Global Warming Past The Point of No Return

mad_goldfish writes "The UK's Independent is running a front page story today on a scientific report claiming that global warming is now unstoppable, after measuring changes in the level of ice in the arctic." From the article: "The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a 'tipping point' beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. Satellites monitoring the Arctic have found that the extent of the sea ice this August has reached its lowest monthly point on record, dipping an unprecedented 18.2 per cent below the long-term average." Either way, someone wins a bet.

Comments

Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

[drab]Oh. no. The. world. is. going. to. end. (Waves little white flag in an uninspired fashion.) Everything. is. going. to. die. God. save. us. all.[/drab]

Seriously, we've had the technology to detect global climate changes for what, a hundred years at most? Of that, we've had useful tools (such as satellites) for less than 50 years. I hate to say it, but the earth has gone through a variety of climate changes in its history, and it will continue to go through plenty of climate changes regardless of whether we eject terawatts of thermal energy into the atmosphere or not. (Putting aside the fact that a forest fire or volcano is a hell of a lot more energy than humans normally put out.) The fact of the matter is that we've been living cushy with our modern technology in our idea of what the climate should be like. We haven't considered that major climate shifts could be possible, and thus have done nothing to adapt our technology to the variety of conditions that may be faced in the centuries ahead.

But that's okay. On the grand scale of things, we're pretty new to this whole technology thing. Not even the Romans managed power production, even though they invented the tech early on. (See: Aeolipile) The climate will change, and we'll adapt. No "fall of civilization" as Hollywood predicts every other day, or massive Slipstreams that make airplanes the only viable tech. Life will continue on, and we'll adapt. Okay? :-)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Gulthek]

You know about ice core sampling? Hundreds of thousands of years of accurate temperatures. Neat huh?

But we are actually still coming out of the last ice age, so we may just be egotistical to think that we have an effect on the planet's climate.

Did you know that it's an oddity in the Earth's history that we have ice at *both* poles?

Of course up until recently the Earth's climate was wildly variable, pretty damn close to chaotic. We have no idea what could have been changing Earth's temperature as rapidly as the ice samples indicate.

So we may, as a species, be in for a bumpy ride in the next few thousand years or so.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Red Flayer]

"Seriously, we've had the technology to detect global climate changes for what, a hundred years at most?"

[snide]Yes, but we have discovered amazing technology that allows us to see into the past![/snide]. We have examined records of climate change that span hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years.

"Life will continue on, and we'll adapt. Okay? :-) "

Sure, we'll adapt, since we don't require genetic change to make different climates livable. What about all the species that do? What about our food supply? How much suffering will be endured by less rich nations while we race to adapt our agritech?

Maybe we differ in points of view, but as I see it, it's not just about us. Don't we have the responsibility to minimize our impact on other people and other species?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[terrymr]

I may be wrong ... but I believe there are some early maps of the land under the poles, that turned out to be suprisingly accurate comapared to ones using technology to "look through" the ice.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lukewarmfusion]

*inserts link to pictures of mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, and John Leguizamo in a sloth costume*

Seriously, though, I agree. Having just had this discussion with some folks, I read up on a lot of articles and comments from folks ranging from scientists to press to "I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night" guys. And while I can't pretend to be an expert, I will say that the literature I found is anything but conclusive. So many studies have conflicting results. Most of these agreed that a measurable temperature shift has occurred, the disagreements arise when you start making assumptions about the source of that shift, the long-term effects, and so on.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[srock2588]

Erik the Red started a colony in Greenland back in the AD 900's. http://www.greenland-guide.gl/leif2000/history.htm According to archealogical records, at time the colony was warm enough to grow crops and support a decent little town. Now, all ice. The region went through an extremely warm spell for a hundred years or so then froze up again. I wonder what the glacier levels where then? I guess we will never know.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that it's an oddity in the Earth's history that we have ice at *both* poles?

Well that will be quite swiftly taken care of by the nations who think money is more important than environment.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Alex P Keaton in da]

As much as $3 a gallon gas has changed my habits, I guess it is good because it makes other, more environmentally friendly alternatives, an alternative price wise.
Here is my opinion on the global warming thing. I think it is Hubris for humans to think that we can destroy the Earth. We certainly can make it uninhabitable for certain flora and fauna, including Humans, but we can't destroy it. Humans weren't the first species, and we likely won't be here when the Sun finally goes out. If we screw the Earth up bad enough, she will just spin us off, and other species will take over.
Maybe we will be able to keep ourselves going until we can develop ways to populate other planets- but it will require a concerted effort.
Like anything however, we (humans) usually need something really big to get our asses in gear. We are reactive, not proactive. So unless there is some giant event like the atmosphere suddenly disappearing, things aren't likely to change. Although I am holding out some glimmer of hope that we (humans) will decide to be better stewards of our land.
If you are a hard core scientist, then on an intellectual level you must want to help our Earth.
Whether you belive in creationism or God- you would think that serving God requires us to take care of what God blessed us with.
Whether Humans cause Global Climate Change or not, we need to take better care of our Earth. There is an old saying- you don't shit where you sleep....

Re:Doom and Gloom

[mikkom]

So we may, as a species, be in for a bumpy ride in the next few thousand years or so.

From the article:

Current computer models suggest that the Arctic will be entirely ice-free during summer by the year 2070 but some scientists now believe that even this dire prediction may be over-optimistic, said Professor Peter Wadhams, an Arctic ice specialist at Cambridge University.

