniently left out this fact that "everybody knows" to trick us! Those devils!
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
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?
We scientists (I'm not really a scientist, I just play one on the internets) are glad you finally stopped denying that the climate is changing. What convinced you, the volumes of evidence or the latest poll results of your constituents? BTW, how is that whole neocon "world is round is just a theory" thing coming? They teaching "world is flat" along side "world is round" in public schools yet?
What on Earth makes you think we can change it? What on Earth makes you think we should change it?!?! Are you so arrogant as to think we have a say in it? Maybe it's some other species' turn to rule the planet!
I am not left-handed, either!
Well I'll be. Skatole really is a name given to a chemical compound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skatole
For that informative bit of Organic Chemistry knowledge, I dub thee Propane Muthafucka.
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.
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.
" What on Earth makes you think we can change it? " An American relative gave me a "Say you can and you will" poster (never seen anything comparable in any other country). World community except 1 is trying to prevent too drastic change.
"What on Earth makes you think we should change it?!?!"
Um.. disappearing glaciers? Insurance companies panicking ?
"Are you so arrogant as to think we have a say in it?"
Dutch researchers calculated China and India can reduce emissions even when the use of electricity will double. Key word: efficiency. Absent word: nuclear power.
Depends on what you mean by "we". If you mean intelligent, thinking people, the question is rhetorical. If you mean governments, which at least in the Anglo-American sphere seem to have none of the former class of people, then the answer is "when coal, oil and natural gas run out", since they really don't give a toss about anything that doesn't help them get re-elected in four years time.
While I agree that we have a real big problem, I no longer labour under the delusion that we can actually get our moron leaders to do something useful to fix it.
Am I the only one who is excited about this?? Think of the possibilities! We've already exhumed one mammoth from the ice in Siberia... think about how many more things we're going to find out about our ancestors, how many exciting possibilities there are. I'm really not worried.
I'm a paleontologist, and actually I'm not excited about this at all. Melting permafrost means melting carcasses of mammoth, woolly rhino and other fauna of the last glaciation. If nobody's there to pick them up at the exact time when they melt, it's buh-bye frozen fossils and welcome microbes.
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]
"We'd have to wear gas masks when we went outside, because of air pollution."
0 5cavallo
You can thank American Government pollution laws for that not happening. Go to a major city in China; there, you'll DEFINITELY need gas masks to deal with pollution, especially near those "free enterprize" zones where pollution is not regulated. China has 7 of the world's most polluted cities. Proof: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nts40287.htm
Oh and recently, Exxon-Mobil Corporation announced that peak oil will happen in 5 years. Proof: http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj
Also, for a good miniature end-of-the-world scenario that happened, go read up on Rapa Nui, aka Easter Island.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Well, let's see... The amount of energy coming from the sun and from the radioactive decay in the earth is pretty much the same as it is today, for say 100 Million years. All during that time quite a bit of that energy has been stored by plants and microscopic critters and was deposited in the ocean floor..
We've been using that stored energy, releasing all of that carbon which is superbly good at reflecting infrared energy--which impacts the primary means for the cooling of the planet--radiation. It's proven by ice core samples that CO2 levels were fairly level for a long long time up until the 1800's, where concentration has grown almost exponentially. Even the oil giants will admit it in their studies!
We're using up gobs of energy that was stored up a long long time ago, which necessarily produces heat (except for energy derived from natural events which we have no control over, such as hydro, wind, geothermal, etc.--but most of our power comes from coal, oil and gas). Yearly consumption, by the way, is on the order of ~500 exajoules today. That's a buttload of energy, and if the earth can't get rid of it by radiating, it's just not gonna happen. If radiating ability is significantly impaired, we lose. Once it gets hot enough, water vapor will start to have much the same impact as the CO2. The cycle could literally run away and blow up in our faces, for all we know. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I can't say, but many scientists have a pretty good idea of what will happen, but it's possible that they know what will happen about as well as anyone else... So, why stack all your chips and throw the ball into the roulette wheel without giving it a real good thought?
So, it's a two forked problem, we're pumping out tons of energy such that the planet has never experienced before, and we ARE impairing it's ability to radiate, as far as we can tell. History can't account for today, and for mankind--and we must tread cautiously because of that. It's true that there are climatic changes over the course of thousands of years, no argument there. But there were no humans driving their H2's around back then. A few degrees over the course of a couple hundred years are particularly worrying in the grand scheme of things, and sticking your head in the ground is the worst kind of solution!
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Not everything is Bush's fault.
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.
You can thank American Government pollution laws for that not happening. ...and...
China has 7 of the world's most polluted cities.
So the lesson here is that decade after of decade of democratic capitalism results in better environment, while decade after decade of socialism results in hell on earth.
Damn those neo-cons! Damn them to HELL!
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
We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind.
How can this be? Being a neo-con is a political alignment, but either of these questions are questions of science.
Surely being a neo-con doesn't mean you close your mind to scientific fact on the basis of ideology. Next thing you're going to tell me that people deny evolution merely on the basis of religious preference.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
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
Hmm cancer kills you slowly over the course of a few years vs west nile which kills you quickly over the course of a few days. Me, I'll take the DDT. Having spent more of my youth outdoors than was probably healthy for me, I've seen first hand the difference between DDT and no DDT insect repellant, and personaly, if a little cancer is the worst of DDT, then sign me up for a bottle full. Besides, given that my power lines, my house paint, my cell phone, my computer, my car, the gas I put in my car and the fucking sun are going to give me cancer anyway, why the fuck should I care if DDT adds to it?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
climate change is a natural part of the planet's life cycle
*Slow* climate change is. As far as we can tell, the world has never seen anywhere close to this fast of global climate change. Perhaps you remember this famous graph. Note two key details:
* The biggest difference, as far as resolution will allow, is about 10C. It took about *20,000* years for this to happen. Just at our rate over the last century, that would take only 2000 years. At current rates? About 500 years.
* CO2 levels have an incredible correlation with temperature
dramatic warming following the last ice age
That was nothing - three degrees average in several thousand years? That's a walk in the park compared to what we have ongoing currently.
Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
If we do nothing as far as policy is concerned, the science tells us pretty clearly that things will keep getting more out of whack and faster.
The science says NOTHING conclusive concerning what part of global warming is natural and what part is due to human activity. Jury's still out on this one, at least to people who care about empiricism.
Without an answer to that question (and even with one) we really have no idea what, if anything, can be done to slow down warming. Everything in that area is pure guesswork and nobody knows if doing things like drastically reducing emissions will have any effect. We only have a single sample to work with, and a wrong guess won't become apparent for at least fifty years.
The question is, when do we decide to do something about it?
Perhaps when we know what part of climate change is natural and what part is artificial? And after we determine with some reasonable degree of certainty what methods can be used to slow it down - assuming that's the desirable outcome?
whatever we see at any given moment will be a small fraction of what we are already committed to.
That's true no matter what happens and what process is to blame. We've only got the one planet, which means we're "committed to" whatever the hell happens to it regardless.
At this point we are in big trouble
No, we aren't. The doomsayers cry out that the end is nigh, but so far humans have adapted remarkably well to changing climactic conditions. In fact, humans sans any real technology have managed to survive several much more radical climate changes - and without their numbers being endangered in any real way.
still lots of folks are coming up with irrational arguments for ignoring it.
Some folks ignore it, but a good many would like some more science along with an empirically sound approach, rather than frenzied hair-pulling, teeth-gnashing, and I-just-pulled-this-out-of-my-ass guesswork.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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!
If it's not mankind, then upon whom will your policies be imposed? If mankind's behavior is not causing the global warming, then how will policies intended to alter mankind's behavior do any good? The mere fact that you mentioned policies the way you did implies that you assumed mankind was at fault.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
What irks me, really, is that while 'neo-cons,' for lack of a better stereotype, have been sneering at eco-sensitive groups and warnings regarding pollution, for apparently being wrong, they fail to realize that it was only these whistle blowers that caused the environmental laws and restrictions to come into place that have manages to slow(if not entirely stem) the major effects of pollution.
And for the record, oil is a limited resource that can and will be depleted if we continue to guzzle the stuff at the rate we do, and anyone who believes otherwise, well. Oil is naturally produced very, very slowly, and not in massive quantities. It took billions of years to build up the reserves that exist, and we've managed to deplete them in less than a century. If anyone actually believes that the earth is pumping out as much oil as the world is consuming on a daily basis, they need to go back to school, because that crap just isn't any kind of rational thought.
And yes, for the record, I do believe that man is a significant factor in global warming. The only scientists that believe otherwise happen to be sponsored by the industries who really want to hear good things for their businesses.
I also like to believe(hope) that there are some neo-cons who are at least willing to admit that introducing unnaturally large amounts of chemicals into the o-zone is obviously going to affect it in some way. Which is preferable, at least, to putting on the blinders and completely neglecting the planet's future based on presumptions that they cannot prove to be correct.
Reasonably, if there's even a small chance that we are causing global warming, then we should do everything we can to do slow or stem that cycle. Playing the denial game is only going to ensure that it happens.
How is the budget?
Subject to congress. "Neo-Con" scarcely describes that crowd. The just-signed transportation bill is full of billions in pork sponsored and demanded by reps and senators on both sides of the aisle.
Where are those nuclear WMD?
You mean the efforts we thought were farther along, in Saddam's pursuit thereof? That would be "we thought" as in, we and the intelligence agencies of a dozen other countries (including France, Germany, Russia, and so on). Of course, Saddam was also being lied to by his own scientists and thought he had things they hadn't even produced. But his behavior, including his need to WMD-posture against rival Iran, and his constant game playing with UN inspectors, sent very credible signals.
Where is the democracy over at Iraq
You must have missed the part where eight million Iraqis voted a few months back. Or the part where they're in the middle of drafting a consitution. You know - a constitution. The thing it took the US's founders until 1787 to get wrapped up. Years, not months. The Iraqis are moving along really well.
Why were we attack on 9/11
Because the US is the single greatest defender of democracy in the history of the world. And because in the preceding years, they saw terrorism work like a charm. It chased the US out of Beruit. It caused Clinton to tuck tail and leave Somalia to the warlords. It went unpunished as hundreds were killed in the Africa embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole. And, of course, the WTC had been attacked before, with every intention of knocking it down the first time, and that time they failed. Read the damn news.
Why the gag order on Sibel Edwards
Because detailed information about the intelligence provided to our military leadership is not something that we want to advertise. The people that are covered by that intelligence are the ones that continue to attack - or did you not notice London and Egypt last month? Telling those people what sort of communications we can tap, or how we gather that information is crazy.
Why a 2 front war when we have not caught Bin Ladin yet
Because we have the most powerful, best-trained military in the world, and can work on two things at once.
Why are several traitors being tolerated in the white house
Because you're making that BS up. If that's your standard, then also ask why half the democratic seniority on half a dozen committees in congress are "traitors."
Where are the anthrax manufactuers who spread it after 9/11?
Like most fairly clever criminals, hard to find.
Why is it, that we only lose shuttles during neo-cons times
Unbelievable. OK, how about this: because we fly them then. Why did the only Apollo astronauts to die do so while a democrat was running things? Um... maybe because that has nothing to do with it?
How is our national budget again
Recovering from a recession that started during the Clinton administration.
How is our economy
See above. And, it has added 4 million jobs since that recession bottomed out. It's also the strongest, most productive economy in the world. Unemployment is below historical averages. As an example, unemployment was higher during the Clinton administration. Trying to ignore stuff like that, or afraid to admit that there are such things as business cycles? In the meantime, we have incredibly low interest rates, the highest ever rate of home ownership, and more people working than ever before.
Neocons refuse to accept blame.
For what? Your list was nonsense, so you'll have to try again.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I wish "New Scientist" stories would have more science in them, this seems pretty sensationalist.
They'll be, uh, hot. If it's melting, it ain't exactly permafrost, is it?
Very first argument which comes to mind: There is no political gain in being proactive - "X is more important right now!" before the problem gets huge / "We could have used all that money for something useful" after the problem has been avoided, vs "This guy is really doing something" when the problem affects everyone, and panic actions are taken.
Completely false. Here's the primary datafile used to generate that graph. Graphed CO2 levels are from measured, direct trapped CO2 in the ice. Graphed temperature is determined by the proportion of heavy water ice (oceans are richer in heavy water and glaciers poorer in it because of selective evaporation (the heavier the water, the harder it is to evaporate); the colder the climate, the more pronounced the effect).
Next time, don't just make stuff up when you want reply to a post, ok?
Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
There are leaders who could do something about it (or at least said they would), like Al Gore; blame the voters for sneering at his nerdiness and voting for people who tell them they can have it all and not pay for it. Don't give up on the system, participate and make it work, it's the only hope we have.
Hunters and gatherers move on to more fertile land, and kill or are killed by those who already lived there. Unfortunately, when the killing uses modern weapons, it actually could be threatening the race and not just unlucky tribes this time.
