Slashdot Mirror
Ice-Free Summers Coming To Arctic
rocketjam writes "CNET reports that researchers from the University of Arizona and other universities have concluded that the Arctic will likely see ice-free summers within a century due to the increasing rate of global warming. The melting will raise ocean levels worldwide, flooding coastal areas where a substantial proportion of the world's population live. The increasing rate of ice melt is already having an impact on people and animals in the Arctic. Currently, researchers cannot foresee any natural forces that will counteract the trend."
Well, the melting of the Arctic ice cap would be annoying to several dozen polar bears, and it will have a very strong effect on Greenpeace members. As to its effect on sea levels, that's something a little less strong.
For something to float, it must displace an equal mass of whatever its floating in. By definition, the north polar ice cap is displacing exactly its own mass in water. If it were to melt, the displaced water would take exactly the same amount of volume as the submerged ice. This would cause the world's ocean levels to rise by the exact amount of zero plus the volume of several dozen annoyed polar bears.
Now, if the Antarctic ice cap were to melt, we'd be in a world of hurt. The southern ice cap does not float in water, it is on top of land which means that the entire volume of any melted ice is added to the seas.
As far as its immediate effect, salinity in the local area would be impacted if we say, microwaved it away from space in the span of a month. And although IANAOS (oceanographic scientist), if it were to slowly melt away over a century, the salinity shouldn't be a factor. And if it becomes a factor for some reason, we have time to dump barges of salt.
Of course, there is always the outside possibility of the lowered salinity disrupting the gulf stream and turning the entire earth into an ideal habitat for the polar bears, who experience a rapid genetic mutation from the additional UV radiation from the depleted ozone layer and hunt mankind to extinction for getting them all wet in the first place.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
I can see it now, given the remarkable anti-intellectualism sweeping the nation (and Slashdot recently) we are going to be seeing comments here like "Awww, them dang scientists. What do they know? There is no evidence for global warming just like there is no evidence for evolution. (or is that evulushun?)
Seriously though, the hurricane bearing down on New Orleans right now should give folks something to think about with respect to global warming. Specifically, the higher the water levels, the more potential damage that could occur from smaller storms. The big ones, like Katrina will deliver even more damage further inland than ever before. So, the evidence is mounting to the point where even the Bush administration is having to acknowledge that global warming is a reality.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
1) Wait for arctic to melt
2) Setup eco-tours for tourists
3) ???
4) Profit!
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
As the escaped penguins in Madagascar said when reaching the wind-blown South Pole, "This sucks!"
I guess I can stop packing my bags.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Queue up the crazy Republicans claiming global warming doesnt exist in 3.... 2.... 1....
Ice is less dense than water, so we might even see sea levels *decline*
-everphilski-
There's plenty of land mass above the arctic circle upon which thousands of feet thick ice shelfs rest.
Pardon me if I avoid the urge to shove my head into the sand.
Seriously though, the hurricane bearing down on New Orleans right now should give folks something to think about with respect to global warming.
Yes, indeed, it causes us to think about what it was like before Global Warming, when there were no hurricanes.
Global warming is as much a reality as global cooling, which happens quite frequently in the very short term past hundred years. The earth's climate fluctuates quite rapidly from year to year. CO2 levels fluctuate quite rapidly from year to year. It's a fact of the earth's geological history. What you fail to understand is that knowing global warming and cooling exists is completely different from suggesting that global warming is caused by man's exhaustion of carbon stores.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
wat i was trying to be ifnormative
I predict that with the increasing trend of global climate change ( note, not global warming which is a stupid idea that only works in theory ) the arctic will freeze solid!
Warm surface currents will be disrupted by increased higher lattitude heating and this will cause lower warm water circulation to the Arctic and during winter when no solar radiation is possible to provide other warming. The pole will be colder than ever.
In other news... MIT launched a course in advanced FUD studies for their buisness students
XML - A clever joke would be here if
www.climateark.org/articles/1999/sunsmayp.htm
The above link is one of the many sites that have for a long time been casting doubt on global warming. It appears that sunspots may have the strongest effect on the planet's climate.
Didn't we just have a bet between two groups of scientists about the climate being cooler in twenty years. I remember that in the seventies we were worried about global cooling.
party at the artic! i'll bring the beer. who's got the chips?
I thought the melting of Arctic ice will, in fact, reduce the ocean levels. This is because ice has a larger volume than water. It's the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps that increase the ocean levels. Of course, all these 3 happen at the same time.
The Raven
As others have pointed out the ocean levels won't rise from the Artic ice cap melting but the greenland glaciers melting will raise it by several feet. Glacierial ice is the big risk. Just the fact any of it is melting should a massive wake up call. Obviously the scary one woulf be the Anartic glaciers melting but that seems unlikely anytime soon. I beileve that would raise levels a 150 to 200 feet. More than enough to make Florida disappear entirely.
Not to start a big debate about global warming, but if there is one thing we know about the global climate it is that it is always changing. Maybe sometimes because of human behavior but most of the time it is just changing naturally. So before we ask Uncle Sam to ban a few more chemicals with nasty names or confiscate our cars and replace them with little sh*tboxes, we need to step back and examine the evidence. Clearly the climate is changing, but are we responsible or is this merely the course of nature?
I'm a proponent of the global warming theory, but this seems rediculous to me.
Besides that, I also give credit to the fact that ice core analysis shows great and rather sudden climate changes occur, and trends for a mere hundred years are not adequate to analyze the whole.
It would be like polling only 5 people in a local municipality to gage the preferences of the entire north american continent.
The earth's climate has been evolving for billions of years. 100 years is an inadequate sample size.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I think the real problem is when the weather swings the other way and we're all huddled round the nearest space heater and claiming the global cooling researchers are full of it.
Solar activity cycles? I heard a scientist from NASA say that we are on the high end of a cycle of solar output. In 100 years it is just as likely that we'll be on the low end of solar output.
I heard, (hearsay evidence, so check it out for yourself.) that their are paintings made in Holland from a few hundred years ago that show people ice skating on a river that doesn't freeze over now. That river was also never depicted as having frozen over before those paintings were made.
There are many variables that effect our environment. While we make an impact, and we should strive to lessen our impact... One scientists study... or a group of scientists work... should be taken with a grain of salt.
Bush, acting without the approval of his cabinet or advisors, pledged 100,000 GE air condititioners to recool the region. Go ahead, mod me -1. I dare you!
The good news: This one isn't on Google.
In all seriousness, I hope that this doesn't happen. I'm kind of fond of the climates we've got now.
Goo goo g'joob.
Someone has already explained that the arctic icecaps will have little effect on sea-levels because floating ice displaces exactly it's volume of water. But I have heard (and correct me if I'm wrong here) that the rising temperatures could have a huge effect on sea levels, because as the water heats it expands a little. Multiply that by a gajillion times and you'll see venice sinking quicker than a lead zeppelin!
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
The most conspicuous signs are the recent claim by the U.S. that the North West Passage constitutes international waters, followed by Canada and Russia both claiming sovereignty over their respective northern lands to the North Pole. The U.S. commercial interests would be well served by having open shipping across the north during the summer months. This summer the Canadian Navy sailed into Hudson Bay to fly the flag.
Personally I think the Canadian north in summer is adequately protected from intrusion by mosquitos and black flies in numbers not even a google plex could account for, and they're really big too.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Hmm, I was certain that there'd be a healthy (er, unhealthy) amount of people ignorantly crying "FUD!" by now... they remind me of Eddie Izzard's comedy routine about how Britain ignored the rest of Europe... "No, no, no I can't! (sticks fingers in ears) la la la la la la la la!"
-Vendal Thornheart
I have heard the same info from a someone at the Marshall Space Flight Center. This is a good comment and deserves a little recognition.
They have DSL up there?
*scratches head in confusion*
...cool!
*reads parent again*
...no, not cool...
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
If the world is warmer and the Arctic melts, which industries stand to profit? Should we invest in such industries?
And, on the flip side, which industries will loose out? Should we divest ourselves of these industries?
Such questions are on the forefront of investor's minds. Only when people are confident enough to believe the science will the financial mavens of the world take notice. Until then, those with enough scientific understanding of the claims can take advantage of the financial impact before joe-shmo on Wall Street does.
Of course, wall street has an advantage - it can lobby congress to support those future-benefiting organizations, whilest you cannot. Still, your investment will be well-founded.
So the question is how to strategically pick investments that will pay off with the trend. Sounds greedy and selfish but the tragedy of the commons will not be denied. So ideas
- Short ski resort stocks in fringe areas.