Yes indeed.. This is not something I'm looking forward to.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Jeff Hornby]

The climate will change and we'll adapt.

Isn't that what the dinosaurs said about 65 million years ago?

Actually, the climate will change and we might adapt or we might die. As a species we've never faced quite so dire a threat (global warming can cause a whole host of issues from extreme weather, desertification of croplands, freezing in other wise warm areas due to changing ocean currents, and many other things) combined with such a fragile infrastructure (all but a handful of the human population depends on agriculture for their food sources).

Just because the Earth has been through a lot doesn't mean the we will survive it.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[harlows_monkeys]

I hate to say it, but the earth has gone through a variety of climate changes in its history, and it will continue to go through plenty of climate changes regardless of whether we eject terawatts of thermal energy into the atmosphere or not

The same argument could be made about the economy and interest rates. By your reasoning, a 0.5% rise in interest rates should have no serious effect on the economy, because that is smaller than the normal range of interest rate variation.

Similarly, by your reasoning, a small permanent rise in the birth rate would not have much effect on population, if the birth rate has a normal variation higher than the small permanent rise.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Saint Aardvark]

I'm not so sure. First off: yes, Earth will continue. We're not essential to the planet at all.

There may be debate over the source of this warming (and from what I've read, I'm bending over backwards to be fair), but the evidence seems pretty clear that it is happening. What worries me is how fragile our current societies will prove to be in the face of big, (relatively) sudden changes like the ones described here. You hit the nail on the head:

The fact of the matter is that we've been living cushy with our modern technology in our idea of what the climate should be like. We haven't considered that major climate shifts could be possible, and thus have done nothing to adapt our technology to the variety of conditions that may be faced in the centuries ahead.

In the long run Earth will be fine; in the long run, Homo Sapiens may be fine too. But in the short run, I think there are going to be some mighty big jolts and pains as we adapt to a warming planet. You'll only be able to summarize it as "the climate changed, and we adapted" many, many centuries after the fact, when it's easy to be blase because it all happened so long ago.

Right now we're far too used to easy, cheap, polluting fossil fuel energy sources to just switch on a dime. You simply can't make 6 - 10 billion people (allowing for pop. growth) turn around and start using solar cells or hydrogen or whatever. That goes double for people like us (yes, I'm in there as well) who've gotten damned used to cheap energy, and triple for those in the developing world who are looking enviously at us and wondering why the hell they shouldn't get a piece of the pie as well.

If it's this bad now, it's going to get a lot worse. By the looks of things, it's going to get a lot worse pretty damned soon. And I do not believe that our societies are resilient enough to just absorb this w/o problems. We'll adapt, but it'll take a few hundred years, and it is not going to be fun in the meantime.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[stlhawkeye]

Even WITHOUT the Kyoto Protocol, the planet's mean temperature is expected to increase by 6-8 degrees over the 300 years. I think we'll survive, as will the food we depend upon.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Dasher42]

You're correct in what you touch on, but the fact that it's happened before doesn't mean that we're immune to the disastrous effects.

If it were just natural climate change, that'd be one thing. But we're also destroying habitat and polluting the biosphere. Species can adapt to a gradual change, but we're pushing things far faster than the natural dependencies can adjust.

Just think, for example, of the plants that don't get their usual pollinators when they bloom, because changing temperatures have shifted the migration patterns. This change is too sudden.

We're in for a lot of die-off, and it's guaranteed to rebound on us.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Decaff]

Life will continue on, and we'll adapt. Okay? :-)

No, not OK. Two words illustrate my point: Hurricane Katrina.

Most countries have built major cities very close to sea level. Even slightly increased temperatures will increase the ferocity of storms and sea surges. Even a moderate (few metres) rise in sea level will start to inundate the homes of millions in every country.

Of course life will continue on. We will be forced to adapt. But it is almost certain to be be distinctly unpleasant, with floods, famines, and major political and economic problems across the world. The next generation is going to have a hard time.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[tpgp]

regardless of whether we eject terawatts of thermal energy into the atmosphere or not.

Our thermal energy output is not the problem (for now). It is our output of C02 and other gases. These change earth's atmosphere, adding to earth's overall thermal energy retention.

But of course, I could just ignore global scientific consensus and listen to some random slashdotter who obviously has no clue about what the problem actually is instead.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[TheZax]

Seriously, we've had the technology to detect global climate changes for what, a hundred years at most? Of that, we've had useful tools (such as satellites) for less than 50 years. I hate to say it, but the earth has gone through a variety of climate changes in its history, and it will continue to go through plenty of climate changes regardless of whether we eject terawatts of thermal energy into the atmosphere or not.

Interesting, you start out by saying that we don't have the technology and amount of data to theorize what will happen. Then you state what will happen.

So, in summary:

Your opinion > all technology and data available

Nice.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[SQLz]

We have no idea what could have been changing Earth's temperature as rapidly as the ice samples indicate.

Err, I don't know...maybe the missing ozone layer has something to do with it?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Guysmiley777]

Sweet! If we're past the point of no return, there is no sense worrying about it now!