Many civilisations were wiped out by climate shifts; history is written by the victors, and not just in war. For instance, several years of drought is thought to have put paid to the Mayans, a cold change wiped out the Vikings in Greenland.
But yes, humans and civilisation will survive, but many individuals may not; and the cost to non-human life will be much more severe.
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
Radiochemistry. For example,
... 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.
Except of course, when they didn't.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
"So the lesson here is that decade after of decade of democratic capitalism results in better environment, while decade after decade of socialism results in hell on earth.
Damn those neo-cons! Damn them to HELL!"
Actually, the lesson here is that environmentalism, which is
* codified by the Government and its pollution laws
* strongly supported by liberals (and absolutely everyone else left of the far Right)
* vehemently opposed by neo-cons (they say it is Government intrusion on the free market)
* highly enabled by democracy (voters want environmental protection laws more than neo cons want to abolish them)
* strongly opposed by capitalist industry lobbyists
results in a better environment (i.e., more breathable air, more drinkable water).
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The science says NOTHING conclusive concerning what part of global warming is natural and what part is due to human activity. Jury's still out on this one, at least to people who care about empiricism.
The only way to empirically find out "what part of global warming is natural and what part is due to human activity" is to keep pumping out CO2 and see what happens. That's what empiricism means.
We've only got the one planet, which means we're "committed to" whatever the hell happens to it regardless.
It makes a great test tube for your experiment, though, right? Jackass.
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
> At this point we are in big trouble
No, we aren't. The doomsayers cry out that the end is nigh, but so far humans have adapted remarkably well to changing climactic conditions. In fact, humans sans any real technology have managed to survive several much more radical climate changes - and without their numbers being endangered in any real way.
Those humans sans technology managed to survive being only about 1/1000th of the current population. Maybe only 0.1% of the population would survive under such conditions. Could you please die now and give some more room for the rest of us?
Regards, Wizord.
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...
Some scientist was quoted as saying that he felt that there isn't enough oil to turn the earth into Venus.
Before global warming, dwindling oil supply is going to cause more of an immediate impact on our day to day lives.
But there may still be enough oil and coal in the world to destroy the biosphere enough to have the "great die off" that the peak oilers talk about.
And this is something that I can see happening within our lifetimes.
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)
While the original list was plain silly, I have to laugh at this.
Because the US is the single greatest defender of democracy in the history of the world.
Given the history of the US in backing non-democratic governments that overthrow democratic but socialist governments, (nd remember that doesn't mean communist or want to become communist, lots of countries elect socialist governments from time to time, much of Europe for example.
Look at the brutal un-democratic regimes the US still backs. If someone from Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan hates the US its unlikely to be because they hate it for its freedom and democracy but more likely because it backs a deeply unpopular regime (of course that is just one reason, there may be others rational and irrational).
We are all grateful for what the US did in WWII, but remember was against a democratic election there since the result would probably have been something it didn't want.
The US is no worse than most countries in the way it acts in its own interest, but it isn't really much better either. If you look at its history it isn't some great bastion of worldwide democracy and freedom, just self interested like everyone else.
To come vaguely back on topic, when the rest of the world sees a US reluctance to do anything about climate change, a lot of people see that same self-interest, although very short term, again. It seems to largely be US scientist (and a minority of them) who don't think humans are having an effect. Many of which work for US companies that give large donations to US politicians. This makes people pretty sceptical.
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.
The only way to empirically find out "what part of global warming is natural and what part is due to human activity" is to keep pumping out CO2 and see what happens. That's what empiricism means.
No, you can also use empiricism in the form of data gathered from past climactic events to model changes (and hopefully causes) in future ones. This same sort of methodology is used to test darwinian evolution without the need for several million years of direct observation.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Those humans sans technology managed to survive being only about 1/1000th of the current population.
I see you conveniently ignored the fact that it's *the very fact that we are technologically proficient* which gives us an enormous adaptive edge over our ancestors, regardless of what changes come our way.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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.
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.
Um, I just ran a tiny bit of calculation with info from the top of my head, which indicates that your 500 exaJoules/year is a 0.1% effect compared to solar irradiation. the diameter of the earth is like 12,750 km; that squared times pi/4 (area of a circle) is like 1E14 m^2 (working in orders of magnitude here). lets guess that of the 1300 W/m^2 that hit the earth, all but 100 W/m^2 is reflected, the rest absorbed.
m l
Our calculation now is 100 W/m^2 * 1E14 m^2 = 1E16 J/s. 1E16 J/s * 3600s/hr * 24hr/day * 365days/year = 4E23 Joules/year = 400 zettajoules/year. this makes the the 500 exajoules/year a little more than a 0.1% effect. Humanity's effects are doubtless huge in an absolute sense, but compared to our favorite nuclear furnace, we aren't heating the atmosphere. What we are doing, is adding to the greenhouse effect, which means the energy that the sun irradiates us with, gets lost to space at a slower rate than it did 200 years ago.
Admittedly, I could be off by an order of magnitude in either direction, but my guess is that the Earth's atmosphere is less than 90% reflective of infrared light. Also, I might've done the real calculation of blackbodies exchanging heat across space, but this is meant more as a sanity check than rigourous math. Please tear my thinking apart; I'll think better for it.
diameter of earth: http://www.pubquizhelp.34sp.com/sci/planets.html
solar irradiation intensity: http://www.tfp.ethz.ch/Lectures/pv/irradiation.ht
Science has _no_ absolute set-in-stone sacred truths. In science you're _supposed_ to question everything, regardless of why.
While that's true in general, you must eventually accept things as true, leave them and move on. For example, you're not going to get very far trying to disprove the laws of thermodynamics. They may not be held as a "sacred truth", but you'd be hard pressed to find someone reputable who's willing to seriously dispute them.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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
So the lesson here is that decade after of decade of democratic capitalism results in better environment, while decade after decade of socialism results in hell on earth.
The Chinese factories, and more and more, automobiles, are symptoms of rampant capitalism. Socialism has been fading in China since about 1982, when Deng Xiaoping told China "To get rich is glorious". And of course, much of the production of those polluting factories is exported to the USA, your products aren't magically produced by elves.
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).
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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....
Of course you don't. God forbid some commie scientist comes along and proves that your perpetual expansion and pillaging of the resources of the planet is ruining the future for us all. Lost profits!!! Who gives a damn about the future when my stocks just lost $0.10.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
"While that's true in general, you must eventually accept things as true, leave them and move on. For example, you're not going to get very far trying to disprove the laws of thermodynamics. They may not be held as a "sacred truth", but you'd be hard pressed to find someone reputable who's willing to seriously dispute them."
Actually, it happens more often than you'd think in the _real_ science.
The whole of relativity or quantum mechanics, for example, exist because someone dared question Newtonian mechanics. Those in turn existed because some people (e.g., Galileo) dared question the existing model, and prove that no, regardless of what the official doctrine says, a rock 10 times heavier doesn't fall 10 times faster, and one dropped from the top of the mast doesn't actually fall towards the rear of the ship.
And even relativity and quantum mechanics were not the end of the road. We have even newer theories, such as dark matter (the accepted one) or a proposed revision to gravity (still just a "contender", because someone didn't take those as set in stone. Someone (a lot of someones, actually) measured what happens up there, and saw that the accepted theories just don't explain it. So they came up with better theories.
Or you have stuff like chemistry and electronics at the level they are today, because some guy called Ernest Rutherford dared question the pie-with-electrons-in-it model of the atom. Which in turn existed because someone dared assume that the atom isn't in fact indivisible. ("atomos" = indivisible)
Without such "heretics" we'd still be at most at alchemy level, and assuming that chemical reactions are 1 atom of A + 1 atom of B = 1 atom of C. And still not seeing why if A is lead and C is gold, a B can't exist that can make that reaction work.
That's how science works, and "my theory is more popular than yours, so I'll try to discredit you by tons of self-righteous protests" was never a part of the scientific process. Science is _not_ supposed to be a popularity contest, nor resolved by popular vote and political speeches. (Not that it wasn't tried before, mind you. Relativity was described as bolshevism, for example.)
If someone wants to disprove the laws of thermodynamics, they _are_ perfectly allowed to do so. They just have to present a ton of convincing data, from experiments which others can duplicate and/or try to falsify or explain otherwise.
And if that new theory is gonna be proved right or wrong, it will have to do with testing their data and their calculations, and maybe devising even better experiments and calculations. _Not_ via "auugh, you dare question my sacred proof, therefore you must be a pinko-commie heretic paid by astroturf groups" self-righteous protests.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If you mean intelligent, thinking people, the question is rhetorical. If you mean governments, which at least in the Anglo-American sphere seem to have none of the former class of people, then the answer is "when coal, oil and natural gas run out", since they really don't give a toss about anything that doesn't help them get re-elected in four years time.
I think it's when they realize it's cheaper to develop alternative sources of energy than to start yet another oil war.
-- Cheers!
> > China has 7 of the world's most polluted cities.
> So the lesson here is that decade after of decade of democratic capitalism results in better environment, while decade after decade of socialism results in hell on earth.
No, the lesson is that industrialization goes through a phase of living in your own garbage.
China hasn't alwayse had the world's most polluted cities.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> We'd have to wear gas masks when we went outside, because of air pollution.
Do you have any idea how many laws and regulations have been imposed to reduce air pollution during the last 40 years?
> We'd be out of oil (evidently it was all floating in the ocean).
There's only a finite amount of oil in the ground, and demand is still growing. You do the math.
> DDT was the scourge of the world.
Are you arguing that DDT is, in fact, safe?
> And, yes, the Coming Ice Age would freeze us all.
Was there ever a consensus among scientists that and Ice Age was imminent? I hear this all the time from global warming deniers, but I don't actually recall hearing it way back when. (There was a big flap over a possible nuclear winter, though.)
> I say again: Global Warning? Meh. Take a number, you'll find the dispenser next to the Y2k countdown calendar.
So, just because one problem was overblown, we can safely ignore all the others?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"You can thank American Government pollution laws for that not happening." you americans better first get cars that don't pollute the air as much as your old crap. it's your fair american government that doesn't support the kyoto protocol.
Guys, guys - I think you're forgetting the real issue is that 13% of Americans believe Joan of Ark was the wife of Noah...
How can you determine what the atmospheric temperature was thousands of years before writen records were kept?
...
Radiochemistry. For example,
With this basic information (and some statistics and isotope chemistry) we can extract a temperature record from the ice on Greenland for the last 100,000 years. For Antarctica, a record going back 400,000 years has been reconstructed.
Absolutely!
And I think beyond that they can go waaaay back using sediment layers in the ocean floors. The relative percentages of certain plankton types have high correlation to average annual ocean temperature.
1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
> > We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind.
> How can this be? Being a neo-con is a political alignment, but either of these questions are questions of science. Surely being a neo-con doesn't mean you close your mind to scientific fact on the basis of ideology. Next thing you're going to tell me that people deny evolution merely on the basis of religious preference.
Hopefully that was sarcasm.
At any rate and FYI, neocons are behind the Intelligent Design movement as well. Some of them apparently agree with Marx that religion is the opiate of the masses, but think of that as a situation to be exploited for greater control of those masses, rather than condmemned as a delusion.
(FWIW, the extended version of the Marx quote doesn't actually sound like he was knocking religion, as everyone assumes from the short form of the quote.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Heat output from human activity is not really a factor. The thing that matters is the change in the transparency of the atmosphere to thermal IR caused by the extra CO2. This changes the balance between incoming solar light and outgoing thermal IR.
Incidentally, I'd imagine your figures of energy input to the earth by the sun to be on the low side...what comes after zetta?
Unfortunatly many of us are also fairly well adapted to a cushier lifestyle. Survival skills are something that we haven't practiced for a good long time. I just hope that if the worst happens our technology is enough.
Silly rabbit
Why a 2 front war when we have not caught Bin Ladin yet.
Because we have the most powerful, best-trained military in the world, and can work on two things at once.
Yeah, you lot are so good that you regularly shoot your own side. Not to mention that the US army is rediculously trigger happy too.
You might have the bigest army in the world, but that sure as hell doesn't make it the best. Training is what counts, and from what I see on the news (including abc) it appears that some parts of the US Army/Navy require more of that.
In science you're _supposed_ to question everything, regardless of why.
Actually, no. Actual scientists work within a scientific framework of generally recognized science. Their job is to contribute to the pool of knowledge.
Sometimes science takes a retrench and discards an old, incomplete theory for a newer, more useful one. But no real scientist wastes their time questioning EVERYTHING. And no real scientist wastes their time questioning results outside their field of competence.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
And I suppose you know what her name was?
hint, don't look in the bible, it's not there.
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"
Permafrost causes more pollution than automobiles do.
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
The climate on planet Earth has gotten less than a degree warmer in the last 150 years.
And the average body temperature of the patients in a hospital is pretty stable, too.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
Because the US is the single greatest defender of democracy in the history of the world.