- Short insurance companies since hurricanes will tend to be more prevasive
- Short northern europe in general since the gulf stream will cool the area
- Buy energy stocks as more energy will be required to cool and heat with more temperature extremes
- Buy Wind, Wave, Solar, Nuclear energy stocks as the public will eventually demand more emphasis on non-green house gas sources.
Any other ideas?Firefox users get Hot Sauce at a discount.
" the Arctic will likely see ice-free summers within a century due to the increasing rate of global warming."
So the rate itself is increasing, not just the temperature?
On the up side, at least all of these freshly melted ice will result in cleaner oceans due to the chemicals and similar crap being diluted. Yay! I can go swimming again! Although the salt is pretty disgusting.
People are going to say that it's possible that global warming isn't a result of us humans and that it's a natural cycle of the planet. You're right, it might be a natural cycle of the planet, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Nature has killed off 90% of the ecosystem in the past (Permian to Triassic period). That aint exactly a good thing people.
And even though there's the possiblity (I won't go into how likely it is) that it's natural, shouldn't we do our best to counteract it's effects as much as possible? Even if it is natural? Because if it isn't, we might have a really big problem on our hands.
Or we can play the blame game, and argue whether it's man's fault or nature's fault, and possibly not pass on a liveable planet to our future children.
I have read that Mars is also going througn a period of glabal warming right now. If that is the case the only thing that affects both mars and the earth is the Sun. So more than likely that this is a issue with the sun putting out more energy now than it has in the recent past and this too will probally right itself with the sun cooling down in the next couple of hundred years.
What will happen to Santa Claus?
Will he be transfered to "Middle Earth"?
You must be from New Orleans.
Isn't the icecap frozen fresh water? Maybe someone who really knows can tell us if it makes a difference that it is frozen fresh water floating on salt water.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
You also forgot about acid rain. That was going to destroy all of our plant and animal life within 50 years. That was early 1970/80s hysteria - most people around here were too young to remember that. Of course the media got tired of talking about that and the scientists grant money dried up so we have moved on to something better - somethig even more GLOBAL and DEVASTATING!
But now we KNOW global warming is true. I mean just look around, everyone is talking about it. CNN, celebrities, Slashdot, some scientists. Cmon you KNOW its gotta be true if Sting says so!
Lets not let logic and the scientific process get in the way of our massive grants and hysteria!
And if you don't believe in global warming, you must be a REPUBLICAN!
When I saw the title "Ice-free summers coming to the Arctic", the first thing that came to my mind was...
The next century is taking this trend a bit too far, don't you think :-)
Hey, someone hand me my spray-paint can. I want to help speed up our continuing problem with pollution and mass-habitat destruction. Don't worry about plantlife or animals, they can all die out and we can continue using our greenhouses to grow what we need to eat. It's no big deal because we can just throw another barrel of oil under one of the Bushs' noses and they'll buy it.
At a rate like this, I think we should follow Iceland's lead in their aspiration for being the first modern country to be completely independant of oil. If we relied on synthetic lubricants, cleaner fuels (Like solar or hydrogen), then maybe we could extend that global warming to "never". This is all based on the asumption that we as humans don't populate Mars first. Excuse me.
Does this mean that the 2050 Hummer, H20, will feature a boat function to compensate for the rise in sea level? And will it still get 10 miles to the gallon?
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
because we continue to pump seawater into oil wells to make them more productive. As the wells produce less, they require more water to increase the pressure to extract the oil. For the moment (my "moment" I mean the next 100 years) it's a beautiful 0 sum equation. Once we run out of oil (100 years), and the greenhouse gasses decrease (75 more), and the polar caps reform (yet another 75), we will be looking at all sorts of new real estate..... Oh yeah, COBOL will still be around.... :)
Scientists can say that global warming is happening. Fair enough, they probably know their stuff.
What they can't say is *why* it is happening, and what if anything we can or should do about it. Who is to say in trying to reduce the effect we won't speed it up or make it worse?
Which isn't to say that we shouldn't study or try to understand it, but headings like this one don't help. What we need is properly funded research and a good sit down and think about it without trying to raise money and further careers through fud .
How do we know?
Please stop talking about the subject until you know the answer to that question. (I assume that you don't from your "Has anyone looked at the larger trends" comment, and yes, they have.)
Here a a few stats from a quick Google search or three-
The total area of Greenland is around 2,175,600 km2 (840,000 sq mi), of which about 84 per cent, or some 1,834,000 km2, is ice cap.
The average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is over 2000 m.
The area of the oceans is what, 360,000,000 km2?
Melt all of Greenland's ice and is that 10 meters?
Ouch. Er, glug...
Are we going through all this again? We hashed it all out here http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/2 0/1845247&from=rss
and I don't see the point in going over it again. What do we really hope to accomplish? You won't convince anyone, nor will they convince you. This bickering is pointless!
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
GWB will simply cut more high-end taxes, make the high-end deathtax cut(but with subsequent increase on the middle class increase) permanent, and pay 50B to Halliburton to rebuild the dikes in New Orleans, and then to drain it. Problem solved.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060805I.shtml
Climate: Doubt Is Lifted
The academies of science of all the G-8 countries, as well as those of the three largest oil consumers among developing countries - China, India, and Brazil, made an unprecedented political gesture yesterday when they signed a common declaration in London asserting that the doubt entertained by certain people with regard to climate change does not justify inaction, and that, on the contrary, a planetary action plan to conjure this global threat away must be embarked upon immediately.
The declaration by the best scientists of the most important countries of the planet, whose spokesperson did not hesitate to stigmatize the
United States' inaction, was immediately followed by a declaration from the American president, George W. Bush, in Washington...
Even in the article title it says "Sunspots may play role in global warming". How the h*$$ did you get that this article is casting doubt on global warming? It flat out states that global warming is occurring, but with possible influence from the sun. But nowhere does it say that global is not occurring.
What is sick is not that you were modded up, but that somebody on fox is reporting exactly what you are saying.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1) Get royal charter from 17th-century European King to find Northwest Passage
2) Wait for ice to melt
3) Claim it
4) ???
5) Profit
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Counterbalance that global warming with some nuclear winters! Works every time.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
"But that if doesn't apply here, where much of the water "above sea level" is resting on land not floating in water, does it?"
I understand it. You understand it. However "IANA...but" is in full gear around here. Esentially what happened with the Artic is like taking a big portion of it. Freezing it, then perching that on a land mass above sea level. NOT IN! Above! Improves your faith in humanity doesn't it, when it comes to global warming, when they can't even handle a simple logic problem.
George Orwell mentioned in a column (http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O /OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19441103.html ) that melons grew freely in England between 1600 and 1650, and asks whether the climate could have changed that much in three hundred years since they wouldn't do that in 1944.
We might be returning to the way things were, instead of having an Unprecedented Catastrophe.
I've not taken the time to muddle through the hundreds of replies below, so I apologize if this has been mentioned.
Does anyone remember the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow"? The same thing happened, which caused worldwide meteorological disasters. Would the same thing happen, do you think, or will the Earth weather it just fine (pun intended)?
OMGWTFBBQ!! We're DOOOOMED!!
This is not the greatest
EOT
Twenty years ago the self-appointed more-intelligent-ones told me I'd freeze to death. Now they say my great-grandkids will get their toes wet. Well, which is it? Maybe my great-grandkids will have their toes encased in ice and the mutate polar bears (see first reply) will eat them. That'd server those ungrateful whelps right!! Tell you what, making fun of an old man like me I...I...is it cold in here? Where are my teeth? I miss the old days when the only thing I had to worry about was those sneaky Rooskies.
"Currently, researchers cannot foresee any natural forces that will counteract the trend." Since when have weathermen been able to accurately predict a weather pattern more than 24-hours in advance? Expecting any scientist to be able to forsee a weather trend decades or centuries in the future is a tad hopeful.
Isn't it the same thing? A certain amount of water is going to have a smaller density when frozen, therefore a larger volume. So if you melt floating ice it's not gonna increase ocean levels
The Raven
this is just more bs from the liberals that are tearing down my church. im so sick of hearing about this shit
The penguin will meet the same fate as its OS.
"...if people respected copyright more, like you guys do with the GPL so religiously, [the DMCA] wouldn't be necessary."
Erm, well, no I don't remember.