Repeal the Kyoto Treaty and fire up the coal power plants. If we're all going to die, it mine as well be full speed ahead!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

"we'll adapt"?? I dare you to go and say that to the people affected by Katrina... and that's not even necessarily from this polar ice melting.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lowrydr310]

The matrix is real.. We're currently living in Version 8.0 (beta). Just wait until version 10. That's when the architects will finally get it right.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[cornelius1729]

Life will continue on, and we'll adapt

If the temperature rises by 6 degrees by 2050, as is expected under the Kyoto Treaty, then we have a chance of adapting. Sure a lot of species will go extinct (especially plants, which can't migrate as quickly as animals), but it won't be the end of the world.

On the other hand, there are several reasons for positive feedback which will result in faster than expected warming, which could seriously jeopardise our chances for living happily ever after.

The principle of warmer earth -> less polar ice -> less heat reflection -> more heating, as mentioned in the article, is one.

Another is that there much of the worlds carbon is locked away in soil (much more than in trees, by a factor of 100 or so). If the earth gets warmer, things that live in the earth, like worms, burrow deeper and allow oxygen to reach the locked up carbon. This brings more carbon dioxde into the atmosphere and assists global warming.

A third feedback mechanism involves the oceans. Most climate models suggest that oceans are currently a sink for carbon (i.e. they absorb more than they emit). However, secondary school science tells us that warmer liquids cannot hold as much gas dissolved within them (per unit volume). Thus it is possible that hot oceans will also assist global warming.

Sorry for the doom and gloom. Try not flying in aeroplanes/ not driving everywhere, then at least you can be a bit smug when the apocalypse comes.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[TheZax]

I think it is Hubris for humans to think that we can destroy the Earth. We certainly can make it uninhabitable for certain flora and fauna, including Humans, but we can't destroy it.

Maybe we just have a different idea of what "destroy" means...

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

You simply can't make 6 - 10 billion people (allowing for pop. growth) turn around and start using solar cells or hydrogen or whatever.

There are a few ideas being kicked around about that. Read my sig for a whole long story on phasing out of gas and into new fuels. :-)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[KUHurdler]

There's some good effects of the high cost of gas, some not so good.

for instance, I have heard of people cutting out their catalytic converters because it helps increase gas mileage. I'm not arguing that it actually helps or not, just telling what I've heard.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[hankwang]

>How can this be moderated to +5 Insightful???

Seriously, we've had the technology to detect global climate changes for what, a hundred years at most?

ice core samples, tree growth rings, etc., etc.

>the earth has gone through a variety of climate changes in its history, and it will continue to go through plenty of climate changes

...which will not necessarily be suitable for human civilisation.

>regardless of whether we eject terawatts of thermal energy into the atmosphere or not.

It is the carbon dioxide, which has increased by 30% due to human sources. The amount of heat we actually generate is about 1/10,000 of what comes in from the sun.

>Putting aside the fact that a forest fire or volcano is a hell of a lot more energy than humans normally put out.

Not relevant, and probably not true either. The annual (fossil-fuel-)CO2 production by humans is in the order of 10^13 kg/year, which would be equivalent to burning a 1.5x1.5x1.5 km^3 solid block of wood. That would be a pretty large forest fire, given that forests are only 20 m high and contain plenty of air.

>The climate will change, and we'll adapt.

Civilisation might adapt to a certain extent, but if it means that half of the world population dies due to famine and the other half has to be relocated over thousands of km, that wouldn't be a very pleasant thing if it caught you by surprise. Regardless of whether climate change is anthropocentric or not, predictions about the future climate are useful. (I can't judge for myself how reasonable the claims in the article are).

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Etcetera]

You're thinking of the Orontius Finaeus Map of Antarctica from the 1500's.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Bastian]

Quite honestly, it's the fact that we aren't quite sure that scares me the most.

Maybe everything will be hunky-dory in 100 years and there was no need to worry. But the cost of making that assumption and being wrong is so ridiculously high compsared to the cost of assuming the worst and taking massive preventative steps, that as far as I can tell, the only sane reaction to this issue is to err on the side of extreme caution.

The whole @$#@%^ planet is something we should not be playign cavalier with.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[toddbu]

As a species we've never faced quite so dire a threat ... combined with such a fragile infrastructure

Our planet is constantly under change, sometimes for good, and sometimes for bad. To think that ours is a fragile infrastructure, however, is probably a little shortsighted. Anytime I hear the term "runaway", I find myself asking this simple question: "If the ecosystem is so fragile and we're teetering on the brink, why has this not happened before?" I think if you really want to make the case for global warming then you have to show evidence of it in the past. Dinosaurs don't count because the prevailing theory is that it was a massive meteorite impact that wiped them out. (Either that, or Homer Simpson going back in time with a cold and sneezing on them.) Ice core samples from Greenland for the last several thousand years show a predominately cooler planet, but one with temperature fluctuations that far exceed anything that we've seen in our records over the last few hundred years. So I'll buy into your theory as soon as you can demonstrate that the planet is not able to correct for climate change.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

[snide]Yes, but we have discovered amazing technology that allows us to see into the past![/snide]. We have examined records of climate change that span hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years.

No need to be snide. That was something of my point. We've had the technology to track global climate with precision for about 50-100 years. We've then based our ideas of what the climate should be, based on that. However, the imprecise records we have of historical global climate shifts have showed that the Earth has historically experienced WILD fluctuations in climate. The only hubris is that we think our 100 years of precise weather experience will somehow prevent the climate from wildly shifting again. :-)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Rei]

Yes, the Earth *has* gone through dramatic climate changes in its history:

Vostok data and others. We also have more recent data from ice, sediment cores which all give the same sort of data: the earth's climate changes wildly naturally, but over many thousands of years.