... It caused Clinton to tuck tail and leave Somalia to the warlords.
I hope this is meant as irony, because otherwise it's kind of sad.
Although the US is indeed one of the biggest countries that occasionally comes to the defense of democracy, it's also one of the biggest countries to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with a pro-US dictator whenever that fits better into their goals.
Iran, for example, had a democratically elected government before the US replaced it with the Shah in 1954. You may also have heard of Pinochet in Chili, and of all the mess the US was involved in Central America.
And because in the preceding years, they saw terrorism work like a charm.
I don't think that was because of terrorism, but rather because the US forces were unable to deal with guerilla's. I can't remember any terrorist strike against a US civilian target that had anything to do with Somalia.
And about those WMDs, it was the US that claimed to have proof, not the other way around. So far, that proof seems to have been a complete and utter fabrication.
mcv.
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?
Some scientist was quoted as saying that he felt that there isn't enough oil to turn the earrgy sourceth into Venus.
This is true. You have to bake all the carbon out of the carbonate rocks to get Venus, which takes rather longer.
Dare I? Is this an exact science?
one additional point of note. The sun's output has been increasing. So our "constant out from the sun" has been increasing, helping to contribute.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Earth as a whole won't become inhospitable, but a lot of countries will. My country, for example, will completely disapppear unless we raise our dikes by another 300 feet, which would be rather a lot.
Even if you don't care about malfunctioning ecosystems (this is happening right now), at the very least this is going to be terribly, horribly expensive. Entire countries will disappear, hundreds of millions of people will have to move. And who knows how long it will take for the ecosystems to reach a new balance?
mcv.
Complex civilizations often have too much invested in ongoing expenses (administration, bureaucracy, justice, environmental protection, etc) to react quickly to sudden changes that affect them. Looking back through history, it's often the smaller, more warlike societies that triumph over the larger, most sophisticated and complex ones in times of crisis. Around 1200AD, the average coastal Chinese citizen had a much higher quality of life, a more advanced society and a greater variety of food to eat than the average Mongol tribesman. That didn't stop the Mongols from rolling over northern China. The Western Roman Empire succumbed to barbarians, despite all the efforts of the centuries-old Imperial State to preserve itself against invasion through proscription of labor, its legions and roads and military technology.
Technology is a double-edged sword, merely having it guarantees nothing and the complexity it generates in a society creates unexpected costs and can limit the flexibility of a society to respond to changes. It takes careful use of technology and sane, rational responses to crisis to preserve a civilization, lest ye end up declaring "Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!" to an empty desert.
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - Major Mike Shearer, UK
"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.
You mean the efforts we thought were farther along, in Saddam's pursuit thereof? That would be "we thought" as in, we and the intelligence agencies of a dozen other countries (including France, Germany, Russia, and so on).
Sources? If your statement is true, why did Robin Cook resign saying that "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction" ? Was the intelligence too secret for a member of her majesty's government?
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
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.
Sir, your post is not filled with enough romanticism to be modded up.
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
Science gives very little credence to estimates calculated through any single method. You never know what unknown factor may disrupt or entirely invalidate some specific method.
On the other hand science provides extremely good confidence in general by relying on multiple methods that cross-correleate and cross-validate. It is almost impossible for three or more methods to produce the exact same missleading pattern.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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 we're not causing it, then curtailing behavior that didn't cause it won't reverse it.
Training is what counts, and from what I see on the news (including abc) it appears that some parts of the US Army/Navy require more of that.
No question. Every single mistake made by young people living in a pressure-cooker environment where the locals want your help while contrary-minded people from third-party countries lurk around building car bombs to kill both the peple they're trying to help and the troops there to do it... well, mistakes happen. We've shot up our own people, shot up our allies, and been shot at by our allies. But those are so much the exception, rather that the rule, that it's really a shame it's all that some media outlets can bring themselves to talk about.
How about those clowns west of Baghdad last week? You know, the ones who we filmed setting up a mortar launcher in a school yard and launching rounds pretty much arbitrarily into a residential area. The predator filming them got them loading their gear back into their car, and then driving a ways back to their (heh!) "safe house." The team flying the predator had a little chat with the people dictating rules of engagement, and then used the predator's onboard hardware to hit the building. There were secondary explosions (meaning, the building was full of more mortar rounds, etc), and 14 insurgents were taken out of the equation. No troop had to be sent in, and no raging gun battle had to roll through the streets of that neighborhood. I'm sure the blown up ammo stash was not insignificant to the people living a block away, but those same people had to be aware that it was a building with more than a dozen guys regularly coming and going with weapons.
My point is that the ability to do what I just described, and be that surgical about it, hugely eclipses the inevitable guys-on-the-ground difficulties that soldiers have always faced. Am I in favor of even more training? Of course. I wish nothing ever went wrong for anyone having to deal with that situation (other than for the twits that think Allah hates an elected government, and that only blowing up kids with car bombs will make Allah happy).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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?
Highly predictable response.
If we aren't causing it, then it is possible that there is no way we can stop it. For example, can we stop a volcano from erupting? Even going as far as shutting down all industry may serve to do very little to slow down global warming if, like some believe, it is caused by the heating of the sea (which liberates CO2 into the atmosphere).
If all this is true (I'm not saying whether it is or not -- we don't know), then it would be in our best interests to keep speeding along with our industries so that we can grow the economy and develop techonology that could in the future either fix the problem on earth (domes?
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?
Here is what I am hearing:
"The world is experiencing global warming!"
"Are you sure?"
"Yup, here is a science that proves that 400,000 years ago, it was cooler."
"Wait, I thought there was an ice age that we are still coming out of."
"That's true, but people aren't worrying enough about pollution so we are trying to emphasize that the impact is global. So far, the only science that we have that proves that is that it is warmer. Oil is bad."
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
It changed that fast 9-10,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.
When I first started studying this matter in 1991, I believed that the world would start taking action by about now, so I did not believe people who saw this as the biggest problem around.
I was wrong.
At this point we are in big trouble and still lots of folks are coming up with irrational arguments for ignoring it.
Money and greed. Its cheaper to ignore it right now (of course tomorrow people start getting toasted, but hey who cares - most voters are stupid anyway)
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?
We're using up gobs of energy that was stored up a long long time ago, which necessarily produces heat [...]. Yearly consumption, by the way, is on the order of ~500 exajoules today. That's a buttload of energy, and if the earth can't get rid of it by radiating, it's just not gonna happen.
.367), so we get something like 5000 times the 500 exajoules.
Our energy production is in no way relevant, as the Earth's energy input from the Sun is still thousands of times more than that. Let's make a rough calculation... One kW per square meter makes 60*60*24*365*1000*pi*6300000^2=3.9322e+24 J per year. Divide that by your 500 exaJ, and you get about 8000. Ok, some is reflected (earth's albedo is
All heat on surface of earth is radiated to space, all the time, no matter how it is generated, so Earth's energy input and output are about exactly the same. It's the buffer effect of the atmosphere that matters.
So the only thing that is relevant, is CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, which keep the Sun's energy trapped. Please keep to the facts.
"Not to mention that the US Army is rediculously trigger happy too."
K, I'll be honest, this bugs me a little bit. Let's throw out all the propaganda and the nonsense that media presents to people and let's talk about War. Make no mistake about what the GoP is saying or what anyone else is saying about it, the US is currently in a War. There's a really scary and sadistic side to war; the gloves must come off. You can't play by these idyllic rules; you have to be capable of killing because sometimes that is the only way to save yourself.
Basically, you have 19 year old kids in the middle of a foreign country who don't even know who their real enemy is; it could be the kid across the street or the IED hidden on the road, that'll make ANYONE trigger happy.
While no individual scientist has the time to question every single theory in existence, a real scientist will _accept_ that any given theory _can_ be questioned. No matter how old, how established, how popular, or how well it fits his political party's doctrine.
There's a reason why even established stuff like gravity is called a "theory" and never renamed to "fact". It's always just a "theory" (ok, in the scientific sense, not in the common usage of "just a theory", which is more like "hypothesis".) It can _always_ be a candidate to be better understood, revised or outright discarded.
The moment one theory is put on a pedestal, it's suddenly taken as a 100% finished and definitive fact, that noone should ever question, it stopped being science.
So when I see a whole bloody thread and a whole bloody disertation aimed openly at discrediting anyone who dares question the sacred truth, and based on such fine fallacies as:
- Ad Hominem and more speciffically a very verbose case of Poisoning The Well (The _whole_ purpose of the whole GALLANT vs GOOFUS thing is to ridicule and undermine the credibility of GALLANT, instead of whether his theories might or might not be right. So most of the other fallacies are just there to serve this one.)
- Appeal to Numbers (More of us believe X instead of Y, so X must be true. Or conversely, don't even consider Y, since it doesn't have a "consensus".)
- Appeal to Motive (Let's divert the question from whether a theory is right to the possibility that anyone supporting it _might_ have some hidden motives.)
- Argumentum ad Lazarum and other forms of Appeal to Emotion to paint GOOFUS as _likeable_, as the only proof needed that his is the right theory. (Surely the poor guy who earns less and doesn't wear a suit must be right, because he's the one your average slashdotter can sympathise more.)
- Appeal To Spite and/or Association Fallacy (Surely the _only_ ones supporting those theories are those evil conservatives/oil cartels/whatever supporting those theories. And because they're evil, anyone or any theory associated with them is automatically evil and discredited.)
(You can also add the Begging The Question to the last one, since there's a bit of circular logic and assuming that you already know they're evil, in classifying them as evil in the first place.)
- Appeal To Fear (While not directly a theme of the GOOFUS vs GALLANT story, it _is_ the _main_ theme waved around in this whole using ecology as political capital. If you don't imediately stop believing all else and do as we say, we're all doomed!)
And so on, and so forth.
Sorry, that is _not_ science. It's politics and religion, but science it sure as heck ain't. I don't know which is the correct theory there, but it sure as heck ain't decided by such GALLANT-vs-GOOFUS Poisoning the Well rhetoric.
(Which of course, doesn't invalidate the fact that global warming might (or might not) be real. Like anything which is just a string of fallacies, it really doesn't prove anything. It does, however, disgust me profoundly.)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
So why didn't you hear about the Bristish randomly shooting people for the hell of it?
Not saying that your pressure cooker comments are untrue, as I am sure the situation is nasty, however shoot then ask questions is generally the wrong thing to do.
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.
I hope this is meant as irony, because otherwise it's kind of sad
No, sad would be the lack of democracy in Japan, or Germany. Or throughout eastern Europe. Happily that's not the case. Happier still will be democracy throughout the Middle East - not just in Israel, and partially in Egypt. That, of course, is the whole damn point of sticking it out in Iraq. Even the Saudis just started having municipal elections... these things take time.
don't think that was because of terrorism, but rather because the US forces were unable to deal with guerilla's
The last straw was the shoot-down of the Blackhawk in Mogadishu. If you'll recall, Somalia was (and still is) a hot spot for al Qaeda supported and trained insurgency. Having been deprived of their cozy little spot in Afghanistan, they're looking to set up shop in other chaotic places. That Clinton didn't send in major troops to make that problem go away right after the embassy bombings is a damn shame, really. But the bad news is that the locals and the al Qaeda people there spurring them on remain convinced that shooting up a helicopter crew was all it took to run the US out of the peacekeeping mission there. In practical effect, that's true. Just like blowing up some barracks in Beruit would be seen by the people that did it as all it took to remove our Marine presence from that trouble spot. That's the conclusion they reasonably drew, and is exactly the sort of thing that has people like Zarqawi convinced that enough car bombs in Iraq will eventually get him that country as a playground for the mysoginistic, medeival-minded theocratic thugocracy that he'd like to see running the entire Middle East.
it's also one of the biggest countries to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with a pro-US dictator whenever that fits better into their goals.
Help me out, here, with some post-Cold War examples. That's crucial, because stopping the tyranny of the Soviet Union was paramount. Ask the folks living in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland etc what they think of the results of playing chess with the Soviets in their proxy/puppet conflicts in places like Central America and Asia over the last decades of their influence. It's over now. The true socialist crazies (say, Chavez in Venezuela) are now having to get support from immitation communists (like China) that are really just totalitarian-run emerging capitalist economies that won't tolerate (as a population) that crap for much longer. I'm amused that people like Chavez think China's support is idealogical.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Which one would make you feel safer? And would you appreciate someone trying to take that comfort away from you?
That depends, which is more effective at filtering pollutants, a full-face gas mask, or living with your head buried one foot under loose sand.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Here is what I am hearing:
"The world is experiencing global warming!"
"Are you sure?"
"Yup, here is a science that proves that 400,000 years ago, it was cooler."
"Wait, I thought there was an ice age that we are still coming out of."
You haven't been listening very carefully:
1. We have science that gives us a pretty accurate and detailed picture of global average temperatures for the last half million or so years (possibly longer with the latest Antarctic ice core).