I amazoned for the crackpot book that you must be referring to, but can't find any books published in the past 30 years whose premise is that we are headed for an ice age.
the magnetic poles are supposed to reverse (flip) sometime between now and then next 700 years
Pole reversal has happened but predicting when is another favorite topic of those crackpot books you are reading.
and we have at most 2000 years of recrded history
You wagged school and stayed home to read "The Young Person's Old Testament" didn't you?
The fact that 99.99% of the worlds climate experts say that human activity is effecting the global climate - and the fact that scientists in the other 0.01% once worked for tobacco companies and now work for the Bush administration makes me think that you are talking crap.
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
For something to float, it must displace an equal mass of whatever its floating in. By definition, the north polar ice cap is displacing exactly its own mass in water
That's neither "by definition" nor in actual fact; significant parts of the ice in the arctic rest on solid ground. When that ice melts, it will raise the sea level. It won't be anywhere near as dramatic as when the southern polar ice cap melts, but it will have an effect.
Clearly this process is currently beyond ability to predict, so this is an adjustment, not a warming.
Furthermore, this process is too complex to be naturally occuring, so some intelligent hand must be guiding the temperature changes.
I really think they should be teaching Intelligent Thermal Control as an alternate theory is school science classes.
I was recently in Barrow, AK where I spoke with some leading climate researchers with the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium. I spoke with several researchers with PhD's in varying fields, and people with NOAA and the National Wheather service. Many of them have seen drastic changes in sea ice cover over the past few years. The Ice now forms in the middle of December instead of October, and the break-up in early spring rather than June.Several of the Inupiat elders have seen even more drastic changes over the past eighty years.For someone to deny the existance of global warming seems ludicrous.
A few hundred years ago the world was a warmer place: grapes grew in England; the Vikings moved to Greenland and it was green (hence the name).
Then it gold colder. The grapes died, and the Vikings got sick of snow and ice.
Now it's getting warmer again but oh no: It's global warming! It's pollution! We're destroying our planet with all the microwaves!
Remember the 1970's, people? "Scientists" like Dr. Steven Schneider were not pushing Greenhouse Theory back then, oh no, they were pushing the coming Ice Age! One of my favourite Schneider quotes is:
Weather cycles ya know, people. It's big, sometimes it's ugly, but most of all it's natural!
Obligatory link to EdGCM, the climate model that you can run on your own Windows or Mac computer:
http://edgcm.org/
Space and Computers.
Chicken Little was right all along, the world is doomed! If global warming doesn't kill us we'll surely all die from hurricanes, AIDS, cancer, global cooling, terrorism, polarity shift, deforestation, killer whales, cyborg aliens or some other ailment that has yet to be discovered.
Finally, the economic change - read as depression - that would come from doing "drastic" things stands a good chance of killing as many people as climate change might.
There is not an iota of evidence that reducing carbon emissions would lead to a depression. Quite to the contrary: it is quite clear that an aggressive move to energy efficient technologies would create new jobs and growth, and would lower operating costs. Scrapping the energy inefficient technologies of today and building new power plants and factories is probably the best thing that could happen to the US economy.
The only people who stand to lose are the people who have large investments in current, inefficient technologies.
First off, we just don't understand what is happening or why.
I'm sorry you haven't been paying attention, but we do understand what is happening and why it's happening.
Unfortunately, if we are in a position where human-added CO2 is the root cause of all of this, we cannot afford the luxury of these kinds of measures. Sure, they might have some effect and that might help. But if we're the cause of climate change, far, far more drastic measures need to be taken right now.
As comparison with other Western nations alone shows, the US could easily cut its CO2 emissions in half without any decrease in its standard of living; quite to the contrary: a serious program to do that would increase the standard of living and create jobs.
Furthermore, if you think you can't "afford" that level of change, what do you think loss of what is probably going to be 50% of the currently inhabited area of the US is going to do to quality of life? Because that's what's going to happen if the trend continues.
Secondly, the third-world countries would bitterly oppose anything that cuts them off from the developed world or limits their exploitation of fossil fuel energy.
They sure do, because the message we are sending right now is that we want to limit them while continuing our wasteful energy use, since our negotiating position is to use our current, wasteful usage as the basis for future budgets. I suspect developing nations would easily agree to a uniform global per-capita energy and fossil fuel budget.
Funny you should cite "Tradegedy of the Commons" as it is being used here circa 1968 to warn of the coming overpopulation "crisis", an in-vogue crisis of the 1970's that never really materialized. Of course, at the time the theory was used to further Communist (Maoist, mostly) doctrine like centralized control of breeding, land, human capital, etc. The belief in the coming droughts and famine caused by overpopulation was widely accepted in the scientific community as unavoidable without drastic action.
Global Warming is the latest chapter in this saga. There's always some disaster waiting just around the bend, courtesy of capitalism, personal responsibility, and liberal property rights.
BTW, the Nature article you cited actually argues that the temperature record is hopelessly compromised because of unknown inaccuracies in the measuring process. The scientists appear to be fudging the numbers in the direction they would like them to be fudged.
If there is no global warming, there is no global warming funding.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Okay. Evolution. See that? Foundation of modern biology? Now, that's just a theory. You don't want to believe that.
See this? We are DOOMED. It is OVER. We are industrial pigs who will OMG DESTR0Y T3H PLANET. And we MUST STOP USING CARS.
NOW.
Humidity is measured as "relative humidity". That is because warmer air can hold more water in it. If the global temperature were to rise, the amount of water in the air (think clouds) will go up. Is this more or less than the expansion of the water in the oceans?
So there is a chance that the oceans could stay level or even go down as the global temperature rises.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
the whole "it's natural" versus "it's manmade" discussion is pedantic and boring
we can seed the oceans with iron and suck out carbon dioxide
and we can belch out enough burning whatever and push in carbon dioxide
the point: stop talking about blame, start talking about controlling the thermostat
if hurricane katrina in new orleans right now isn't argument that people should control the environment for the sake of:
1. the economy
2. the population
3. the environment
4. the ecosystem
i don't know what the heck is
the argument is dead people: who is to blame for global warming?
who cares
let's just start seeding the dead areas of the pacific with iron and start controlling the thermostat and cooling things down
are you worried about species of plankton in the dead areas of the south pacific?
good for you
i'm worried about the whole planet, so who cares if you can't keep your eyes on the big picture
the earth might have gone hot and cold a lot of times in the past
but now it's blanketed in supposedly "intelligent" lifeforms
supposedly intelligent because we haven't seen if we can stop bickering about pointless esoteric minor issues and start just fixing the dang problem, whoever is to blame, because our survival is in balance
prioritization, it's a funny concept
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...are pissed off now! It would have been so much easier without all that snow! ;-)
Are you arguing that we knew more about science in the 80's than we do today?
Have you any measurable evidence to indicate that the assumptions presented today about the Earth's atmosphere is wrong?
Do you really think that "What if" is a reasonable method of rebutting findings that have been scrutinized and honed under the process of the scientific method?
To illustrate, what if all the atoms of the world were really made up of chocolate?
Great. A post that violates freshman physics and it gets modded up as insightful. I trust it is the moderators who are the fools, as I assume the parent was just making a joke.
So, moderators who voted this 'insightful' instead of 'funny': if you add cargo to a boat, are you suggesting it won't sink deeper into the water (thereby displacing more water) if you make sure to place the cargo above the water line?
The lesson here is important: Change is Bad. Whatever happens, change is bad. A perfect world is one which never changes. Any change in the world is going to force people to change! No one should ever have to change. Everyone's life should stay the same, forever. A perfect world is one of perfect stasis.
Change is bad. Remember that when you read any article like this. It is the fundamental basis of modern philosophy.
An Asteroid hit would counteract it! Sending up millions of tons of dust into the atmosphere, blocking out the sun!
Get it, like it killed the dinosaurs!
Wow... that was bad. If I could, I'd mod myself down for that one.
And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be bannana-shaped.
"HermanAB?" AB? You're in the Canadian Rockies, what exactly were you expecting?
Thank god I just bought a diesel Hummer today. With all this global warming and shit, I am gonna need a big ass truck to drive around in soon to be Florida wetlands.
Well, I just had to add my two cents.
The article Tragedy of the Commons addresses the economics of common usage resources and over population was only one aspect of the article. The author, Garrett Hardin, makes no dated predictions but was defining an aspect of human behavior and economic reality when a "commons" is a resource used as though it belongs to all and cost little or nothing to consume more of the common resource. The principle has been demonstrated repeatedly in the small scale (google: ocean fisheries depletion, easter island, north american bison, email spamming, over grazing on public lands, etc)
As far as your connection of the tragedy of the commons to Communist agenda i have never heard such a connection (nor could I google any connection). In fact, I would say that since "the commons" is a central feature of Communism it would take mental gymnastics to justify communism via the ideas in the Tragedy of the Commons which argue against the economics of common ownership and if anything support private ownership.