Two things seriously stand out in all of the data:

1) The earth's temperature *has varied* widely - but over tens of thousands of years. The most pronounced spike was when temperature went from 8 degrees below present 140,000 years ago to 2 degrees above present 125,000 years ago; that's 10 degrees in 15,000 years. We're currently experiencing a change of 0.2 degrees every decade, I.e., thirty times as fast. While there have been shorter spikes that have been steeper, nothing in history even approaches what we're experiencing right now.

2) There is an extreme correlation between CO2 and temperature. There is no doubt about the severity of our CO2 spike, nor its cause. We're injecting at a rapid rate earth's sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, and have 2.5xed atmospheric carbon since the early 1800s. We output about 7.1 billion (of which 3B enters the atmosphere) additional tonnes of carbon per year. The atmosphere currently holds about 750B tonnes (which, as stated previously, is a 2.5x over the early 1800s). While there is hope that marine biota will increase carbon consumption, history has shown that such changes take thousands of years when left unassisted.

regardless of whether we eject terawatts of thermal energy

What on earth does this have to do with global climate change?

A forest fire or volcano is a hell of a lot more energy than humans normally put out

If you want to get back to climate change, their CO2 and methane emissions aren't comparable, except for historic supervolcanoes. At the same time, volcanoes produce overall global cooling because of the aerosols and sulfuric acid particulate (which increases cloud formation).

Re:Doom and Gloom

[A beautiful mind]

We certainly can't. A Vogon constructor fleet is an entirely different matter though...

Re:Doom and Gloom

[th3space]

Dinosaurs talked? Bah dum psssh.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Rei]

Blah, sorry - replace "2.5x" with "30% increase" - I was thinking of a different number at the time. :P

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Snocone]

There may be debate over the source of this warming (and from what I've read, I'm bending over backwards to be fair), but the evidence seems pretty clear that it is happening. What worries me is how fragile our current societies will prove to be in the face of big, (relatively) sudden changes like the ones described here.

Our society isn't as fragile as during the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings settled Greenland and birch and willow trees grew there natively and treeline was several hundred feet higher in Iceland than it is now. So current temperatures are not even close to matching those already experienced in historic times, and we did just fine then. (Well, depending on your definition of "we". Some cultures were completely wiped out, some did great, in roughly inverse correspondence to how well they did in the Little Ice Age that followed it and we're still recovering from.)

In any case, give it ten years and this whole global warming debate is going to seem as ludicrously wrongheaded as debates over Lamarckian evolution do today, that's my call. See, I come down pretty solidly on the side of the solar-variability theorists and think the anthropogenic theorists have next to nothing in the way of evidence ... and the solar people predict that we're already on the downward swing to a new minimum which we'll reach around 2032, and it could very well be a *real* deepfreeze which makes the Maunder Minimum look like Maui in a heatwave.

I'd actually prefer the standard media runaway warming view, to be honest, because that I could address nicely for my expected lifespan by just moving to my new Ellesmere Island beachfront property and investing in the new Nunavut wheat fields. If the solar people are actually right like I figure they probably are, though, in a decade it's going to be pretty darn undeniable that the world is indeed getting sharply colder, and the four-five decades after that are going to REALLY. SUCK.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[protolith]

The post was refering to wild climate fluctuations in ice core samples that date to >10,000 years ago, precivilization.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[sockit2me9000]

What ever happened to pragmaticsm? Seriously? Wouldn't you rather be wrong about the fact there is global warming than be wrong about there not being global warming? That's what I don't understand. Look at it from a free-market perspective for christsakes. Markets are all about hedging bets and spotting potential trouble on the horizon and then taking steps to reduce the potential issues. It's called due diligence. We live in a country that has the most incredible technology, ever. We act like we are an enlightened society. And yet we don't do anything except react. True moral leadership comes from seeing problems before they are problems and then fixing them. When a society fails, it comes from the inability to see where policies will lead. If you look at great empires that have crumbled, they fail from the inside out. Easter Island? It failed because no one was smart enough to say "Gee, maybe we should stop cutting trees." Rome? "Gee, maybe we shouldn't over-extend ourselves." Followed by, "Nobody could have expected the Huns to invade." And this keeps going on and on through history. Empires fail due to a confluence of events and policies. And we, as a country, as an idea, continually ignore any sort of cautionary tale. I don't want to sound flip or ironic... I just want people to start realizing that the stuff that is happening right now matters. It matters who we put into office. It matters what kind of car we drive. It matters that we aren't asking the really tough questions. Because the ugly stuff, the talk of what is looming as a very real threat to our entire way of life, is absolutely important.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Kymermosst]

Err, I don't know...maybe the missing ozone layer has something to do with it?

No. Completely wrong. The missing ozone allows UV radiation through, not more heat. Ozone itself is a greenhouse gas and a pollutant.

Note that while ozone is considered a greenhouse gas only in the troposphere, the primary source of tropospheric ozone is stratospheric ozone... which is what the hole is in.

Bottom line is that stratospheric ozone relies on continual production to sustain itself. Certain chemicals (CFCs, for instance) both interfere with production and destroy some existing ozone in the stratosphere. This creates the hole.

Eventually, (surviving) ozone in the stratosphere sinks down into the troposphere, where it becomes a greenhouse gas, and contributes to globabl warming. This process is the biggest contributor to tropospheric ozone.