2. We likewise have solid data on the atmospheric abundance of CO2 for the same period.
3. At no time in this period has (a) CO2 been as high as it is now or (b) temperature risen as fast as it is rising now. In particular, the slow steady rise in temperatures for the last 10K years since the last ice age is NOTHING compared to the rate of rise we're seeing in the last 50 years.
1 & 2 are by quite direct methods, that depend on few assumptions that can't be easily tested.
Now do you see why we need to pay some attention to this!
You can thank American Government pollution laws for that not happening. Go to a major city in China; there, you'll DEFINITELY need gas masks to deal with pollution, especially near those "free enterprize" zones where pollution is not regulated. China has 7 of the world's most polluted cities.
Do you think the fact that we are sending a lot of our manufacturing over there might have something to do with it? Our pollution levels may be lower, but its at least partially artificial. Moving a mess somewhere else doesn't clean it up.
Don't forget the millions of people that will die in the process and the governments that will be erased from existence; that being said the human species is in no danger. May we be at a golden age? Although thoroughly depressing to think about we might be, but humans arn't going anywhere. I'm not advocating ignoring this problem, because it is a very real problem, merely trying to put things in to perspective.
/.!
The stuff I've read pretty much say that global warming is going to bend Europe over and stick it in the pooper; southern part is going to become uninhabitable [read desert] and I'm guessing Holland and parts of northern europe will flood pushing EVERYONE in to the middle...but I dunno I just pretend like I know things, this is
The amount of energy coming from the sun and from the radioactive decay in the earth is pretty much the same as it is today, for say 100 Million years.
The sun's output is far from constant.
Either that, or global warming has gotten so bad on earth that is is actually causing the sun to be more active now than it has been in the past 1000 years!
Or perhaps it's the other way around... at any rate, it's just one more major variable to throw into the mix.
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
Try to understand what the word "science" means
Like.. erm.. forming an opinion based on personal morals or political beliefs and then applying for grants to pay for the search to find abberations in nature that support your opinion, while ignoring anything that may or may not be contrary to it?
Yes, I'm cynical. I don't believe research papers anymore.
The world according to SComps
How can you say "pretty accurate" and then say during a 50 year span, temperatures have never riven as quickly. 50 years is a specific and small amount of time and I don't believe that we could detect a 50 year spike in temperature with the same science that we use to prove how warm it was 500,000 years ago.
If everybody played by the same set of rules, it would of gotten support. instead, developing nations where given a free pass to dump as much shit in the air as they wanted. that's why kyoto tready was a bad idea.
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
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
don't put dark matter in the same boat as relativity. People question because there arre obvious (to a physicist) problems in modern physics. There are no obvious problems in thermodynamics, so if you want to question that, then the burden of proof is EXTREMELY high. This is especially true given that TD rests upon a RADICAL statement that goes something like this "more probable things are more probable", which is reallly pretty hard to dispute.
Anyone who actively disputes TD without showing the next Nobel prize winnign theory is a quack, plain and simple.
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
That's pretty much what happens if "those folks", who just happen to number in billions need to move while food production is simultaneously badly disrupted. The governments of the world are not and will not be equipped to handle mass migration and famine on that scale, welcome WW3, and it will be fricking ugly.
World doesn't need to end for the utter destruction of all civilization as we know it, you know, we're perfectly capable of destroying the civilization on our own.
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.
Anon Coward says-
Oh, yeah, and you get to watch all these idiot shaven monkeys die.
Kodos is that you?
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? Of course the climate changes! I don't think anyone ever denied this. The important question isn't even if humans affect change, because we do.
The real question is "Will we be able to deal with the change" My guess is the answer to this is "yes". I doubt that, given human technology, that any global climate change will get bad enough to kill us off, unless: 1) There is a global drought and no food at all is produced, or 2) somehow we change atmospheric concentration to be acutely toxic. The basic condition is: If the general lifespan of people remains high enough to permit reproduction, the human race will continue. It might be a lot smaller than now, or it might not have all the entertaining gadgets we have now, but it will remain. It would be impressive indeed if every single person were killed off.
Now, will your quality of life change? Will you hear of people who die? Will you die? Most likely you will see all of those things. The question is not that they will happen, but how you handle them when they do. I think that all that's going to happen is that people will actually have to work a little harder to obtain their necessities and you won't have people talking in meetings all day. More people will be out there actually working physically to meet their needs, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. Now, I agree that technology is great and reduces labor, but the environment tends to adjust to mitigate the advantages of technology. It "raises the bar" so to speak...
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Whay the hell does it matter if it's a natural cycle? Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it's good (or, when did all these neo-cons turn into hippies?). If by changing our energy behaviour we can somehow help arrest this process WE NEED TO DO IT. If we need to put up solar shields to arrest this process WE NEED TO DO IT. Global climate change will invalidate huge parts of our world infrastructure and devastate our economies and cause untold human misery.
Frankly, I find the republican party's stance on this baffling. Unless all they really care about is short term energy profits (and I'd like to think that a party that large has a lot more interests than that), it's pointless to deny that global warming is happening and that something must be done to preserve our standard of living.
Hell, even if the party is a corporatist bastion, why can't it direct corporations to private anti-global warming projects like alternative energy? There's no reason that Shell and Chevron can't get their profits from other sources. It's just as bad as the goverment protecting a failing business model like studio music or movies. Hell, it's much worse, considering we already KNOW Africa's droughts and famine are the direct result of global warming.
Really... wtf?
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
So what you are saying is that the US troops are badly trained to handle the situation they find themselves in.
No but, yeah but, no but...
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
Yes, because hey, it wouldn't be right if a small percentage of people in Africa possibly got cancer instead of the 2.7 million people dying every year from malaria. Then again, it's not really toxic to humans anyway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT).
-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?
not to mention that the biblical Noah story was a rip off of the original Sumerian tale, in which the name of the legendary hero was Ziusudra, a king of Sumeria. And that the great flood was nothing more than an exaggeration. The Euphrates was flooded, but not the whole planet.
...because Plutonians are teh suck
No, sad would be the lack of democracy in Japan, or Germany.
True, but that's not the issue here, so please don't try to cloud the issue by pretending it is. In WW2, the US helped to defeat a country that had already declared war on the US. Although the US joining the allies in defeating Germany certainly made a big difference, they didn't do it out of the goodness of their heart or because democracy was at stake, but because it was in their own interest to do so. And it was, because the US emerged from that war as the leading world power.
Even the Saudis just started having municipal elections... these things take time.
Which is very nice, but Saudi Arabia is still one of the most undemocratic countries in the world, and doesn't even come close to Iran's still rather questionable level of democracy. So why is there talk about indaving Iran and not about invading Saudi Arabia? Because Saudi Arabia has a pro-US government (although the people are very anti-US, so the US probably doesn't even want free elections there), while Iran is pretty anti-US. It's just self-interest.
The last straw was the shoot-down of the Blackhawk in Mogadishu.
But that was an act of guerilla warfare, not an act of terrorism. And any presence of Al Quaeda people still doesn't make it an act of war.
By neo-con standards, the US war of independence would probably count as terrorism, but I think sloppy use of such terms is dangerous, and will in the end only diminish the real meaning of the word "terrorism".
Help me out, here, with some post-Cold War examples.
You went back to WW2 to support your claim of the US being the greatest defender of democracy, and I can't go back to 1954? Well, we still have the US's support of Saudi Arabia while it's (or was, I hope) considering to invade Iran, which, while not exactly a paragon of democracy, is still infinitly more democratic than Saudi Arabia.
But IMO even the Cold War is a lousy excuse to justify tyranny and overthrow democracies. Had the US opposed those dictators and supported those people movements, they wouldn't even have to turn to the USSR for support.
As an aside, I wasn't aware that Chavez was turning to China for support. That is indeed a worrying as well as an incomprehensible development.
mcv.
All without mankind's assistance.
That is one of those irrational arguments. You can't be rational without mankind's assistance.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
...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.
Simple. If it's not caused by man then it's natural. If it's natural, it's futile or at least dangerous to attempt to reverse it. Let's assume it's all caused by natural forces and is a part of nature. Then we come along and take all these drastic measures to reverse it based on environmental extremists' mandates. Now these same environmentalists would tell you "don't alter this forest or that ecosystem because that is tampering with nature!" Why is this blatant double standard not obvious? To avoid it, they assume it's manmade. It's funny, in the 70's we were headed to an ice age. It's a cycle folks. Calm down.
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
Why were we attack on 9/11
Because the US is the single greatest defender of democracy in the history of the world.
Come on now, Dude.
I often disagree with what you say, but you generally make good points and back them up with rational thought but this is so far over the top it is completely ridiculous.
I mean whether or not we are is certainly an arguable point (although many coups and American trained death squads are certainly tough to argue around), but that that is the reason we were attacked is so far beyond wrong that is has passed far beyond the realm of sanity. Seriously, you must know by this point in your life that pretty much nothing is that simple. While the US certainly isn't alone in culpability and we weren't even involved when the shit started in the middle east, the simple basic unarguable historical facts demonstrate absolutely that that blatant neo-con agenda pushing sound bite is false. You have no possible ground to argue that point, and you have certainly lowered my opinion of you (for whatever that is worth) by pushing a blatant lie created to promote an agenda established well before the attacks on us. My opinion aside, you *have* lowered yourself by doing so.
Ignore the *fact* that we have on numerous occasions helped to overthrow *Democratically elected* leaders for the purpose of installing brutal dictators in the interest of corporate profits.
Ignore the *fact* that due to this we are both directly and indirectly responsible for the brutal murder and torture of people all over the world whose only crime was trying to wrest self determination and democracy from the grip of these brutal dictators whose death squads *we trained*.
Ignore the fact that we are right now propping up the brutal dictatorial regime in Saudi Arabia that *funded the fucking terrorists who attacked us*.
Sure, ignore these basic, absolutely established facts, ignore all of human history, ignore everything you know about human nature, and ignore everything you know specifically about the members of the current administration. Once you throw all of that aside, then sure, they hate us for our freedom.
Given your history of rational argument, unless somebody hijacked your account, what you have demonstrated is known as cognitive dissonance.
The idea that anybody could, at this point, still attempt to defend this administration is bizarre enough. The fact that an ordinarilly well-reasoned person such as yourself does it and to do so has to resort to demonstrably insane arguments to do so is a clear indicator of how far this nation has fallen away from our founding principles.
It really saddens me, but you have through your own actons and with malice aforethought destroyed all the respect that I had for you (again, for whatever that's worth.
)
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.
nope.
What makes you think that would be a good way to get grants, anyway? Seriously dishonest people can make a quick buck more easily than by getting doctorates in geophysics and geochemistry and gaming the grants process. Why would someone smart enough and dishonest enough to lie in this way even bother? I'm not saying it never happens, but you are saying it inevitably happens.
You also obvously don't understand how the grants process works, but that's a long story,
I'm not claiming the granting process doesn't distort science; that is an inevitable cost of doing things outside the private sector, and like anything public it requires eternal vigilance. Still, outright fraud of the sort you would like to believe in is rare because it just isn't worth the trouble.
To make matters worse for your point of view, you have to accuse the entire scientific community of complicity for your belief to make sense. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society are not unanimously corrupt on behalf of a small segment of their membership. They wouldn't put the whole scientific enterprise at risk for some superstitious hippie idea.
You need to reconsider who has the preconceived ideas here.
mt
Because the US is the single greatest defender of democracy in the history of the world.
Oh yes, that's right! They hate us because of our freedoms! And here I was starting to think it might be because of the way we keep meddling in their affairs! Thank you so much for setting me straight.
We are all grateful for what the US did in WWII, but remember was against a democratic election there since the result would probably have been something it didn't want.
I believe Adolph Hitler was a democratically elected leader. We shouldn't have helped out against him either. Benito Mussolini was initially elected to parliment and his government was a democratic one with a parliment. I suppose the US shouldn't have helped get rid of those guys.
From time to time there are situations where democracy has either gone awry or cannot be implemented at any given time. Just because the US doesn't attack every non-democratic regime it has contact with doesn't mean the US isn't a defender of democracy. Life is full of compromises.
Find coupons in Greeley
Now, if GALLANT's scientific studies consisted of anything but the points you just listed...
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I agree that it's not very constructive to talk about events even 15 years ago when it comes to the very altered reality we're facing right now (with so many of the players and circumstances of the Cold War gone, and looming communism a dead issue - and looming Islamist extremism very real - and a lot crazier to deal with). I think the Chavez/Venezuela connection is a good example of the new policy challenges, and it's certainly worth noting that no matter how much he rants about making the US "bite the dust" (that was last week, I believe), we're not down there invading - no matter how convenient the oil supply would be. The people that think the US is just some invade-and-take-the-oil operation are completely missing the ramifications of the risk that China will "invade" places like Venezuela with cash (heh - our cash, mostly, from our huge trade deficit) and own that operation in ways much more substantial than the way in which Bush's detractors seem to think we "own" the oil in the Middle East.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No it's not. Your sense of fair play is bogus, the west fuct things up. OTOH we cannot let the rest of the planet develop in the same manner: better and appropriate technology transfer needs to take place.