Strange that you would refer to the overpopulation issue as not having materialized. At the time, that it was brought up, if nothing was done, there were going to be some odd 10 Billion ppl on the planet by 2000. Well, we have only 6 billion here in 2005. And yet, China and India has for several decades severely limited child birth. And that does not count the fact that South and Central America has made great stride in pushing the use of Birth Control. In addition, here we are with major starvation occuring throughout Africa, Asia, and Central/South Americas, I guess that it is simply an issue of transportation.
For no issue with overpopulation, it is strange that Colorado congressman (Nazi Tom Tancredo) is fighting against any influx from Mexico. Of course, now, GWB and other NeoCons are suddenly backing Tancredo on this. He feels that allowing illegal from Mexico will only encourage them to have more children there. IOW, they are overpopulated already.
But I guess since overpopulation is not a problem, well neither is pollution. And likewise, the debt that America is running up is really not an issue. But be sure to watch out that you do not fall off the edge of the planet.
I've checked some of the historical temperature curves and even in the last 2000 years there's been times (50 years or more) that were warmer than today. Still, even here in Holland where we are below sea level and in times there were no sophisticated dikes, people survived and the Netherlands didn't disappear..
I'm convinced that the human race is making a negative impact on environment, but I'm not so sure all the doom scenario's about flooding are so real.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
BTW, the Nature article you cited actually argues that the temperature record is hopelessly compromised because of unknown inaccuracies in the measuring process fta cited "We are converging, we are definitely getting closer"
Where is the unknown inaccuracies you are alluding to?
I recently spent a week in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and gained an interesting perspective on pollution, conservation, and so on.
Sao Paulo is a wonderful city, full of wonderful people, and I enjoyed my time there very much. However, there is a river there, one that is quite dirty and polluted. It's so polluted, you can smell it for miles. This is what cant happen when the voices for conservation, for the environment are ignored.
Republicans started the conservation movement (Teddy with national parks, Nixon with the clean water act of 1972, more).
Why has the environment become a right versus left argument? Why do some very devout Christians feel the right to pollute and trash God's gift?
Non-constructive
By politicizing every single new scientific piece of information published, you are not helping us gain a better understanding of our planet.
Non-fooling
Additionally, what do you expect us to say? "Oh my, how could I ever have thought you were politizing science, hurricanes clearly show George Bush is an idiot, will you please be our new leader."
Excellent. More beachfront housing will soon be available!
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
> You also forgot about acid rain. That was going to destroy all of our plant and animal life within 50 years.
a) Who was predicting that?
b) Are you unaware that we took action when we understood what acid rain is all about?
> And if you don't believe in global warming, you must be a REPUBLICAN!
No, you need only put short-term profits over our long-term well-being. That's not quite a 1.0 correlation with being a Republican.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Anybody who uses that overused phrase should have their internet connection severed for 30 days minimum.
Have you ever thought about what reduction of pollutants really mean versus the usual rhetoric of extra costs will make our economy suffer? Sure if you only look at reduction of pollutants through the lens of adding extra equipment to reduce emissions after-the-fact. It's a one-time cost that doesn't add anything to the bottom line (other than the industry who's producing the equipment). That's assuming you don't care that pollutants were drastically decreasing the health of the people living around such industries.
But think about it this way? The best way to reduce emissions is not the emit it at all. Instead of adding equipment to transform/filter emissions afterwards, you could modernize a factory to be more efficient. A factory that's 100% more efficient would not only produce 50% less emissions but also use 50% less energy.
Yes, it's a big one-time expense to modernize a factory. But now you're looking at lower operating cost over the rest of the lifetime of the company. As more companies do this, the economy gains even more -- lower demand overall means the price of energy goes down. Other than the oil/electric industries, it's a win for the entire economy.
Hear, hear. The Tragedy of the Commons is an excellent study of a nasty aspect of human behavior.
Let me add: for the record, Communism did an even worse job of managing Russia's natural resources than state-managed capitalism has in this country.
See:
http://www.infomanage.com/environment/russia.html
But there's always some fossilized coprolite willing to blame ideas he doesn't like on "the enemy." I bet he thinks people download mp3s because of Al Quaida.
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
Global warming is an ALTRUISTIC reason to persue alternative energy. But, precious few great social changes happened for altruism. Real social change almost always stems from reasons economic in nature.
The biggest reasons to persue alternative energy options are ECONOMIC in nature! If the United States were to aggressively persue alternative energy (biofuels, solar energy, geothermal, nuclear, etc)
the following things will result:
1) Money spent for energy stays in the US economy. It does not finance the next round of terrorism, it does not deplete the US economy worldwide, it stays here at home to pay for and feed US citizens.
2) The sovereignty and power of the US depends on the political stability of the most unstable political climate in the world - the Middle East. The peoples of the Middle East have been at war in various forms for hundreds of years! By developing energy sources from the homeland, we provide enhanced security and stability for the United States. If we aren't busy raping the Middle East, why would they be mad at us?
3) Jobs jobs JOBS! An extension of item #1, researching and building the infrastructure of solar arrays, geothermal plants, and semi-superconducting power transmission lines will create many thousands of jobs at home, rather than Arabia.
So, how about it, conservatives? It's not about "global warming" or some hippy-liberal agenda, it's about national sovereignty and economy. Are you game? Or are you more interested in pandering to the oil elite?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
would like to take this time to assign at least a little of the blame on myself, as I have been venomously consuming all the natural resources in my kitchen.
I have been mulling over a two step resolution plan, it goes:
1.) Lie to loved ones...
2.) Hide the evidence...
Should one and two fail, steps three and four will be posted on a need-to-know basis.
As someone else has already pointed out there is ice not floating in water on glaciers in Greenland. That's most likely where the iceberg that sank the Titanic came from. Also, you forget that liquid water expands when heated. Increased temperature of the oceans results in higher sea levels because the water takes up more volume.
AccountKiller
Crank up the sun a notch or two. Take temperature readings.
Will you see higher daytime temperature, higher nighttime temperatures, or both but with daytime predominating?
Common sense tells you the same thing that math would tell you. The sun warms us up in the daytime.
Now try a different thought experiment. Imagine that someone's changed your atmosphere so that it insulates better against heat radiating into space. Will you see daytime temperatures go up more, or nighttime temperatures go up more?
That's right -- you'd see more change in nighttime temperatures.
Guess what we're seeing in contemporary measurements?
Well, IF we lose the ice caps, which is entirely plausible, and IF the gulf stream doesn't turn off producing an ice age, then you could see the sea level rise by quite a bit. They were saying one foot over the next century, but some wit here on Slashdot pointed out that the mass of ice on Greenland alone would increase the surface level by 42 feet or so. I don't know if I buy THAT, but let's have some fun with it anyway.
I live in upstate New York, at 210 feet above sea level (God, I love the Catskills!). Being a mountain dweller, I can look on with some amusement as all those stuck up, smug folks down in NYC find out what it's like to live in Venice. Also, I can go on vacation in Venice, right here in New York, which is nothing to sniff at. Instead of gondolas, we'll probably get gypsy cab drivers in Zodiacs flying down the block at forty miles an hour yelling "GET OUTTA THE FUCKIN' WAY YOU PIECE-A-SHIT!". VERY entertaining.
While us East Coast types will take refuge in the mountains, as no doubt will our Californian counterparts (they'll benefit because the earthquakes will be underwater, thus causing great waves for all their surfer population and stealing business from Hawaii) I think the relatively dumber central and southern states are going to have a rough time.
First of all, the Mississippi is going to flood all the way up to Illinois or thereabouts. The Gulf of Mexico is going to be a LOT bigger. Texas is basically gone, folks (Hooray!). New Mexico has some high ground, so maybe it'll be an Island state. And Arizona has the bottom tip of the Rocky Mountains so everyone can head up to Flagstaff with the hippies, which isn't that bad a fate. Phoenix was too damn hot anyway.
The Southeast will probably be gone, but nobody will notice. Hawaiians will just wait for the volcanoes to grow another few dozen feet, no big deal there. Throw a few virgins in, please the fire gods, the mountain grows, and Bob's your uncle (as the British say).
Big changes, big changes. Should be interesting!