So, in reality, the ozone destruction is limiting global warming to an extent, though since some CFCs themselves are powerful greenhouse gases, it is not a net reduction.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't we have the responsibility to minimize our impact on other people and other species?

Certainly it's not our *only* responsibility, otherwise the responsible thing to do would be commit suicide immediately.

Each person needs to balance his or her own personal worth and contribution versus impact. I presume, for instance, that's what algore did when he burned 440,000 lbs of jet fuel travelling in his personal jet to give a global warming speech at Kyoto, Japan.

HTH.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[crmartin]

Nope.

(That's supposed to be responsible for lots of UV. You're thinking of greenhouse effect.)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Obfuscant]

Yes, but we have discovered amazing technology that allows us to see into the past![/snide]. We have examined records of climate change that span hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years.

Sadly, no we haven't, simply because records of climate change do not exist for millions, even thousands of years, into the past.

What we HAVE examined are indirect indicators of climate, such as tree rings and ice core CO2 levels. These are not records of climate change, but only of tree growth and perhaps CO2 levels.

What people forget, because scientists don't bother telling them, is that using such indirect measurements involve a lot of assumptions about conditions at the time and since. For example, one must assume that the CO2 in a core hasn't either accumulated or dispersed due to some unknown process to accept the 'measured CO2' from a current core being the actual value from the time the core was created.

Even the current "direct" measurements from satellites involve assumptions. Fortunately, the validity of these assumptions is testable (we have both the satellite measurements and ground truth data), whereas the validity of an assumption about conditions ten thousands years ago isn't (no ground truth).

So, the summary of the entire article is that many people have already been saying there is "nothing we can do" to stop what is a naturally occuring process that has happened before without us and will happen again after we are gone.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lgw]

The Vostock ice cores have given us good temperature and CO2 records for the last 400,000 years, and we see an obvious 100,000 year cycle of glaciation punctuated by brief warm spells, like the one we're in now. We're currently in an ice age that started 50,000,000 years ago. So that's two cycles we know about: the 100 ky glaciation cycle, and the ~300 My ice age cycle. Presumably there are temperature cycles in between those times as well.

The biggest driver for the ice age cycle is geological. Rocks erode, removing CO2 from the atmosphere as part of the chemical reaction involved in weathering, and eventually depositing it on the ocean floors. The ocean floors are subducted, and the CO2 eventually spit out by volcanoes again. Nothing humanity can possibly do regarding CO2 levels will even be noticed by this vast slow cycle. The cycle is self-governing, as glaciation reduces the amount of exposed rock, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and therefore temperature. This correction would presumably take millions of years, however, no so helpful to humanity.

The cycle that's interesting on our time scale is the 100,000 year cycle. Every 100,000 years or so temperatures spike (usually to higher than they are now, by a bit) and CO2 levels spike, then within 1,000 years or so something forces temperatures and CO2 levels back down. We don't know what that mechanism is, but it must be quite powerful. For some reason when temperatures peaked 10,000 years ago, they stayed warm (it's a little too early in mankind's history to give us the credit for that, but the unnatural warm spell almost certainly allowed us to develop civilization outside of the tropics).

What mechanism usually cranks CO2 levels and temperatures down when they spike every 100,000 years? Why didn't it happen 10,000 years ago? When will it eventually kick in? Without knowing the answers to these questions, it's just absurd to announce that global warming is "unstoppable". We have only the most shallow hypotheses about how the cycle works in the first place.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Moofie]

Best to go ahead and kill yourself now. That way, nothing scary and complicated will happen to you.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've got that exactly backwards. It is hubris for humans to think that they CAN'T destroy the "earth". And, by earth, we are really talking about the biosphere, as it is the part that matters for humans.

Talk to me in 50 or 100 years. We'll see if you're still so smug.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Ucklak]

All those computer monitors and SUV driving Vikings probably caused global warming then.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[romeo_in_blk_jeans]

We don't know if we can destroy the earth. That's not to green-light attempts to do so, but just consider that we really don't know what our long term effect will be, if any.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Rei]

anything but conclusive

The IPCC reports have determined just the opposite. After reviewing almost every published paper in the time period of the transitional reports (many hundreds, by hundreds of authors), they have each time found only a handful (usually single digits) of authors who disagreed with human-induced or augmented global warming.

Of course, expect right-wing groups to push the tiny minority of dissenting reports.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[bahwi]

Our food supply will change, probably back to a more vegetarian diet before meat became another mass produced commodity. If anything it'll be an expensive delicacy. It's easy to grow most edible plants, and it takes hundreds of pounds of that plan to make a pound of meat, but we could eat those hundreds of pounds ourselves, and everything works. Cows will have a hard time living in the snow, but maybe you prefer mountain goat? ;)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Ihlosi]

Life will continue on,

... with or without us. I'd prefer the former.

and we'll adapt.

You go first, I'll follow your example.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[JohnFluxx]

Um, it _has_ happened in the past. Many many times life has been almost completely wiped out. For example the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_extinction wiped out 95+% of life.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[SerpentMage]

Of course we will adapt. The question if there will still 6 billion of us!

Unless there are fossils to indicate otherwise this is the first time an "intelligent" life form inhabited this planet. And with our intelligence we will be able to adapt! Again I will reiterate how many of us will still be around.