Kyoto is a bad idea for being a mirage and attempting to be too moderate. It's also a bad idea for creating bogus markets and promoting bad forest policy.
Were that I say, pancakes?
This is polemical nonsense. If science says nothing colclusive about this matter it says nothing conclusive about anything.
This is the only planet in the known universe that supports advanced life, not a court of law. Even if the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion were not satisfied (a threshhold which was passed some time ago) the criterion is wrong; greenhouse gases are not innocent until proven guilty.
If you must use legalistic arguments, surely the presumption of innocence goes to the undisturbed atmosphere, not to the pollutant.
The best available evidence is overwhelming that most or even all of the observed warming is caused by humans, that most of past warming and cooling episodes were related to natural variation in greenhouse gases, and that the warming will continue to accelerate. The predictions based on this understanding that were made around 1990 are on track.
If you want to call this frenzied hair-pulling, teeth-gnashing, and I-just-pulled-this-out-of-my-ass guesswork I guess you can do that, but I think it's an empirically sound approach to call you uninformed on this matter, to say the least.
mt
... 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
I believe it's traditional to provide some sort of reasoning behind insulting someone's intelligence after they've made a point in an argument, as opposed to merely failing to use your brain to manage anything more than a painfully unoriginal insult. Nevermind the error you made. So hopefully you won't take it too personally that I'm finding it pretty hard to take your insult seriously.
I'm also sorry that concern for the degrading state of our environment is 'uncool' to you. I strongly suggest taking a look at the grander picture. Believe it or not, this planet's the only one we have. There isn't a spare in the trunk in case this one goes flat.
I'm hardly some pot smoking hippy, but then, it doesn't take a fifty-two week marijuana binge to see that something is wrong, and something ought to be done before it gets out of hand. You won't see me marching the streets on Earth Day with a sign, but you're damn right I support political motions to protect the environment from excessive consumption of natural resources, reduction of emissions, etcetera.
Also, 'Miss' would be more appropriate.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
I'm by no means claiming that it inevitably happens. I'm sure there are very honest scientists out there (the vast majority) who honestly believe in the work their doing and are trying to do it in the very best way possible.
n g+discredited. I'm not trying to start a flamefest here because it's obvious there are people in both camps who feel extremely strong about the subject. I'm just saying that if you look hard enough you'll find something to both prove and disprove a theory. Human nature is going to cause us to apply less credence to something that goes against our beliefs than one that supports it.
This is strictly conjecture on my part, so take it for what it's worth. Scientists are human (or so I'm lead to believe) and as such are lead to try to prove or disprove something they believe in. That's a good part of science to begin with. I've always understood that it starts with a hypothesis and you work from there. Nobody likes to be wrong and will work vehemently to prove themselves right.
Much like the person that spends a lot of time browsing the medical symptoms websites, eventually they'll find a symptom of some largely fatal and rare disease and panic themselves into a fit over it. If you look long enough you'll find some sort of evidence to prove or disprove what you believe in.
It's very easy to hit the web and find information that proves the global warming theory. That's an accepted theory. So is the ability to search the web and find information that discredits that theory http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+warmi
Personally I'm up in the air about the whole thing. I don't know enough about the situation to make an informed decision so I try to look at all sides of it. On the other hand, being a cynical human myself I'm certainly not going to take somebody's word for it just because they're a learned professional--especially when other people/groups are offering contradictory information as well.
The world according to SComps
Yes, I don't doubt that a true religious zealot would feel a need to get violent on the heretics. After all, we've already seen that in the form of the Inquisition. Nothing new there. If anything, it just proves my point that some people found _religion_, not science, there.
However, the question is, can you actually argue a point without crap like "I wanted to slap you like a bitch" or "you stupid cunt"? Zealot tantrums are an amusing read, but sadly prove nothing in science.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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 believe Adolph Hitler was a democratically elected leader.
Well, initially yes. But I think you lose the status of a 'democratic leader' once you start throwing your oponents into jail. You might want to read up a bit on it here.
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.
What you don't understand is science.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
Well, then it shouldn't be hard to attack GALLANT's _theories_, instead of spewing ad-hominem attacks. If GALLANT theories are indeed just a collection of fallacies, then please point out _those_, instead of going on a whole "he's less likable than GOOFUS, so don't trust him" fallacy spree.
That's really my whole problem with this kind of rhetoric. I'm _not_ saying "trust GALLANT instead", I'm just saying it would be nice if it stayed science instead of a mud-slinging contest. That's all.
I don't necessarily trust GALLANT to be the only one right or anything, and yes, I'm all for cleaning up the stuff that we dump into the air. Global warming or not, we breathe that shit.
But I very much like to see his measurements too, just in case. And if someone wants to enlighten me in which ways those measurements are wrong, or mis-interpreted, then please, please, please tell me just that: exactly which measurements calculations are wrong. _Not_ a religious case of "noo, don't even look at that evil data, it's the Devil's work."
And that goes for both sides, really. The true believer camp just happens to be better represented, but, yes, you're right: the other camp pulls fallacies and political speeches too.
And I'm not happy about those either. "Noo, don't look at that pinko-commie liberal data" isn't really any better than "noo, don't look at those corporate-paid evil data." Both are what happens when science ends and politics/religion have stolen the show.
I'd like to see the whole global warming stuff just for once discused based on the facts, and _only_ the facts. For once not by quickly manufacturing a diversion and reaching for the handy-dandy fallacies.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
...for us in the gulags
Don't feed people that bullshit about Chavez. Even if you disagree with his politics, he has massive popular support. If you will remember, he was put back in power two days after his 2002 coup. It is the rich media and corporate interests of Venezuela which hate him (who are obviously a minority), though understandably so - he is bad for their business interests. This is the same reason why the US dislikes him (and because he is a price hawk in OPEC), and why the CIA likely had some hand in the 2002 coup. The CIA has long had a very active presence in Latin America, and I doubt much has changed.
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
First, take a moment to consider the context in which I was replying. It was an ill-considered troll feeding moment, and the GP's rhetorical silliness (traitors in the White House, neo-cons destroying space shuttles, our horrible economy, blah blah) got what the commentor wanted - an off-the-cuff jab back. You know, when you reply too briefly and without enough context, the... um... Anonymous Coward Trolling Terrorists win... or something like that.
Seriously, you must know by this point in your life that pretty much nothing is that simple.
Clearly. And the problem with clowns like the guy I was replying to is that you either need to construct a 1000-word history lesson (that he won't even read anyway), and explain the underlying concepts that are worth defending while putting historical compromises/mis-steps in perspective, or you just put in a rhetorical jab that may or may not register at the level at which that person is communicating. I know it's vastly more complicated than that, but actually I do find the basic reality pretty simple. There is no greater force for democracy and liberty, right now, this minute, than the U.S., warts and all. We do now, and have always had to hold our noses while dealing with certain other societies/individuals.
Do I find it frustrating that the Saudis are who they are? Yup. But you'll notice they've managed to avoid seeming bristly and overtly hostile, as a regime, as opposed to those charming Taliban folks, or Saddam, or North Korea, or the delightfully late Yassir Arafat, etc. There are definately strong currents in Saudi Arabia that would like to see both us AND the house of Saud swirl the toilet. That puts the Saudis in that famous enemy-of-my-enemy category. Too late, of course - they could have headed off the bin Laden family's favorite son a long time ago, and didn't. I really don't think they expected him and his followers to become as malignant as they have become.
The idea that anybody could, at this point, still attempt to defend this administration is bizarre enough
I've got all sorts of bones to pick with the administration. But they are the administration. We truly, acually, really are dealing with issues that could make the economic and social impact of 9/11 look trivial, and I have an interest in at least attempting to squash the "traitors in the White House" silliness because that's the stuff that gets circulated more than, say, enormous AIDS support to Africa, or pressuring Syria to get out of Lebannon's internal politics, or continuing to keep China from breathing down Taiwan's neck any more than they already do. Etc.
I loathe Bush's take on most matters related to the sciences (though I like much of the current NASA redirection - but that's another, and mixed discussion). I find him earnest, but definitely a product of his generation, and too much under the sway of the religious circles that he grabbed hold of while shaking off his youthful over-partying excesses. I don't think he wants babies and old people to starve, and I don't think he likes poison water, or wants to see Iran burn, baby burn. But he's the C-in-C, and dealing with an unbelievably difficult moment in history, and there are people out here just saying some damn silly stuff.
I'm not too worried that you've lost all respect for me, since I'll just keep posting my thoughts, however provoked they may be, sometimes, by flamebating nitwits. One of these days I'll learn not to fall for that stuff, or will decide to invest the extra time in making my comments in context even when it will be wasted on the actual person to whom I'm replying. I guess I'm still rather shocked that anybody bothers to read anything I say, so it's not always in the forefront of my mind to ask myself what a wider audience might conclude about me, based on a barbed, late-night exchange made while watching Conan O'Brien and scratching at six new no-doubt global-warming-caused mosquito bites.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Really you can!
The main data is ice cores in which yearly layers can be distinguished and counted. By measuring the isotope ratios of hydrogen in samples from each layer, we get an average sea surface temperature for that year.
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.
Because it used to be, well, green.
600 years ago the temperature in Greenland was much warmer than it is now.
Interstingly enough, the chart here that is refered to in your link shows that the temperature in Greenland has been cooling for the last, say, 10 thousand years, plus or minus 5 degrees. So if it is warming now, perhaps it is just a recovery to the way it has been in the past.
And this was preceded by a 20 degree increase in temperature in the previous 10 thousand years.
If the earth goes through 20 degree temperature swings as a matter of course, then I can't imagine that there is much that mankind can do to prevent them.
Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
Well, initially yes. But I think you lose the status of a 'democratic leader' once you start throwing your oponents into jail.
Maybe, but who makes that determination. My understanding is that Hitler believed he was really loved by the people and judging from the video recordings of his speeches many people did, or at least pretended to.
Wasn't trying to defend Hitler at all, just wanted to point out that everything isn't always cut and dried. If you look on the other side of the coin, Stalin was as evil a dictator as Hitler. Should we not have included him in the Allies during WWII. Was it right to ally with him considering the tragedies that were occuring in his country?
Thanks for the link though, very interesting article.
Find coupons in Greeley
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.
Yeah, there's no doubt that you're going in the right direction, especially considering the nuclear furnace that's under our feet. It was a good drunken rant anyhow, though of course I realize that the greenhouse gasses are more of a problem. I really thought that we would be contributing more to the energy input. Thanks for the sanity check.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Once it gets hot enough, water vapor will start to have much the same impact as the CO2.
Water vapor in the form of cloud cover will also increase the earth's albedo and decrease the amount of solar radiation that can contribute to our heating. I'm sorry I don't have any hard numbers for this effect.
Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
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.
so, since i'm living in the west I should cripple my economy so that developing nations can catch up? Overseas manufactuing is cheaper already because of the lax environmental and labor regulations, why not give them more advantages?
screw that.
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Go to a major city in China
Or check out Kuala Lumpur's current pollution crisis.
You can thank American Government pollution laws for that not happening.
No, you can thank state and city pollution laws for that not happening. I only wish more legislation were national in scope. In Los Angeles, for example, pollution is trending downward relative to smog leader Houston, where folks apparently have no interest in local legislation to curb pollution.
Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
Maybe, but who makes that determination. My understanding is that Hitler believed he was really loved by the people and judging from the video recordings of his speeches many people did, or at least pretended to.
:)
I did not mean to say that nobody really liked him. The Nazis surely had many followers (and he initially did get a lot of votes in a democratic election, despite being openly antidemocratic and antisemitic). Nevertheless, when somebody says that Hitler was a democratically elected leader, I feel the urge to point out that his rule in Germany was largly a dictatorship, with all the necessary ingredients: no other political parties, complete control of the press, political oponents prosecuted at will, a system of intimidation to stifle the desire for resistance... Of course you need a lot of devoted people to keep the system going.
Wasn't trying to defend Hitler at all, just wanted to point out that everything isn't always cut and dried. If you look on the other side of the coin, Stalin was as evil a dictator as Hitler. Should we not have included him in the Allies during WWII. Was it right to ally with him considering the tragedies that were occuring in his country?
Well, I think one can not blame anybody for the alliance with Stalin in that situation. And surely it does not really matter whether Hitler was democratically elected or not. The war against Nazi Germany was justified for the actions of their leadership alone, there was no other option (Hitler being elected or not).
Thanks for the link though, very interesting article.
You're welcome.
Now these same environmentalists would tell you "don't alter this forest or that ecosystem because that is tampering with nature!" Why is this blatant double standard not obvious?