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
I'm really looking forward to my crppy house becoming a beach front bungalo.
bring it on...Eat more beans....
The only way is up.
Not that I disagree with you about media making things sound worse than they are, but acid rain was actually a problem, and the reason the news stopped talking about it was that we did what engineers do to problems... we fixed it. And, the problem being fixed (emission regulation techniques are actually pretty cool. A good exercise in applied chemical engineering) the sensationalists found nothing left to complain about. So they moved to climate fluctuation, which they knew was unpredictable and uncontrollable enough that no aspiring engineer would steal their thunder by quietly fixing the problem while they weren't looking ;)
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
In defense of the Republican party, here's some sarcasm directed at the opposing parties:
Democrats: Yeah, and handing out free money to the poor people definitely wasn't a stopgap measure at the cost of a long-term solution to poverty. Nor were government-sponsored construction projects, or government subsidies on domestic crops.
Communists: Yeah, and eliminating personal property sure wasn't a measure to provide short-term idealistic gratification at the cost of long-term motivation and productivity.
Libertarians: Well, actually these guys are all about making short-term sacrifices for long term economic health. Their method probably won't work, though.
National Socialists: Yeah, let's start a war to give the economy a temporary boost and then destroy a lorge portion of our workforce in order to pacify our crazy leadership. That SURE isn't a short-term strategy that ignores long-term ramifications.
The Elder Party: No way summoning up an ancient evil from sunken R'yuleh could have long term ill-effects...
Any party proposing a radical overhaul of the current system: Yes, putting a new system in place without regard to previous evidence as to how humans work in practical situations for temporary gratification surely won't have a bunch of malefic effects when actual human nature reasserts itself down the road... (ok, so i guess the libertarians go here, too).
So, yeah, in the context of the united states where we're something like 40% registered republican, I think your correlation ratio is more like 10:4. Stop being so insufficiently cynical.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
La la la, I can't hear you.
What, Global Warming? Why should I care when there's money to be made, la la la.
Something I don't understand about the people arguing that sea levels won't rise when the temperatures of the earth's atmosphere rises, is that they are completely ignoring historical evidence. We have a bullet-proof geological record that shows the sea level going back and forth all through the history of our planet, and that the water has been up high when the atmosphere has been warm, down when it has been cold. Is it the continental ice? Volume changes of the water because of changes in temperature? Salinity? We can't be 100% sure, but there sure aren't many other possibilities to explain the changes.
Melting icebergs may not be the major factor, but continental ice sure as hell must be.
Who knows what it will be like 100 yrs from now. Especially if we change our behavior, that is if we are the major cause of this.
A warmer climate ought to lead to more evaporation from the oceans and in turn to more precipitation. If a lot of that falls on antarctica you could end up with more of the world's water being locked up in non-floating ice and hence a lower sea level. At least for as long as antarctica stays cold enough to keep it all frozen. Has anyone looked into or modelled this? It would be interesting to hear the results.
The Greenland icecap is mainly in the arctic and not floating. If this melted it would raise sea levels quite noticeably.
Start a global thermonuclear war. Resulting post-nuclear winter is granted to lower the world's temperature.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
>>More than enough to make Florida disappear entirely.
Well, atleast they would not vote for next "there is no global warming Bush-in-line after that!
The current forecasts of several serious astrophysics forecasters, based on several current solar and astrophysical phenomena, is that substantial cooling is likely over the next 10-40 years, over the log(CO2) forcing. The Irkutsk crowd http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981669/po sts, Corbyn http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.02/weather_pr .htmland Landscheidt http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.ht mlstate this quite emphatically in different ways. Stay tuned.
Maybe back to 70s (worried about global cooling and bell bottoms again). Guess the warming was nice while it lasted...
By definition there cannot be ice-free Arctic. Therefore, the Arctic will shrink, and we'll see more of subarctic Tundra. Even the Tundra will disappear in time because Tundra has to have ice underneath, and constant over-0 temps will heat the ground below. So we'll see forests creep upward.
All a part of geological cycles. Why is this news?
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
An' how does that gosh-durned hurry-cane KNOW when the water is more than 94F, eh? Tell me that, boy!
We were all taught that any floating mass displaces an amount of water equal to its weight. So the sea-level as a result of Artic ice meting won't change. Or will it?
This just came up on BBC news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4184110.stm
An article describing possible links between the massive die-off of species experienced 250 mio years ago and ambient temperature increase due to CO2 buildup.
It's the Greenland ice, the Canadian and Siberian ice (and even permafrost) that, by melting, can add water to the ocean, resulting in rising sea level.
Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
What about world jump day? all that is neeeded is for 600,000,000 people to jump at the same time in july of next and we can fix global warming. check it out and sign up!
-1: flamebait should really be -1: inciteful
coz its bird flu that will be the death of us all this time.. ;)
The other day I was cruising around my suburb in Sydney and it was blanketed in a fog-like covering of bush fire smoke.
Evidently the fire department was doing some back burning on the weekend, but the result was thick smoke spread over several suburbs, maybe more.
And it made me think how nature can so easily overwhelm what we consider to be major impacts to the world.
That tsunami kicked ass.. Hurricane Katrina can probably do more damage to New Orleans in a day than the US Military could do in a week.
So global warming? Nah.
No, do you understand the full workings of our global climate? No, me either, in fact nobody does.
Well, there are quite a few scientists that would disagree with you... We know how the most important cycles work and we know all too well how the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion is working. We dont entirely understand the laws of thermodynamics, but that doesn't stop us from being able to utilize what we DO know about it or to make correct predictions using what we know... Just because we don't know *everything* doesn't mean we don't know *anything*
Global warming has been studied for a few dacades now, and it seems that a lot of the people left saying 'Let us study it more before we move a finger' are the ones that supported the Iraq invasion based on the unresearched and poorly documented reasons provided by partisan intelligence... Maybe thats when you should have advocated due diligence and rational thought before action?
OK, so I am mixing topics and generalising, but it strikes me as odd why a whole demographic (conservative republicans), who are largely intelligent, educated and reflected individuals would all follow Bush line of rejecting accepted science in order to preserve some economic status quo of a select few (or whatever the motive is)..
Or am I wrong in assuming that the stance in the Iraq war and G.W. are based on the same motives?
Also, am I wrong in assuming that most of the; 'We don't know enough', 'The scientists are lying to get more grants', 'It would kill more people trying to fix it','Let's study it another 20 years first' proponents are in fact mostly republicans? As a non-american with an interest, I am actually wondering... Has the repulican party lost votes from scientist communities due to the 'anti-scientific' philosophy? Or is that just the black-and-white version of cons. republicans we are being fed overseas?
-Stan
Old folks' homes. Seriously. I work at one part-time bringing my m4d c00k1ng sk1lls into their twilight years; our parent corp, is expanding aggressively and the owners are absolutely rolling in the $$. Talked it over with my financial advisor (I have a small bit squirreled away with ML), he agrees with the aging boomers, it's going to be ludicrously profitable over the next 20-30 years.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Let's think logically.
Frozen water takes up more space than liquid water. The artic is made up of ice with no land (as opposed to the antartic). Now it is known that most of the ice exists below sea level.
If the ice melts, the global water level will go down.
Please, prove me Wrong.
of global warming, regardless of what percentage is caused by human activity, is all the new business opportunities for civil engineers (dikes, dams, canals, roads and seaports), as well as for the construction trades and real estate markets.
Not unlike the USA's present BRAC (military base relocation and closing commission) findings, that
(unsurprisingly) would relocate many military units to the state of Texas.
And the only reason that any scientist ever had to support phrenology was the same.
Scientists are just as human as any other human (including politicians), and are just as likely to be power/money-hungry. The fact that science is a field where one can make a lot of money and have a lot of influence doesn't keep corrupt people out of it.
Famous and historically revered scientists have been known be pressured into making false public statements. (Gallileo is a prime example.)
Even more common is the tendency of all humans to find reasons and data that support our desired conclusions NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO BE NEUTRAL.
Of course, scientists are also just as likely to be honest and kind people as the next guy too.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Could be the "Cancun" of 2020 at the rate things are changing!