Yesterday I heard an interesting comment on tv regarding global warming. This scientist said, "Sure it would be nice to stop global warming, but it is not physically possible because there are too many people consuming energy". He did not want to say it, but the best way to stop global warming is to "whack" about 75% of the population and the problem would be solved.

His main thesis is that even with renewable energies there are too many of us, and we will impact this planet one way or another.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Itchy Rich]

Even WITHOUT the Kyoto Protocol, the planet's mean temperature is expected to increase by 6-8 degrees over the 300 years. I think we'll survive, as will the food we depend upon.

Global warming is predicted to continue, agreed. Just because it may or may not be caused by mankind or prevented by Kyoto doesn't mean it's nothing to worry about.

Try saying "I think we'll survive" in the context of rising water levels to the residents of New Orleans, or Bangladesh, or any of the places that suffered from flooding even at previous water levels. YOU might survive, WE might not be so privelaged.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Red Flayer]

Well, if there was no need to be snide, then there there was no need in the OP to be drab.

The point I'm making is that regardless of naturally occuring fluctuations in climate, we should be mindful of how we affect the climate.

Our actions do have an impact, which I believe should be minimized. Will this prevent global climate change? No. But the difference is that humankind will not be the driving factor.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Wyatt Earp]

Well, some of the dinosaurs made it. They are called Birds and many, many other families of reptiles from the Age of the Dinosaurs made it, I have one living in my apartment, a Iguanidae, who can be traced in the fossil record back about 300 million years.

The big Dinosaurs were already fading at 65 MYA, the contients were shifting and climates were changing. In fact we don't know if the climate change and impacts whacked the dinosaurs, they might have simply been up for an extinction, or it could have been viral, we don't know for sure.

As a species, we've faced FAR more dire threats than this global warming/global climate change period. How about all the Glacial periods over the last 2 million years? Or how about being a moderately intelligent ape with some rough tools living on the plains of Africa?

Compare what Humanity had to go through during the Ice Ages from 40,000 to 10,000 years ago to this. We can split and fuse the atom now. We could take a good number of people off the Planet if we wanted to and there was a reason for it.

This is not the most dire threat that has faced man by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Moofie]

I think you underestimate the costs of "Doing Something", just as I may underestimate the costs of "Not Doing Something".

I'm totally unconvinced that "Doing Something" is going to be even remotele effective, and the costs will be huge.

It's not as simple as your analysis wishes it were...

Re:Doom and Gloom

[TheViffer]

Tell ya what, I miss the days of Global cooling.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ifwm]

But then they'll charge us 150 bucks to upgrade to the matrix 10.1 "meerkat"

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Ucklak]

I saw a special on sugar on the History Channel (I think).
Brazil runs 40% of their cars manufactured by Chevrolet and other US manufacturers, 100% off Ethanol from cane sugar.
They pay 2.5 a gallon for gas vs 1.1 a gallon for Ethanol

Ethanol from cane is a waste neutral energy source. Basically the exhaust from your car is the same as the gasses a decomposing sugar cane plant gives off
The only caveat is that 100% Ethanol requires a hotter engine to combust so they have a 1 gallon gasoline tank to start the car for the winter months. They call it Flex Fuel.

Why the hell don't we have this here?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[DJ_Goldfingerz]

There is an old saying- you don't shit where you sleep....

I still wet my bed.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[BJH]

Yeah, let's just stick our heads in the sand. LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOUglubglubglubglub...

Re:Doom and Gloom

[joebok]

Whether you belive in creationism or God- you would think that serving God requires us to take care of what God blessed us with.

I would like to think that but there is no commandment to be a good steward! They expect the earth to be destroyed in "the rapture" and they think that will be a good thing!

Bill Moyers had some insightful comments about it: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1206-10.htm

Re:Doom and Gloom

[stlhawkeye]

If the temperature rises by 6 degrees by 2050, as is expected under the Kyoto Treaty,

That is not what is expected. The temperature is expected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100, not 2050. I note that you round up the top end of the range and then reduce the timeline by 50 years. Further, the Kyoto protocol is expected to REDUCE this increase by 0.02C to 0.28C by 2050. Not reduce _TO_, but reduce _BY_. So we're going to shave a quarter of a degree off, and at what expense? That's assuming that our theories on what is causing global warming pan out in the first place.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

There were once tens of millions of buffalo that roamed the western plains. They were almost extinct by the end of the 19th century. I guess you'd call this a "construction" of sorts.

Same with Redwoods, forests, moutains that have been mined, fish that are now being deep sea dredged (look at the cod stocks around Newfoundland). I could go on and on. If we can destroy some of the parts that make up the earth, why is so hard to believe that we can't destroy the earth itself?

Isn't the earth made up of some very lively ecosystems, that if we screw up will tear the entire well balanced act asunder?

I'm perplexed as to how one can't think we can "destroy" the earth. I guess it's just another wonderful offshoot of the Republican centric attack on the sciences and...logic for that matter.

Maybe 2+2 isn't 4?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[hcob$]

Well if everyone is sooooo upset about global warming, I have a quickie solution. We've had the technology for a 50+ years to completely reverse any percieved notion of Gloabl Warming. That technology is know as "Nuclear Weapons." We just bury a few hundred these slightly under the sahara desert and pop them off. We'll make a new sea that will lower the water levels since there's a new place for the oceans to move, and we'll throw enough debris into the air to darken the skies and lower the temperature. There; problem solved.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

So what's the solution? Should we abandon the very technology that increases our survivability on a day to day basis in favor of a mere *hope* that the seas will calm down and the weather will be nice to us?