Because it needs to be. Let's say Global warming is entirely natural for now. It's about survival my good man. Tampering with the forests and the ecosystem will screw with oxygen levels and things we need to survive. So these 'eco freaks' need to be doing this to help us survive. Attempting to reverse this warming will allow more arible and livable land. If we let it go, it may well wipe us out or atleast push us into a small corner of the world that can only inhabit a fraction of our current population.
So regardless of whether or not it was caused by us, we need to try and do something. And even if it turns out to be futile and we are all staring at the appocolypse, we can atleast say we tried our best.
Bullish Machine Tzar
QED
Everytime somebody disproves GALLANT's theories, people like you spout forth [list you posted] to kill it off. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I didn't say that. National leaders are in fact the only ones who can make a difference. Just so far few if any have done more than voice platitudes.
Green chips anyone?
FalconShould there be a Law?
You might have the bigest army in the world...
The USA doesn't have the biggest army in the world. China probably has the biggest army in the world. Our military isn't really all that big compared to times past. We may have _one_ of the best trained army in the world. The USA spends a great deal more money on training than any other country (in total dollars spent on training). Averaged out per soldier, we are still spending more than any large army per soldier. Some smaller European armies may spend more per soldier than we do. We also have some of the very best Spec Ops warriors in the world. I think (but haven't verified) that we have more Spec Ops warriors than any other country.
As far as "shooting our own side" goes, that is a big problem in any war and for any army. The old saying "friendly fire ain't" comes to mind.
What really counts though is the fact that we can field an army anywhere in the world _faster_ than anybody else. Its the ability to put ordnance (or armed soldiers) on the ground anywhere and do it _right_now_ that makes the US's military without equal on this planet.
This sig kills fascists.
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.
'yotta' (10^21), I think...
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
"QED
Everytime somebody disproves GALLANT's theories, people like you spout forth [list you posted] to kill it off. Lather, rinse, repeat."
So basically you're not even able to distinguish between (A) actually disproving a theory, and (B) an ad-hominem attack against the person saying it. If the whole "GALLANT vs GOOFUS" ad-hominem and fallacies counts for you as having disproved GALLANT's _theories_ (even though they're not even mentioned in there, much less analyzed)... wth, I rest my case. QED, indeed.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"The question is, when do we decide to do something about it? Until the coal runs out or we get it into our heads that it is time to act -Parent"
Hey, I happen to know were vast fields of energy packed very burnable peat moss has been uncovered.
"What? Of course the climate changes! I don't think anyone ever denied this. The important question isn't even if humans affect change, because we do." Well now there you go again, to quote a famous president, trying to rewrite history. The neocons have long denied that global warming is happening. The Bush administration is still doing it. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/ Now I'm going to to go googling for past quotes by the administration and many other neocons regarding the denial of global warming because I dont have the time and you have access to google too. That is if you really believe what you have stated. I am pretty much in agreement with the rest of your post. I do think we can slow it down, maybe even reverse it but that will take time. In the mean time we need to decide what to expect and what to do about the changes coming up. Also to those who claim there have been warm periods before and it is caused by natural cycle of things. There are explanations for the warming periods in the past such as increased volcanic activity, meteors, etc. In this case there are no such explanations while increased human caused CO2 release does explain at least part of it. Deforstation also interrupts the cycle of removing C02 as well as adding CO2 into the air from rotting or burning vegetation. The exposure of long frozen peat may add even more CO2. While those are part of a natural process, it comes into play because of man made causes which started them.
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.
The science says NOTHING conclusive concerning what part of global warming is natural and what part is due to human activity. Jury's still out on this one, at least to people who care about empiricism.
Almost but not quite correct. The general consensus among the scientific crowd is that roughly 50% of the increase so far is due to human activity. The other 50% would have happened anyway.
Now, this is admittedly only accurate to about 2 or 3 bits, depending on the model, and this isn't what you'd call engineering accuracy. When they say 50%, it could be 40% or 60% and still be within the error bars. They're hard at work adding another bit or two, but it's slow going.
Two bits is slightly different from nothing.
Hell, I have lots of fields in my data structures that are only one bit. Very few programmers would consider that "nothing". Sometimes one bit is all you need to get the job done right.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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
The planet did not experience "dramtic" global warming of this scale. It appears that our current changes are the fastest they have been.
Actually this is false, as any quick scan of the climate records prior to the last few Ice Ages can show. Rapid temperature rise are almost a necessity in order to hit the "tipping point" and start a new Ice Age cycle.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
"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.
But I thought we'd just evolve. I mean, what with our primate heritage and all.
Troll, I know I know. Mod be, Baby!
Not really. Assuming the people with an agenda are absolutely correct that there is global warming. How is this bad for humanity? By all standards, we're living longer and better now than when it was colder. So where's the problem?
I'm sure that plenty scary scenarios can be spun out of moonbeams, but the actual statistical trend is that warmer == better living conditions for Man.
(Species extinction is not a problem. Species die out all the time. So long as the species is not Man, I fail to see the problem.)
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
so when iraq elects a religious theocracy, democratically of course, do you think the US will let it happen? you will quickly see assassinate saying that the iraqies dont understand democracy or some shit like that and the US will appoint someone of their choosing. I guess completely traumatizing japan and having berlin divided for 1 generation is considered bringing democracy to those countries. One, was actually NUKED by the US and the other was cut up into little bits. Yeah those are great successes of the USA. you cant point to things as they are now 50 years after the us invaded those countries and say, "see, we knew what we were doing!". do you want to give iraq 30-50 years to become stable?
" If you'll recall, Somalia was (and still is) a hot spot for al Qaeda supported and trained insurgency. Having been deprived of their cozy little spot in Afghanistan, they're looking to set up shop in other chaotic places."
Thats it man. buy the fucking lies. theres no international Al Quaeda network, with cells in multiple countries. there are however, many terrorist groups, that are independent of one another. in most cases, these groups are fighting for local goals in their own countries. to think that theres some criminal mastermind (osama or whoever) orchestrating a worldwide conspiracy is fucking ridiculous. Did you watch any video from troops in afganistan? they found NOTHING THERE. no massive caves, with sprawling HVAC systems. No nests of terrorists. what they found were empty caves and frightened shepards. why? because the hype and propaganda that theres an international terrorist network IS A LIE. the people that they took into guantanamo bay, for the most part, were paid for by the americans/canadains/british per head. the truth of course, will come out when they close down that fuckign concentration camp and start having a bit more in depth reporting than the fact that the inmates enjoy harry potter books.
"and is exactly the sort of thing that has people like Zarqawi convinced that enough car bombs in Iraq will eventually get him that country as a playground for the mysoginistic, medeival-minded theocratic thugocracy that he'd like to see running the entire Middle East."
again, what if the iraqies say "well i know this party sets off alot of car bombs, but at least they arent the USA." you know, lesser of two evils and all that. You dont think that there are people in iraq that think that way? you dont think that a party that stood on the platform, whatever the motivations, islam or whatever, would FOR SURE not win an election? what if what the iraqies want is not what the americans want and are you ok with that even if it means a theocracy?
Help me out, here, with some post-Cold War examples."
Well chavez is a great example because the US tried to overthrow him and the people wouldnt let them. I believe the US backed guy was in office less than a week before the capital was taken back by the PEOPLE. Just because the americans, the CIA, are getting sloppier in their overthrowing of govts, doesnt mean they gave up trying. Oh and dont forget panama in 1989 (yes thats technically in the cold war but recent enough for my tastes). And of course theres Haiti, where a military coup in 1991 removed the democratically elected president Aristide. Although the US nor the CIA was ever held responsible, it is widely known that the leaders of the military coup were trained at the school for the americas (CIA) in the U
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
But I very much like to see his measurements too, just in case. And if someone wants to enlighten me in which ways those measurements are wrong, or mis-interpreted, then please, please, please tell me just that: exactly which measurements calculations are wrong.
A recent example of wrong data (ignore the jornalistic filling).
I'd like to see the whole global warming stuff just for once discused based on the facts, and _only_ the facts.
Haven't had time to do that myself, but if interested you might want to sift through the papers on arxiv.org.
should read:
you will quickly see americans saying that the iraqies dont understand democracy
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
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!
Well, I think one can not blame anybody for the alliance with Stalin in that situation.
I agree, but how different is that from our current relationship with the Saudis, which was one of the original GP's examples. The situation in the Middle East is not as extreme (yet) as it was during WWII, but the US supporting Saudi Arabia is somewhat more than just a self-serving action.
Find coupons in Greeley
I'll have to be honest, I couldn't make heads or tails from that graph without any context. I looked for an explaination on the rest of the web site and couldn't find where it came from.
I will say this, carbon cycles do occure and the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon is well known. While we have been producing CO2 and CH4 for 150 years and longer,
I think the difference here is an increased rate of CO2 release, releasing CO2 from sources where it (at least the carbon) has been locked up for thousands of years, and upsetting the cycles that remove the CO2.
Where we use to burn wood, oil and coal in homes and factories, we now burn it in homes, factories, power plants, and cars.
Where we once used wood which would have rotted and released CO2 and CH4 anyway, we now use much more coal and oil which has carbon which has been locked up out of the natural cycles for millions of years.
Where we once chopped down enough trees to build a house and stock our fires often using dead wood that would have rotted anyway, we now clearcut and burn millions square miles of forest a year which eliminates those trees from the part of the cycle that reduces CO2 in the air.
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?
The magnitude and even sign of the water vapor feedback is one of the biggest uncertainties in determining the climate sensitivity.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, which makes a positive feedback. But as you state, cloud cover also has a role. Clouds (whose formation is hard to predict in global models with resolution > 100 km^2) serve to increase albedo during the day but also serve as additional insulation during the night. It is hard to know exactly how the interaction of increased water vapor and increased temperature will interact to change cloud altitude, type, duration, etc. (and that's before you throw in changes in lofted particulates - BC, OC, SOx, etc. - which serve to change cloud attributes as well)
In any case, many groups estimate that the change in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 ranges from 1 degree to 5 degrees, mainly due to this confusion about the role of water vapor.
I'm glad that you're admitting your position is conjecture, because then it will easier to admit that it's wrong.
The "if you look hard enough" argument doesn't hold water here simply because you don't have to look very hard to find that the overwhelming evidence supports the reality of human-mediated global warming. Just because there happens to be extreme, obstinate polarization on an issue (and lots of google hits on each side), doesn't mean both sides deserve equal consideration. Unfortunately this is exactly what happens in the press in a misguided to effort to give "equal time"-- see this great piece on this topic at the Columbia Journalism Review.
There certainly is a sociology to science, and some truth to what you suggest--that scientists are biased toward proving themselves right. But, in fact, Kevin Dunbar has done a lot research looking at how scientists reason, and found that the more senior the scientist, the more skeptical and pessimistic they are about the import or validity of new results from their lab. With increased experience comes some jading from having seen enough studies not work out. Plus, with increased stature comes a higher perceived standard that one's work must meet, more attention and scrutiny from fellow luminaries, and just a lack of need to "prove oneself" to the field. So when the heavy-hitters in the National Academy of Sciences band together to say something, it pays to take them very seriously.
Anyway, when scientists compete theoretically, it tends to be over pedantic aspects that may be essential to the field, but have little bearing on the "big message." And as your parent poster notes, in the case of global warming, you're talking about the unanimous consesus of whole bodies of scientists--thousands of scientists in dozens of subfields. That's not the kind of position that can be dismissed with "oh, they just want to make themselves look good."
Maybe because the British are operating in predominantly Shia areas where there's not a lot of insurgent activity, so they don't have a lot of the "pressure cooker" thing going on?
Wolfowitz drive a hybrid. So do the other *real* neo-cons. They do it more for national security issues, though.
In fact, leaving aside the anthropogenic parts of the forcing and just running the models with natural forcing usually shows a slight cooling recently. You could say that the best estimate is that about 110% of the warming is anthropogenic, and negative 10% is natural.
see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/467.htm
The fraction of the observed warmng that is caused by humans is almost certainly well over 50 % and may well be over 100%.
mt
We didn't place the Shah, we returned him to power. Iran was a monarchy that existed since ~1500 (until 1979).
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was the last of the Shahs. He became Shah in 1941.
The Prime Minister of Iran was a man named Muhammad Mussadegh. He became Prime Minister after nationalizing Iran's oil fields (seizing British-owned fields). The British were pissed and formed a blockade against Iran.
From the link provided, things seemed to get a little complicated:
--> Mossadegh asks Shah for emergency/military powers.
--> Shah refuses.
--> Mossadegh resigns.
--> New Prime Minister appointed.
--> Iranian people outraged by new PM's policy of negotiating with British.
--> Shah fires new Prime Minister, brings backs Mossadegh (with full military powers).
--> Mossadegh enjoys popularity, has parliament give him new powers, he appoints a radical Muslim as house speaker, starts collective farming and other sociliast policies.
--> Mossadegh also fires a lot of military leaders loyal to the Shah.
--> They conspire against Mossadegh.
--> At this time, Britain and U.S. grow fearful that Iran will turn to the Soviet Union for aid/alliance. Agree to work to stop him.