Ok. There's been a ton of debate and presentation of scientific arguments as to whether or not this will happen. If we assume that it will, that there is enough evidence, what do we do about it? (And by "we" I mean both all people, and those of us in America where we produce a large portion of greenhouse gasses.) Vote against Bush? People tried that - didn't work. Carpool? - I do that. Buy a low emissions vehicle? - My car has ok emissions, but not the best. Write a letter to my congressman? - Haven't done it - don't think it will do much, but I can try. All these contributions are small-fry personal decisions, when the problem is large. What is the solution? Is there an environmental lobbying organization that would be worth donating money to? Are there alternative engery sources that can be mass marketed that will reduce energy consumption in homes?
brought to you by the human species. I've been saying for years now that we're murdering the world, but I didn't realize just how bad it could be. 95% of all species. Gone. Of course, it could be not that bad. Or it could be worse.
We're the idiots on the mountaintop pushing rocks down the mountain - and triggering a massive landslide.
Am I the only one who would love having an irrefutable reason to pour all of our money and technology into space exploration and colonization?
// goes back to reading Science Fiction
"There is not an iota of evidence that reducing carbon emissions would lead to a depression."
l
i mateGraphAnnArborSourceStateOfFearByMichealChricht on.jpg
h tml
6 &subsecID=900039&contentID=252175
2 374,1098635,00.html
See late 1970s stag-flation in the United States.
Wikipedia will help you understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
Oil, like food and land, is a critical component of today's economy.
It's less critical than it was (as measured by carbon intensity), but it's still important.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/trends.htm
That's not to say that we can't do more to reduce carbon emissions, but with temperatures falling in some places, there is still some wiggle room vis-a-vis global warming and human causation:
http://michiganimc.org/usermedia/image/2/large/Cl
But, given that many in the international community want more action from the United States on this issue, and in general there is distaste everywhere for dumping tons of waste into the atmosphere, there is some room for hope, including the North Eastern United States pact on emissions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/nyregion/25air.
As well as a similar plan for the Pacific costal states of California, Oregon, and Washington also in the works.
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=11
In general, there is a self righteous feeling amongst non-Americans (especially from pro Kyoto treaty Europeans), but keep in mind please that very few European nations are even meeting their Kyoto targets:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,1
Those nations that are meeting the targets are in deep recessions (including Russia):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3702640.stm
Kyoto is a 'first step', but many nations supporting that first step aren't actually taking it, making it "a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." [Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5]
The real key is reducing our economic carbon intensity (generating more money with fewer carbon emissions). We in the United States are already doing that quite well.
Can we move faster? Yes. And we will, if by hook and crook, including regional emissions limitations, higher international oil prices, and a general shift in our economy away from manufacturing and oil consumption.
But arrogant attitudes about 'excuses and misinformation' miss the real point.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
...is that I can't mod your post to a +6.
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
1. Ice displaces its weight in water. Try this: fill a tall glass with water. Add an ice cube. Mark the level of water. Let it melt. Note how the water level *has not changed*. It won't make the water level go down.
2. Much of the arctic ice is in Greenland. It is on land. When this melts it will add a significant volume of water to the oceans.
If the ice melts, the global water level will go UP due to the ice on Greenland melting.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Good logic here, but the model is much more complex. It's not so much about water levels as it is about energy.
With that much water being warmed up, there's a lot more activity in the biosphere, which changes many, many things. During the 1400's, altered weather patterns in combination with high tides created storms which ravaged population centers all along England's and Europe's coasts. And this was during a period of mini-ice age cooling, not heating.
It'll be interesting to see how we are affected.
-FL
Generate all of our electricity in the Mojave Desert and North Dakota. Who cares about that detail that the infrastructure doesn't exist to deliver to the east coast... or anywhere else for that matter.
I done gone to school and learneed intilligent design -- we done will be saved.
That's not to say that we can't do more to reduce carbon emissions, but with temperatures falling in some places, there is still some wiggle room vis-a-vis global warming and human causation:
That graph doesn't mean anything. Have a look at some global ones
In general, there is a self righteous feeling amongst non-Americans (especially from pro Kyoto treaty Europeans), but keep in mind please that very few European nations are even meeting their Kyoto targets:
Early days yet; the target date is 2010. You might notice that those countries are at least cutting emissions (unlike the US), so they are making an attempt to comply with Kyoto; also, countries can buy carbon credits (as I believe the Netherlands has already done so) which the article fails to take into account.
Kyoto is a 'first step', but many nations supporting that first step aren't actually taking it, making it "a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." [Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5]
Shakespeare is a less convincing source of authority than Michael Crichton.
The real key is reducing our economic carbon intensity (generating more money with fewer carbon emissions). We in the United States are already doing that quite well.
Citation please. The US is actually quite bad at this.
I live in upstate New York, at 210 feet above sea level (God, I love the Catskills!). Being a mountain dweller, I can look on with some amusement as all those stuck up, smug folks down in NYC find out what it's like to live in Venice.
If all the polar ice melts (ie. Greenland and all of Antarctica), water levels will rise about 80 meters (250 feet or so). That's unlikely in the near future though.
When ice forms on top of water the sea level does not go down. When floating ice melts the sea level does not go up. If freezing and thawing did affect the sea level then the world's sea level would drop during Arctic winter and rise during Arctic summer.
So this story is nonsense.
There is an effect on world sea levels if land based ice thaws or freezes.
----------------
Steve Stites
Please read earlier comments before posting.
In short, lots of the ice is on land, (ie. Greenland, Antartica, Canadian North, etc.) and that will raise oceans if it melts. As far as sea ice is concerned, it will have no effect on sea level. The fact that it is less dense is why the top of the ice berg is above water.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
"But because there's no reasonable evidence that it's actually happening"
well mr low uid, there is a theory called global dimming wiki torrent which might explain why we have not detected a sharp increase in temps yet. Short answer, the smog is blocking the sunlight from hitting the earth. when we start cleaning up our emissions, this protective smog blanket goes away and we get baked.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Err, you might want to check the difference between cause and effect.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Odd that the article does not mention how much Arctic ice melts each summer, nor even that some always does. I think I've read it is 10%, in various places, with a lot of melt pools on the surface.
Frozen water takes up more space than liquid water.
True.
The artic is made up of ice with no land (as opposed to the antartic).
There are glaciers in both North America and northern Asia. Greenland has quite a lot of terrestrial ice, for example.
Now it is known that most of the ice exists below sea level.
If the ice melts, the global water level will go down.
Please, prove me Wrong.
OK. Ice floating in water displaces an amount of water equal to its mass, not its volume. Stick a bunch of ice cubes in a glass, then add some water. Use a non-permanent marker to mark the water level. Wait until the ice melts and check the water level. It will be the same (assuming no significant evaporation).
You're also missing the effect of the melting of terrestrial glaciers, which will most certainly increase the amount of water in the ocean.
The fact that the seas are salt water and the glaciers (both terrestrial and aquatic) are fresh water will have some impact, but it won't be to lower the ocean levels when the glaciers melt.
For something to float, it must displace an equal mass of whatever its floating in. By definition, the north polar ice cap is displacing exactly its own mass in water. If it were to melt, the displaced water would take exactly the same amount of volume as the submerged ice. This would cause the world's ocean levels to rise by the exact amount of zero plus the volume of several dozen annoyed polar bears.
I used to think much the same until someone pointed out to me that as water warms up it expands. Sure water expands when it freezes, watch a glass filled with water shatter as it freezes, but it also expands as it heats up. Take a can of water, well a bottle of water or can of soup and put it on the heating element of a stove and watch what happens when it is turned and left on.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Totally wrong.
There is no "limit" to how much moisture the air can "hold." Water vapor and air are infinitely miscible, just like alcohol and water. The relative humidity can be far higher than 100% in certain situations.
I for one find that the insistent harping by the oil industry and their political puppets that "global warming isn't real" to be a pretty good indicator that the science warning about human-induced global warming is real. If we look at the number of instances when industries swore up and down that "alarmist scientists are wrong, our corporate-funded scientists are right" in regards to the addictive qualities of nicotine, the carcinogenic properties of dioxins, DDT or Agent Orange as well as other industrial chemicals -- all these were deemed as "safe" by the scientists funded by industries manufacturing these products, and it's taken decades of work and a political seachange to disprove the industry science. Not to say this "guilt by association" is conclusive proof of global warning in and of itself, but the increasingly shrill denouncements of global warming science in this manner are reminiscent of the arguments I describe.
The really aggravating part of the global warming debate is the review process established by the Bush Administration - which is really a system of discrediting scientists with whom they don't agree. While few of us are surprised that the Bush Administration would in this instance employ its classic tactic of discrediting those against whom they can't form a solid defense, the systematic manner with which this is done against environmental scientists is quite shocking. Those scientists who are called in to present their evidence to Congress and the Bush Administration are subjected to a level of inquiry that is both unfair and unprecedented. The scientist in question must present his/her entire career's worth of work for review, and it must be done within a few weeks. If the scientist is unable to come up with the paperwork for review, then he/she is dismissed out of hand and his/her work is discredited by the Administration-- and claims of "stalling" or "obfuscation" or "obstruction are leveled against the researcher.