NO!!!

Humans are ill suited to living in "nature", and have the ability to wield tools for a reason. The solution is not to stick our heads in a hole and quiver, the solution is to reshape our environment to be more suitable to our needs. When Juilus Caeser came to the Rhine, did he and his men try to swim the strong currents or navigate with dangerous boats? NO!!! They built a bridge!

That is how man survives and will continue to survive.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[TemporalBeing]

Of course up until recently the Earth's climate was wildly variable, pretty damn close to chaotic. We have no idea what could have been changing Earth's temperature as rapidly as the ice samples indicate.

Well, it couldn't be because we don't have a clue about how to date things could it? Our entire dating technology is completely and utterly circular. So, for all we truly know, it could simply be that we got it wrong (imagine that!) and it's merely the yearly cycles that are being detected.

Wow...leave it to science to forget about individual bias-ness and cult-like following of it to disprove what is inevitably true.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Ethanol requires more energy to produce than it actually saves in the long run.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

http://deblij.net/

This man says that ice ages have occurred numerous times in the history of the earth and we are actually on the verge of beginning another one and not getting warmer.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[dpilot]

You may well be correct to say it's absurd to call it "unstoppable." But lacking evidence or better models, any statements are absurd. Perhaps/probably all of our activities are a pimple on the 300My cycle, I won't deny that. I'd be more curious to know how our activities are compared to the 100ky cycle which, as you say, we don't understand.

But the phrase comes to mind, "Unusually sensitive to initial conditions." Assuming, and this may be a big assumption, that there are chaotic elements at work here, our activities may be sufficient to drive climate cycles in a slightly different direction. For better or worse, or are we insignificant, who knows?

Would this really be ANY sort of issue at all if it weren't so darned profitable for some people that we emit a bunch of greenhouse gases?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Decaff]

So what's the solution? Should we abandon the very technology that increases our survivability on a day to day basis in favor of a mere *hope* that the seas will calm down and the weather will be nice to us?

No. The answer is to change technologies to those that produce less CO2. Expensive, but less expensive than the consequences of global warming.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Rei]

100,000 year cycle of glaciation

Apparently I missed 10,000 years between the start of the industrial revolution and now, when we've experienced the degree of CO2 increase and temperature rise. ;)

Are you trying to claim that the rates are comparable? If not, then what kind of argument are you trying to make? "The earth has changed before, so 30x-ing the rate won't make a difference"? :)

within a thousand years

I think you need to look at those graphs again. Historically, temperature changes relatively little over a thousand years, except in modern times.

eventually spit out by volcanoes again

Human CO2 emissions far outpace volcanic emissions. We mine Earth's carbon resevoirs at a tremendous rate - burning about 6 gigatonnes (6e12 kg) (plus an additional GT from displaced carbon sinks) annually. To put that number in perspective, if the carbon sources that we burn annually averaged the density of water, they would fill a cube 1.8 kilometers on each side.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[romeo_in_blk_jeans]

Right. And everything that could have caused the permian extinction was either due to completely foreign causes, i.e. of extra-terrestrial origin, or an environmental anomaly. We have to limit this discussion to events occuring within a couple standard deviations away from the expected. The alternative is changing building codes to be able to withstand small meteor impacts because they could happen. See what I mean?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

Well, if there was no need to be snide, then there there was no need in the OP to be drab.

Gosh, nobody can ever be funny around here. Do Slashdotters ever get out of their houses and lighted up? (Never mind. Forget I asked that.)

Our actions do have an impact, which I believe should be minimized.

Are we absolutely certain that we want to minimize our changes on the environment? I certainly agree that we want to make the environment as suitable for life as possible, but I'm not so keen on the idea of letting nature take its course. Nature is a rather violent thing that tends to destroy and remake on a regular basis. Even without our interference, nature is guaranteed to revolve through extinction and speciation cycles.

The difference between man and nature is that man attempts to control these cycles for his own benefit, and hopefully to the benefit of other life as well. Sure, we got a bit carried away with our technological prowess toward the turn of the 20th century, but by the end of the century we were more sensitive to the life around us. I believe that's a good thing.

But the solution to the Earth's violent and chaotic changes is not to stop meddling and hope it all corrects itself (because it won't, history can prove that), the solution is to change the world around us for the purpose of securing life for ourselves, and plants and animals around us.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Itchy Rich]

Um, it _has_ happened in the past. Many many times life has been almost completely wiped out. For example the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_extinction wiped out 95+% of life.

Or the Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Decaff]

Without knowing the answers to these questions, it's just absurd to announce that global warming is "unstoppable". We have only the most shallow hypotheses about how the cycle works in the first place.

No-one is suggesting that global warming is permanent. What is unstoppable is the current warming effect. This means that we are almost certainly going to have to deal with centuries or millenia of increased temperatures, rather than decades.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[adavies42]

And also probably the Pier Reis map of 1513, a common feature of ancient-alien conspiracy theories like Erich von Daniken's and Graham Hancock's.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Karhgath]

Well, if you ask the experts, you know, climatology scientists, there is little doubt about global warming. Now, what it means, or the political/economical repercussions, is something else, but we do have the technology and enough evidence and proof that global warming is happening. Not much doubt there when you look only at the science, not the propaganda(from both sides of the political/economical spectrum might I add.)