--> Mossadegh knew of plots against him, rigged a referendum to get rid of parliament (he won with 99.9% of the vote). Extends his emergency powers.
--> Popularity for Mossadegh was decreasing (bad economy due to blockade and promised reforms not coming).
--> Mossadegh tried to convince the Shah to leave the country (because the Shah was a threat to him), the Shah refused and dismess Mossadegh, but Mossadegh refuses to quit, so the Shah leaves the country for his own safety.
--> Pro-monarchy forces (with aid and support from U.S. and British intelligence services) storm the capital and arrest Mossadegh.
--> The Shah now returns from exile.
After this, the Shah did become harder and more autocratic (he banned opposing political parties). He did some good things like modernization and suffrage for women, but he started to become repressive in the early 1970s and that's what lead to his ousting in 1979.
I let out more peat gas after three meximelts than the peat in Siberia does.
Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
"Help me out, here, with some post-Cold War examples. That's crucial, because stopping the tyranny of the Soviet Union was paramount."
How convenient, then, that there was something "more important" than "government with consent of the governed." I suppose the "War on Terror" is similarly crucial. It's nice to know the US always has Something More Important to work on.
At any rate, were we aiding democracy more when we put Aristide in power or helped him leave? How is democracy being served with our de facto support of a military junta in Pakistan? Interesting things have been happening in other central Asian countries, which we've at least turned a blind eye to in the name of "stratiegic interests." And unlike "Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland ect" these countries were actually part of the Soviet Union.
You bring up Chavez in Venezuela. It was interesting how quickly our national government moved to support the coup that temporarily overthrew him. And speaking about support from China, it's interesting how such a government could have Permanent Normal Trade Relations with us, demonstrating our willingness and desire to turn a blind eye when there's actual money involved.
There are probably more examples I could name, usually in the name of the "War on Terror" or even the older "War on Drugs," but the problem with CIA support is that the general public won't know much about it for another decade or so. So, for example, we don't know how much the US government is involved in, say, putting down unionization efforts in oil-rich Nigeria.
Right, of course, because the current way is the only way.
Were that I say, pancakes?
Please note and follow the link at the end.
First, take a moment to consider the context in which I was replying. It was an ill-considered troll feeding moment, and the GP's rhetorical silliness (traitors in the White House, neo-cons destroying space shuttles, our horrible economy, blah blah)
Certainly the space shuttle garbage was what tipped the comment off as a troll.
You would be very hard pressed to argue that there are not traitors in the white house though. The demonstrated fact of Rove's treason aside, the simple fact that our national energy policy was set in closed meetings which we, the ignorant masses are *still to this day* not allowed to know the details of and which included Ken Lay is one of the most blatant acts of treason ever commited in this country. That was Cheney with Bush's express approval. Can you provide an honest reasoned argument that this is not treason? A free country depends absolutely upon an open, transparent government. This administration has done more than any
(that I am aware of... certainly more than any in recent decades) other to eradicate transparency and to deny the people their ability to engage in that most patriotic of acts....watching their government's actions.
Add in their blatant media manipulation with the rape of the FOIA, with their replacement of actual scientists in various departments with industry shills, and you have what is known as fascism.
What else could you possibly call that?!?
How is even attempting to prevent the people from being able to watch the government (barring nuclear secrets, troop movements, and *actual* issues of national security) anything but treason???
We truly, acually, really are dealing with issues that could make the economic and social impact of 9/11 look trivial, and I have an interest in at least attempting to squash the "traitors in the White House" silliness
I agree that we are dealing with serious issues. We diverge where what you call "silliness" is in actuality fact as demonstrated by my argument above.
I feel that the last person who could be capable of actually dealing with the issues is one who hasn't got a shred of integrity left. From the people who he has surrounded himself with to the fact that he promotes those who have demonstrated the *least* competence to the fact that he is actively working against government transparancy and freedom in this country to his blatant lies while selling the Iraq war to his complete and utterly blatant disregard for the opinion of half of this country while claiming a mandate to his blatant violation of his oath of office by promoting an amendment to the constitution for the explicit purpose of discriminating against a group of people based solely upon blind hatred to the fact that his argument in favor of that and his argument in the Schiavo matter were diametrically opposed demonstrating pure hypocrisy.
All of these things together make him utterly useless in rational negotiations and diplomacy, and further he has taken America's name, integrity, honor, and standing in the world and dragged it down to probably its lowest level ever.
There is no greater force for democracy and liberty, right now, this minute, than the U.S., warts and all.
As I said this is an arguable point, but it is not a simple argument, and it is in no way clear that it is true.
I can argue that Chavez is actually a far stronger force in this direction than the US. Not trying to convince you that it's true or even that I believe it but to sketch a reasonable argument:
He stands as an example of how by rejecting the World Bank and the IMF's standard policies he has managed to have his country's economy not be devestated. He stands as proof of the
(really quite obvious) idea that selling off your entire country's critical infrastructure to foreign businesses will put you in a hole that you may well never be able to climb out of and that by not doing so, you will be in far better shape.
Further because he stands as a clear reminder that IMF/WB policies are a
You mean the Northern Resource Area, right?
Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
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?
I say again: Global Warning? Meh. Take a number, you'll find the dispenser next to the Y2k countdown calendar.
So, just because one problem was overblown, we can safely ignore all the others?
The problem wasn't even overblown.. Knowledgeable people got the word out and a crapton of programmers fixed the problem. Crap, I wish global warming would be handled in the same way.
"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"
First, stopping the soviets was used as an excuse to get involved in a lot of places we had no business in. Not to mention, the people we propped up to protect against the so called evil soviets were worse than the socialists we overthrew. But since you do want a current example, Pakistan (we are supporting a dictator who overthrew a democratic government).
Second, sometimes it's wise to pull out of a never ending situation rather than waste years, resources and lives on it. Things were not going to change in Lebenon with us there but we would always have been a target.
The same is now true for Iraq. They are going to have to fight out their battles themselves and as long as we are there, we will be a thorn to any government that allows us to stay. Our troops are not making the place more secure, and even more US troops will not make it more secure.
Look at Israel. I couldn't find their standing army numbers but by estimate, they have at least 500,000. All eligable men and women are required to serve 1 month a year in the reserves. I found the total eligable and divided by 12 to get 200,000. Another 100,000 a year reach military age where they are required to serve 3 years so that is another 300,000.
In their 50 years of existance and with at least 4 times the troops as us in Iraq, they have been unable to quell the insurgency in their own borders. They even employ much more drastic measures than our army. What hope do we have at stopping the insurgency in Iraq? Slim to none even if we plan everything right. With Bush, every plan has been wrong or too late. It's time to back out and let them decide their own future.
If they go along a path that does become a threat to us or neighbors (A real threat, not just Bush propaganda), Something can be done about it then with the support and help of the countries around it.
A lot of people like to drum up arguments that the world is a few thosand years old. They are wrong. They do not deserve equal time to inflict their superstition on children. They do not deserve their own "research grants".
In the case of climate change, there is a spectrum of scientific opinion, and the exact middle of it is being cast as "one side", while there is a pile of propaganda with a couple of credentialed paid advocates, pretty much outside the spectrum of scientific opinion or at best very much at the fringe (I'm being generous here) that is cast in the press as "the other side".
Whenever people see these as two contending scientific opinions rather than a political opinion arrayed against the great mass of scientific reseach, the propagandists win.
Of course junk science cuts both ways, but in this case the junk is on the side that says there isn't a problem, not on the side that says it is.
That all said, I regret my use of the word "unanimous", and I regret that parent picked up on it. I make no claim that all the membership of the scientific bodies I mentioned supported their positions. Note these are in some cases huge groups, and an occasional bad apple will stray in. The relevant bodies themselves are all agreed (a sort of unanimity), but it goes too far to say or imply that their memberships are *unanimous* about whether IPCC fairly represents the science.
That said, the not-quite-unanimous vast majority of scientists in relevant fields would agree that IPCC does a good job of summarizing the scientific evidence. It is a thorough, disciplined and responsible presentation of the center of informed scientific opinion on these matters.
mt
I think that just the fact that the BBC picked it up and was willing to run it adds some to its credibility.
At least they were willing to put their name to it, unlike some anonymous cowards...
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
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.
And it's only gotten 5 degrees warmer since the coldest part of the ice age. The other 4 degrees took hundreds of millenia. That last degree took only 50 years. And this at a time when the overall trend, due to solar activity and other factors, should have resulted in cooling (hence the less that 1 degree over the past 150 years--the first hundred of that saw a general cooling trend.)
That first 4 degrees transformed the planet, permitting ice masses that were up to a mile thick to retreat from about the 40th parallel to the artic circle. Since it happened gradually, the ecosystem was able to adapt, moving with the climatic zones. But 1 degree in just 50 years is a hell of a shock. Plants and animals are now trying to survive in climatic zones that they really don't belong in. In a sparsely populated world adaptation might take care of this, but the ecosystem is already under a strain. Populations aren't large enough to diversify, and movement between areas of climate is obstructed by human development of all kinds.
It isn't just a matter of everywhere getting 1 degree warmer. The average temperature in cities has increased 2 degrees over the past 50 years. The overall change is not an even one, and temperature differential change weather patterns. The change affects rainfall, turning temperate zones into deserts, lengthening storm seasons, and increasing rainfall in areas that may already have too much.
50% of the human race live in coastal areas that will be inundated if all land based glaciers melt. This includes the American eastern seaboard. The midwest, the primary food producing area, is running out of water, and hotter temperatures will speed this process up. The southwest is dependant on the same water table. And the southeast can look forward to longer and more violent storm seasons.
So, where will your grandchildren live?
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?
demonstrated fact of Rove's treason
Sorry, I've not only seen no such demonstration, I've heard quite a lot of information to the contrary, not least from people who work in the same organization as the woman in question (I live in the DC area - unless you're a complete basement dweller, it's hard not to make at least some friends in that arena).
Specifically, you've got reporters coming TO Rove, conversationally raising the established and commonly known fact that the former ambassador's wife was an analyst (not a covert operative) and that she was the one to bring up the issue of sending her husband on the trip to Africa to talk to his mining industry buddies. He not only mischaracterized his findings (or lack of them), he completely BSed about the nature of the trip and whether or not the White House was responsible for sending him (not!). The old "I was on a mission for Cheney and reported to him that..." was completely, absolutely false. He was uttering that nonsense in a completely political context, attempting to alter the political landscape. He's partisan, and doesn't even pretend neutrality in that area. The entire discussion of his wife's role in sending him on that trip came up (amongst reporters first!) in the context of getting to the bottom of which party was not telling the truth (Plame's husband wasn't, on numerous aspects of the whole mess). Role saying "Yeah, I heard that too," to a reporter that alrady knew her, her relationship to Wilson, her job, her role in lining him up for the trip, and her awareness of her husband's BS-ing about it after the fact... a reporter who already knew all of that telling Rove about it and asking if he knew the same - I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he swallowed some bait, but he didn't mention her name and sure as hell didn't commit "treason" by any definition.
Treason, in my mind, is more like using the last few minutes of your time in office as president to dole out presidential pardons to fugitive millionaires with family members that have promised to help finance your legacy library in Little Rock. Think you'll see Bush pardoning Ken Lay? Not hardly. Surprised that the guy running one of the biggest energy-related companies in the country might be asked for some input on how our government might relate to that industry? I'm not. Sort of like how I wasn't surprised that the previous administration tried to form a major revision to the very nature health care in this country while "behind closed doors," using the president's wife to run the process. Treasonous? No, just behind closed doors.
Personally I don't care how many meetings an executive branch official has as they form their personal opinions about how to form a given policy. The executive's actions under the policy are that which need to be transparent. We just now got an energy bill signed (it's been rotting in congress for years). There's nothing hidden or non-transparent about it in any way. There's a lot of nonsense in it to be sure, just like there is in the recent transporation bill. But you can see it, and know which congressman to roast for it (hint: the ones that have multiple federally funded bridges and highways named after them while they're still in office... say, Robert Byrd?).
disregard for the opinion of half of this country while claiming a mandate
Hmmm. So, Bill Clinton got elected with less of a majority than Bush. And yet, he acted on matters according to his own judgement and taste. Who says he was ignoring the half of the country that didn't vote for him? Likewise, Bush's team may listen, but there are very few policy issues upon which their general sensibilities weren't loudly advertised during the previous election cycle. And he got more votes than the first time around. He's really not doing anything (or skipping anything) that he did address during the election. Kerry's spectacular lack of saying anything specific is probably what cost him the election.
As for C
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Y2K was not overblown. It was simply dealt with.
Me (Blog)
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?
Not really. Assuming the people with an agenda are absolutely correct that there is global warming. How is this bad for humanity? By all standards, we're living longer and better now than when it was colder. So where's the problem?