Now at first blush presenting a career's worth of evidence may not sound difficult, considering the prevalence of digital data in the scientific fields, but think again. To do so involves collating decades' worth of data, both digital and paper, over a variety of computer systems (many now obsolete) and putting them into a court-admissable format (e.g., one that avoids spoliation). The preparation of that material involves literally months of processing by an army of paralegals, which can run into the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even if the unrealistic time deadlines set by the Bush Administration are met (which is nearly impossible), the cost of processing all that data is the scientist's responsibility.
To further complicate matters, the scientists representing the oil industry aren't subjected to that same standard. Ergo, the review process is unfairly biased toward the oil industry's "science". This unfair standard, when combined with the degree of obfuscation and smokescreening on the part of the Bush Administration (on this and other topics) leads me to believe that the global warming science "alarmists" are the ones closer to the truth.
Maybe someone who really knows can tell us if it makes a difference that it is frozen fresh water floating on salt water.
There is a difference. Because freshwater is lighter then saltwater it floats on the ocean surface. The conveyorbelt Gulf Stream carries warm ocean water north which warms up Northern Europe. But as melting freshwater submerges the warm saltwater the British Isles along with the Scandinavian countries, France and Germany will become cooler. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has a good webpage on what's right and wrong about the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" which is based on this.
Abrupt Climate Change
What's After the Day After Tomorrow?
FalconA science perspective on the science fiction movie
Should there be a Law?
All we need to do to stop global warming is attach it at its source. Put the sun out and we'll never have to worry about global warming again. Al Gore can vacation in Jackson Hole without fear of the snow melting (for eternity), the hole in the ozone won't matter any more either! Rejoice Aussies, no more hats to protect you from skin cancer! Simple solution to the problem - kill the sun!
15 years ago the MN state fair was handing out plastic bags made from corn. They were even bio-degradable.
Oil was a lot cheaper than corn back then, so little investment was made in it. However as oil goes up in price we will turn to corn and soybeans for our needs. (to name just a few potential sources of oil not from the ground)
The total cost will undoubtedly wind up in the trillons, however, so the point stands. Apologies for the typo.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Ice on land is far more threatening to global sea levels. The effective meltwater contribution from landed ice is 100% by weight, not just a few percent as with floating ice.
Also the water that melted from land ice, glaciers provides people downslope, downstream, with fresh water. I don't recall the name of the city but in Peru one city gets most of it's fresh water from a glacier, which is receding. Glaciers, which are melting, on Mt Kilimonjaro provide freshwater in central Africa. As those glaciers go there goes people's sources of freshwater. The melting of glaciers at a faster rate than that of replenishment is of great concern to those who depend on water. There's also the possibility that a moraine dam can collapse releasing a lake of water causing flooding. Melting of glaciers in the Himalayas is of real concern.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Wow, so 5-6% economic growth for the last 5 years counts as a deep recession? I guess we in the States must be in the Great Depression, part II right now.
Alot of this 'oceans will rise' speculation is just plain bad science.
I don't think so, for two reasons. One, as water warms up it expands. And two glaciers on land store a lot of water but as they melt the water eventually reachs the oceans. The ice in Antartica itself is on land. Then there are a lot of other glaciers on land as well. As they all melt more water is added to the oceans which will cause the water level to rise.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If it is, the water should roll right off into space
Bet you want to know how deep you'll be after all that melting ... above or below sea level?
Americans can get a rough idea of this by looking at http://www.placenames.com/us/ and selecting your state, county, and city. The approximate altitude is shown at the top of the city's page.
Now, if you happen to live by a hill just over the hundred foot level, maybe you'll get lucky with some beachside property in your neighbors' drowned yards. ...of course, it is far more likely that you'll be near the water level with miles of docks and the like between you and the open ocean, which would probably be far colder than it is now...
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Why must it be solved by regulation, when it can be solved through brute-force engineering?
The problem is that the earth is retaining too much energy from the sun. So far, everyone has been talking about working to reduce the tendency of the earth to trap that energy. But that is not the only possible solution to the problem; you could also reduce the energy influx.
My cut is that cutting greenhouse gasses by any significant measure is politically infeasible. Kyoto wouldn't be enough even if it were universally adopted and actually adhered to (fat chance if you ask me). There are too many vested interests for significant reduction in the near term, although in the long term the growing scarcity of fossil fuels will drive the change to alternatives. The changeover will be rapid -- within two decades -- when it happens, but barring catastrophe (say, WWIII fought over oil supplies) that kind of economics will not kick in for another 20-30 years. So we're looking at 40-50 years before we might possibly see that kind of solution really get started, and the effects will take decades more to be noticable.
I think it's a fair guess that the warming trend will go nonlinear before then and we'll need to find a way to rapidly cool the planet (more on why in a minute). The obvious thing to do is to reduce the amount of solar radiation hitting the planet.
Most people don't realize it, but we have the technical capability to do that today. We could, for instance, fire reflective particulates into orbit; this would be the least expensive solution to the problem. A more expensive, but much more flexible, solution would use orbital shades. These would allow us to vary the amount of radiation reaching the planet by changing the aspect of the shade relative to the sun.
Engineering solutions like this are much more politically feasible and, perhaps more to the point, can damp the warming process almost immediately rather than requiring decades as would a reduction in greenhouse gas emission. Such a solution would be expensive, but expensive on the order of low trillions of dollars even using today's lifting systems, and we can do much better than rockets if we are going to have to spend that kind of money anyway.
In any case we're going to have to find some kind of solution that works very rapidly because the problem with global warming is not limited to rising ocean levels over the next century. The real issue with global warming that nobody really talks about is that hurricanes are going to start becoming really destructive. The warmer it gets in here the larger the hurricane formation zones grow and the more frequent and more violent the hurricanes will become. That, too, is a nonlinear effect. The only way we're going to stop it is by cooling down those formation zones, and the only near-term feasible solution to that is to damp solar energy coming down right on top of those zones.
Regardless of the reason we eventually decide to do something real about global warming we can be pretty sure based on history that we will sit around doing nothing until the cost of sitting around doing nothing exceeds the cost of doing some really big, complicated project to fix the problem. Then we'll pull out all the stops and spend whatever it takes to pull off the project. We humans do that kind of thing all the time; for an example, look up the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
Besides, wouldn't the glitter of city lights back from orbiting reflectors look really cool?
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
The site at http://realclimate.org/ is great for keeping somewhat current with the hot stories in the field...
Yikes.
Looks like I'll be moving about 20 miles North, then, where the land is higher. Barring that, there's always Pennsylvania.
But...
Would that mean New Jersey would be gone?
W00T!!!
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
My worry isn't so much about the level of the oceans as is the fact that so much freshwater from the arctic ice will be released into the oceans. This will change the salinity of the oceans, and probably effect thermocline layers and the Atlantic thermal current (can't remember what it is called, but it is what keeps Britain from being an ice covered wasteland). We really don't know what the final effect will be because of these changes, but they can't be good. It probably won't be the end of the world, but I could see such changes causing in the short term starvation issues because of the change of growing seasons in certain parts of the world due to weather changes, and length of winter. In the long term (maybe), this would lead to migration of people to warmer areas, and food production would take place in those warmer areas, eventually reaching an equilibrium again. But in the short term, one could likely expect starvation or famine, war and pestilence as people and nations "adjust" to the new situation...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Would that mean New Jersey would be gone?
Don't get too excited. This change will probably be far too slow to suddenly drown all the New Jerseyans, so they might move near where you're living.
Awwww... Shit.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
We have been heating the earth since the agricultural revolution with the positive result of providing 10,000 years of warm stability. But since the Industrial revolution we have been pushing the biosphere over the brink. Life forces have done this before -- during the snowball earth period ( Cryogenian Period ) in the Neoproterozoic toward the end of the Precambrian - but that life force was not sentient!
Erich J. Knight
"That graph doesn't mean anything. Have a look at some global ones"
a rbon_dioxide_emission_26022004.html
. stm
Perhaps if this were an isolated case, this graph would mean very little, but there are many cities in the US experiencing long term temperature declines.