Let's see, more violent weather such as hurricanes, less fresh potable water, and greater chance of the spread of diseases and virii. And what about desertification? That's not even considering what impact rising sea levels on populations living in coastly areas or what warm weather will mean to the Inuits and Saami who live on the ice.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Nothing but ad-hominems from you. Who was surprized?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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.
Just to clarify, many scientist already agree that it's too late to stop global warning. They're now recommending we start thinking of ways to adapt to it.
In the meantime, I while continue to enjoy the tropical climate where I live...in New Hampshire.
~X~
~X~
This is what some scientists believe happened on Venus.
~X~
~X~
Sorry, I've not only seen no such demonstration, I've heard quite a lot of information to the contrary, not least from people who work in the same organization as the woman in question (I live in the DC area - unless you're a complete basement dweller, it's hard not to make at least some friends in that arena).
And washington DC is that last place I would expect someone to lie to me. Your happen to have all the inside information that is on the Rove talking points. I wont stoop so low as to pretend I have inside information but I will point out the fallacy oh yours.
Lie 1: Plame was working under cover, not a simple analyst. That makes her covert and the CIA have said that her identity as a CIA agent was not know and was not suppose to be revealed.
Lie 2: She was an agent and does not have the authority to send ambassadors off on missions for the government. She may have reccomended him but someone with authority would have to send him. I wont pretend to know who that was but I know it wasn't her. He has only said he was sent by the CIA in response to questions Dick Cheney had about the issue. If he didn't mention her, perhaps because it was clasified she was in the CIA.
Lie 3: His mission was clear. It was already widely reported by the IAEA that the documents were bogus and he was sent there to verify that because there seemed to be 2 sets of documents. He came back and reported his findings to the CIA that the documents needed 3 signatures to be valid which they did not.
Lie 4: Claiming he is partisan is silly concidering he was first hired by George H. W. Bush rehired by Clinton and rehired yet again by George W. Bush and had not been politially critical of any of them. He only spoke out when Bush gave the state of the union address and stated that Saddam had tried to buy yellow cake from Niger. He knew this was not true and he knew that the administration knew it was not true. He did what I would expect of any American and point out we are being misled. He political views are a red herring especially since none of us have any idea what they were up until he broke the story of Bush's propaganda. He is no doubt anti-Bush now after seeing the way the truth is disregarded and his wife was put in danger.
Lie 5: None of us know what was said between Rove and the various reporters, unless someone has tapes. Pretending to know what was said is stupid. Rove said he didn't know the agent's name until he was told by the reporters, All the reporters except Novak said they didn't know until he told them. Novak hasn't said what he testified to as how he found out and who he told but judging by his actions, he's on the edge about something. Even if Rove didn't mention any names, it is illegal to cause someone to find out, as in giving enough information so they can find out on their own. If I were to say Maria Shriver's husband was a CIA agent, we all can find out who that is. If I knew it were true, I would be in trouble right now. By purposely not giving her name but saying his wife works for the CIA implies he knew it was true and was trying to split hairs to try and stay barely legal.
As for the rest of your rant, "Blame Clinton, Kerry, actors, and the liberal media" only gets you so far. Bush is a great guy (greater than Churchill, if you believe Ari Fleischer) but all his failures are because Clinton got a blow job? Come on, Bush has been a failure all his life. If he wasn't in the Bush family, he'd be on Jerry Springer.
Ooo look out for the evil space bacteria!
Try this for some real sciencey stuff, easy on the fiction.
Bah, stupid me, clicked submit instead of preview.
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.
It can _always_ be a candidate to be better understood, revised or outright discarded.
Of course, but, as I said, no scientist wastes their time trying to disprove accepted science. They may find a result which is inconsistant with accepted theory and publish it, but no one is going to try to disprove gravity or even go out of their way to verify it.
The moment one theory is put on a pedestal, it's suddenly taken as a 100% finished and definitive fact, that noone should ever question, it stopped being science.
That's some chip on your shoulder. If you want to challange accepted results in science, you have to work at it to be taken seriously. You learn the basic science in the field, you make an original contribution and that gets you credibility and the background necessary to work professionally in the field.
It's not that no one should ever question it, It that not just anyone should question it.
I accept the judgement of the leading scientists in the field -- that there is sufficient evidence for global warming caused by the effects of human activity. At some point, critics need to stop complaining there isn't enough evidence and start finding refinements for the accepted theory.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Damn these children shouldn't be allowed to mod.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Sorry, I've not only seen no such demonstration, I've heard quite a lot of information to the contrary, not least from people who work in the same organization as the woman in question (I live in the DC area - unless you're a complete basement dweller, it's hard not to make at least some friends in that arena).
I don't live in that area, so while I'm not a basement dweller, I have no such insights. I know that he has been fingered as the person who released that information. I also know a fair bit about his history, which is among the sleaziest in the sleaziest of all professions.
Given that there is nobody else (well, besides our enemies) who would benefit by the release of that information I'm really at a loss as to who else it could be especially given the administrations complete stonewall on it. So proven in a court of law? Never happen with this administration. Proven to me. Yep.
Treason, in my mind, is more like using the last few minutes of your time in office as president to dole out presidential pardons to fugitive millionaires with family members that have promised to help finance your legacy library in Little Rock.
Wow, I was really hoping it wouldn't even go to DvR
I hate both parties. Their very existence is completely contary to what this country could be. They exist solely to game the system.
Clinton is gone now, and Kerry never was.
The Bush family though is quite possibly the worst possible choice.
Good old Prescott was almost brought up on the treason charges he richly earned by trading with the Nazis while we were at war with them.
George senior was head of the CIA when Kennedy was assassinated. I certainly have no new information on that particular incident, but it is certainly critical that the details of that become public knowledge yet the records are sealed until everybody involved is dead. Again, I have no particular speculations, but if there is anybody in the world who would know the details he's it.
And given that you live in that area, you must know more than most that knowledge is power.
Then you have the fact that he was essentially president while Reagan was in office since Reagan was a vegetable. What happened there? Torture schools in Central America, various terrorists funded, trained and supplied (wow, including those who we're at "war" with now), the CIA taking an active role in the interntional cocaine trade (seriously check their website), trading drugs for weapons to sell to more terrorists since they couldn't get the money from congress to do it.
What happened? Well, good old George senior pardoned them all. Now they're making millions doing radio shows (Ollie North), or given control over Total information awareness (Poindexter... oh right, that went away when it didn't get the right approval numbers..sure it did).
Or good lord (different area of crime, but..) Henry mother fucking "The illegal we do right away the unconstitutional takes a kittle longer" can't leave the god damned country because he would get prosecuted for crimes against humanity in several countries and rightly so Kissenger was the first choice to head up quite possibly the single most important investigation in the history of this nation.
Then you have the S&L scandal. Oh good lord what do you know. Bushes galore were neck deep in that.
That was billions (some would put it at over a trillion) dollars stolen from you, me and everybody else. Wow, again nothing happens.
Then you have the 2000 elections. Well, if you can still defend any Bush at this point, you clearly haven't looked very deeply into what went on there.
So Clinton? Kerry?
If I knew nothing about them and you called them scum, I would not disagree based solely upon the nature of the system.
But three generations of organized, well orchestrated treason.... the comparison is nonexistant.
Personally I don't care how many meetings an executive branch official has as they form their personal opinions about how to for
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
"What we have in America currently is essentially socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us."
You call it socialism put when the prefered party gets the social benefits, it's closer to communism. At least communism as practiced by Stalin, Lenin and Hitler. When you add that to the capitalism for those not in the party, it's called fascism. I trust you knew that, I'm pointing this out for others.
"You mean the efforts we thought were farther along, in Saddam's pursuit thereof? That would be "we thought" as in, we and the intelligence agencies of a dozen other countries (including France, Germany, Russia, and so on)."
No, I think he means Saddam's WMD programs that both Powell and Rice said no longer posed a threat in 2001. I think he means the WMD that the UN inspectors said were destroyed in 1991. I think he means the nuclear material that was known about and secured by the IAEA, at least until the occupation by US forces which allowed much of it to vanish.
The lie that other countries shared the Bush administration's fears of WMD has fallen out of favor. The current lie is that we wanted to bring them peace and happiness and the freedom to buy big macs. Check your inbox for current talking points, will you?
"So, where will your grandchildren live?"
Is this a trick question?
Short Answer: Central or North-Central USA (tropical desert) or Central or North-Central Canada (temperate)
Long Answer: If the neo-Con(artist) faction aligned with the Dubya regime continue to have their way with corporate welfare and political pseudoscience, the very best governmental response will be rapid build-up of nuclear power plants and a major shift to an H2 economy. Since such major technological shifts that are detrimental to economic development will not be adopted by the fastest growing world economies, the effects of global warming will be slowed but not reversed.
With the exception of nuclear power plants on the Eastern Seaboard that will be protected by levees and pumps, the East Coast population will have to migrate to central and north-central USA or Canada. Considering that the same rising sea levels will extend the Sea of Cortez (MX) into the deserts of the Southwestern USA, solar power facilities located there will be flooded, as will the salt mines targeted for use as the national radioactive waste depository.
The West Coast of the USA will also be flooded, which will increase the number and severity of earthquakes there. Tsunamis will not only become more commonplace, they will also become more severe. Populated seacoasts of today, however, will not be effected since rising sea levels will have already forced those populations to inland highlands. Hurricanes will commonly be striking the coastal seaports of Shreveport (LA), Knoxville (TN), Huntsville (AL), and Pittsburg (PA).
I fully expect major wars will be fought -- not only over natural resources like oil and food and fresh water, but also over habitable territory and disputes over trade.
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.
Fair enough.
I was listening to some old MDC (80s punk band) recently and that was one of the lines from one song. That quote stuck in my head as amazingly perceptive given that it's 20+ years old now.
The heating of the sea is one of the effects, not the cause. So far no one has come up with a credible natureal explaination of what is causing the land, air and sea to warm up. There is a very credible explaination that humans have caused this by releasing carbon in the form of CO2 and CH4, carbom which has been kept out of the natureal cycles for millions of years.
Much like we reversed the growing hole in the ozone layer, if we cut down on the release of CO2, we may slow, stop or reverse the global warming. I agree more studies are needed to find out the best way to use our resources to do something about global warming.
More studies doesn't mean deny that the problem exists. More studies doesn't mean fire or otherwise discredit and silence scientists who publish articles on the problem. More studies doesn't mean cut funding to research of the problem. More studies doesn't mean sit on your hands and do nothing and hope the problem goes away. Maybe Bush just wants to study how he can make money off global warming before he acts.
How about this article in Science about what "the consensus" means:
/ 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
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306
This time when you read Mann et al or the IPCC report (knowing it has the weight of "consensus" and knowing what "consensus" means in this setting) it might have more of an effect on you. Maybe you won't be swayed by the 'balanced' reporting you see in the future. Maybe you'll see the riff on Goofus & Gallant in the humorous context for which it was intended (maybe you didn't know this was a riff; never read Highlights when you were little?). The public opinion on climate change has been bought and sold by lobbyists (that's the joke, Gallant isn't a scientist, he's a lobbyist); I see no problem poking fun at this. It's not about 'religion' or 'zealotry' it's about satire.
Anyway, sorry you had to take some guff from the haters.
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.
you my friend have NO IDEA how much energy it takes to move the temperature of a planet by one degree. if you would, you wouldn't write that non-sense
Strc prst skrz krk and vomit! Can help.
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.
Sufficiently advanced Chinese are indistinguishable from elves.
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.
If the system is corrupt, then everyone who successfully operates in it is corrupt. They call it "compromise" and "being realistic" and "being practical" and "getting things done in the real world" but it doesn't change the fact that if you participate in a corrupt system, you are a corrupt person.
I don't know if the scientific community that he's talking about operates in a corrupt system or not. Not my area of expertise. But if he can establish that it does, there is nothing at all unreasonable about pointing the finger at every single member who participates in it and stating that they are all corrupt. All that "few bad apples" rubbish is a very common position among those who are attempting to deflect your attention from the system and focus it on a few scapegoats who are particularly visible examples of that corruption.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
We are pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year. It's mind-boggling to think anyone could think that wouldn't have any impact on the atmosphere and thus the climate.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
attribute it. I got confused by the contribute part, which means to give or add to.
Logic, macros, and more
Speaking as someone on a pacific island: humanity would survive a 5m rise in sea level just fine, but for everyone around me, and a billion or so other coast-dwellers world wide, it will suck.
Your argument that global warming isn't a human species extinction event is hardly an argument against those who are saying it's bad.
And your argument that we shouldn't act until we've studied it to death is just silly. There's a balance between acting in complete ignorance and doing nothing until you've studied something to death. You don't seem to be willing to accept that.
::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.
While I agree that all of these false arguments were used in the original reply, that's okay: it's comedy. If it were in a formal argument form, it would be appropriate to point out the logical fallacies. As an intentionally comical piece, the logical fallacies may be used legitimately to make it funnier or to heighten the impact. If I am not mistaken, the most appropriate response, if you're up to it, is a satirical retort.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.