"Early days yet; the target date is 2010. You might notice that those countries are at least cutting emissions (unlike the US)"
Not Spain:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/spa.htm
Not the UK:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/uk_c
And not the EU as a whole:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4115670
The EU isn't gonna make it to Kyoto compliance. They're not on track, and unless there's some major economic/political disturbance, they're not going to get on track.
"Citation please. The US is actually quite bad at this."
The original article had one, but here is another:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg02rpt/gas.html
Carbon intensity has been dropping 14.52% per decade 1950-2000 in the US, even with cheap gas during much of that time.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
You're right. Russia is experiencing GDP growth now.
7 0_russia_gdp_300.gif
i on_of_Russia
However, Russia has a lot of growing to do before its GDP expands significantly beyond 1990s levels.
http://www.tcm-mec.gc.ca/russia/images/gdp.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/670000/images/_6701
Besides, with a shrinking population, and greater energy efficiencies that naturally develop through new technologies, Russia can pretty much do nothing and comply with Kyoto.
http://www.lifecoalition.com/russia2.html
So they signed Kyoto to sell their credits to the Europeans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Posit
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
When I go there, they say that stagflation was early 1970s, not late 1970s. the United States in the Nixon administration of the early 1970s Which lead to later:
Supply-side economics emerged as a response to US stagflation in the 1970s. It largely attributed inflation to the ending of the Bretton Woods gold standard in 1971 and the lack of a specific price reference in the subsequent monetary policies (Keynesian and Monetarism).
Stagflation was because Nixon took us off the gold standard(we can disregard as to why that happened).
Now, as to taking care of a number of issues, well, first off, if we were part of Kyoto, we would have had no choice but to start building nuke plants back in 2000/2001. 5 years later, we would just be starting to bring them on-line (they actually go up pretty quick once you get past the EPA stuff). That would be providing a number of construction jobs as well as lowering the costs of electricty. In addition, it would just start removing the demand for Oil and Coal.
Also, trying to link meeting the kyoto target to a national slump is plain ridiculus. Russia's current economic state has nothing to do with Kyoto.
In addition, moving away from manufactuering in the US is not a real solution. In fact, I would like to see us get back into more of it. But just like we use to do, we need to to learn to be frugal with how we do things.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There is evidence that in the 13th Century, monks sunk boats off of Venice to stop the Adriatic from rising into the city. Yes, the oceans were rising 700 years ago so this is all natural.
Perhaps if this were an isolated case, this graph would mean very little, but there are many cities in the US experiencing long term temperature declines.
Hence the term "climate change" rather than global warming. Changes in local temperatures may be downwards, but overall the world is heating up dramatically. Not even the most sceptical scientist would deny this and you make yourself look ridiculous if you do.
And not the EU as a whole:
The rate of increase has slowed however; it takes some time to turn policy around. I'm confident the EU will get there. Even if they don't, they can make up the shortfall through emissions trading.
Carbon intensity has been dropping 14.52% per decade 1950-2000 in the US, even with cheap gas during much of that time.
I said the US was bad at it because the ratio of GDP:CO2 emissions is about half that of the EU countries.
"overall the world is heating up dramatically"
a nge/Romania-Energy%20Efficient%20Project/PAD-P0680 62-toc.pdf
Here's a useful qoute from the National Science Foundation:
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs."
Quoted via:
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/crichton/
Notice the part about "but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability" ?
Also, measured warming is 0.8 degrees (C) in 100 years. Yes, it's warming, but that's not really terribly dramatic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming
The Little Ice Age was dramatic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
All I'm saying is that there is some doubt that humans are causing global warming, and the extent to which the climate is changing. If that makes me ridiculous in your eyes, then that's OK by me.
"I said the US was bad at it because the ratio of GDP:CO2 emissions is about half that of the EU countries."
The only comparitive reference I found was from the government of Romania:
http://www.gefonline.org/ProjectDocs/Climate%20Ch
It looks like the US is right about in the middle of the pack.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
Notice the part about "but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability" ?
Your claim was not that global warming was not due to human influence, but that it might not be occurring. At least you seem to have dropped that absurd position.
Also, measured warming is 0.8 degrees (C) in 100 years. Yes, it's warming, but that's not really terribly dramatic.
It is not the warming itself that is so dramatic, but the rate of warming. The rate of increase over the last century is apparently the most rapid warming in the planet's entire history. If it continues at the same rate over the next century or two, we're in big trouble.
See this graph for a summary of the last 2k years.
All I'm saying is that there is some doubt that humans are causing global warming, and the extent to which the climate is changing. If that makes me ridiculous in your eyes, then that's OK by me.
There is indeed doubt as to the extent to which climate change is occurring: it's very difficult to predict. However, the general trends are apparent.
There is practically no doubt that humans are contributing to global warming. There is some doubt as to the extent to which we are responsible; however, the experts in the field overwhelmingly think it's largely down to us. The warming is very well correlated with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
The only comparitive reference I found was from the government of Romania:
Red herring. You can only compare countries of similar economic status. The US GDP is $2128 per ton of CO2 produced, whereas the same ratio for the EU is $3781. Such comparisons are quite crude though -- the only relevant statistic is total CO2 produced.
You should head to the poles or even just to Canada some time.
h tml
Whether the ability for air to hold water vapor is strictly determined by temperature or not, the principles still hold.
Warmer air tends to hold more water. Cold air holds very little. Your argument says that the cold air could hold as much as the warm air. Perhaps this is theoretically true, but it practice it doesn't seem to actually occur.
Let me use a link here, one pointed to by your link:
http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/people/babin/vapor/index.
Read the key points.
"However, because of the ubiquitous presence of condensation nuclei (e.g., dust, salt, etc.), relative humidities in the Earth's atmosphere typically do not exceed 100% at the surface or 102% within clouds."
Or perhaps above:
"Outside of clouds and close to the Earth's surface, you can consider the relative humidity not to exceed 100%."
Apparently your sources might not use the words "The relative humidity can be far higher than 100% in certain situations." as easily as you did.
I'm sorry, but an overage of 2% doesn't undermine what I said at all. One of the effects of rising temperatures would be to put more water into the air, because, in normal conditions air holds more water when it is warmer. And I have to imagine when considering the entire globe, the few cases where this guideline might be violated won't change the overall effect.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Pentagram wrote: "Your claim was not that global warming was not due to human influence, but that it might not be occurring. At least you seem to have dropped that absurd position." You're reading what you want to read! I guess I didn't explicitely state everything again. What originally I wrote was: "there is still some wiggle room vis-a-vis global warming and human causation" Do I still think it's "there is some wiggle room" that most of the warming in the last century was caused by by climactic changes, or that some of the measured changes might have been caused by unreliable data from early weather stations, and that the climate might vary whichever way it pleases no matter what we do? Yes. Do I really think that's true? Probably not, but there is SOME WIGGLE ROOM. (i.e. there is some doubt) Pentagram wrote: "It is not the warming itself that is so dramatic, but the rate of warming" No, the measured rate of warming is about 0.8 degrees C per century. (Source is this graph) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Te mperature_Record.png
Looking at the graph to which you linked, there were other time periods when warming moved similarly. Say about 550AD-600AD.
We can handle that over the next 100 years no problem.
The REAL threat is a runaway acceleration caused by increased CO2 concentrations, and the climactic impact that those changes may have.
If we go from 0.8 to 1.6 or even 3.2, and all the ice in Greenland melts, and the Oceans rise up 30 meters, yeah we have major problems.
Do I think it's worth making some effort to make sure that this doesn't happen?
Heck Yes.
Will I respond again?
Heck No.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
What originally I wrote was: "there is still some wiggle room vis-a-vis global warming and human causation"
Ah, I assumed you meant *both* global warming and human causation of it. And you have to admit "wiggle room" is more than a little vague.
It is not the warming itself that is so dramatic, but the rate of warming" No, the measured rate of warming is about 0.8 degrees C per century
I meant the higher orders of the increase.
Looking at the graph to which you linked, there were other time periods when warming moved similarly. Say about 550AD-600AD
Well I did say over a century.
We can handle that over the next 100 years no problem.
Not with no problem. We're already facing severe problems even if we don't increase emissions at all.
The REAL threat is a runaway acceleration caused by increased CO2 concentrations, and the climactic impact that those changes may have
Agreed.
Do I think it's worth making some effort to make sure that this doesn't happen? Heck Yes.
Like Kyoto? It's a brave attempt and saying "it sucks" doesn't help.
Only in America could this be classed 'politics'. The rest of the universe regard it as science.