Will GW means the "fall of civilization" as we know it or such things? Who knows for sure. One thing is sure, science tells us that GW is happening, it's up to us to find out what it means for us, our children and the planet.

You might be interested in reading http://www.realclimate.org/ , a pretty good site dealing with the SCIENCE and not with politics and economics run by prominent climatology scientists tired of being labeled as charlantans, scapegoats or scaremongers.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[hungrygrue]

Flamebate? I don't think so.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Moofie]

That would, indeed, be a good way to kill yourself.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

No. The answer is to change technologies to those that produce less CO2. Expensive, but less expensive than the consequences of global warming.

No. The answer is to produce more CO2 sinks.

You can't get rid of CO2 without causing thermodynamic problems for the machines that keep us safe, warm, and economically properous. (Which ultimately translates to well fed.)

Again, the solution is to change the world to meet our needs, not let the world make us extinct for being useless tool-users. :-)

Re:Doom and Gloom

['nother poster]

You're right, it's not just about us. It's about all of the future species that we won't allow to evolve because we think that we have to make the earth stay the same and not let any species go extinct. So many humans seem to want to make the earth a static entity that will remain like it is forever. The world is dynamic. It changes. Hate to tell a lot of people, but... Humans ARE part of nature!

We modify our enviroment much more than any other species, but we are not the only species that does so. We don't consider termite mounds and beaver dams unnatural. There have been many many periods of time in the past when CO2 levels were much higher than today. There have been many, many, times when the global temp has been higher than today. There have been many mass extinctions several times throughout history as well as the species that have gone extinct one by one as their enviroments changed beyond their abilities to cope. When they do, something else moves in, and over time evolves to fit the new niche better.

Of course humans are affecting the enviroment, but so are a lot of other factors, and we just do not know what the results will be. Neither do we know if our actions ane "helping" or "hurting" since we have no idea what those value and emotion laden words mean when applied to the enviroment for the most part. For all we know the CO2 emissions that humans are making are accelerating the earth to it's next "steambath" age, but that it will be milder and shorter because of this, and therefore fewer species will go extinct. Would that be good or bad? Beats me.

That said, the U.S. should be as scared as any country about global warming. A large portion of the U.S. population lives in areas with an elevation of less than 50 meters. New York, L.A., Houston, and San Francisco, all have large portions of their metropolitan populations living at less than 50 meters.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ScentCone]

Would this really be ANY sort of issue at all if it weren't so darned profitable for some people that we emit a bunch of greenhouse gases?

When you say "some people," you mean, of course "pretty much everyone that's currently alive." Right?

Because everything from refrigeration of antibiotics to high-yield/acre farming and the treatment of potable water involves energy consumption. More nukes, etc., would certainly be a good (and less hazy) thing, so I'm all for that and whatever other little nudges we can make here and there with solar, etc. But to suggest that the only beneficiaries (thus, those that profit) of our energy use are the people that extract/sell it... well, that's completely ignorning the benefits/profits of every family, farmer, business, etc. that uses energy as part of their daily lives.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[rob_squared]

The minority opinion isn't always wrong. Just ask Mr. Hubble.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

s/lighted/lighten/g

Re:Doom and Gloom

[OwnedByTwoCats]

AKAImBatman, you don't seem to realize that you're swimming in an Egyptian river.

Life will continue on, and those of us who survive will carry on. Which will be cold comfort to those who struggle and perish.

Human-induced climate change, which you dismiss as no big deal, is being demonstrated over and over again. Record reductions in arctic sea ice for the fourth year in a row. Don't worry. Be happy.

Someone can do the math about the number of calories produced by a forest fire or volcano. The continual increase in atmospheric CO2 and Methane traps an increasing fraction of the sun's energy. "But that's okay". AKABatman, this is de nile. De Nile, AKABatman.

So the fresh water melt might disrupt the gulf stream, the "atlantic conveyor" that keeps Europe's climate warm and growing season long. So what if the snows come earlier and melt later and crops fail and people starve. "We'll adapt."

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonderful thought!!!

While we're at it, why not toss out all law enforcement, crimes, etc? \

Hey!!! We're on a roll now.

Tell me, in this new "Rules free" world you propose, where do you happen to live? I'd love to pay a visit to get to know your mother and sister on a more intimate basis, plus I'd sure like to "appropriate" all your family valuables, including your iPod, and that SUV you so like to blissfully drive.

Whaddya think sport?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ROMRIX]

"But we are actually still coming out of the last ice age,"
Not so. We are nearing the end of the warm period between ice ages.
Ice age = 100,000yrs (roughly)
Warm Period = 10,000yrs (roughly)
And we're about 10,000yrs into the warm period.
Sooo... the catch phrase for the new millinium may well become, "Grab yer parka boys It's gonna be a cold night!"

Re:Doom and Gloom

[orzetto]

The name "Greenland" was pretty much an early form of advertising by Eirik Raude, to attract settlers. During the summer, you can still find green spots here and there on the West coast.

Mind you, the place Eirik was coming from was called Iceland, and it lies in the middle of the Gulf stream.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Wyatt Earp]

"There is an extreme correlation between CO2 and temperature. There is no doubt about the severity of our CO2 spike, nor its cause."

CO2 is going up at the same time the Climate changes. That DOES NOT mean that CO2 is causing the Climate change.

In 998 when the Vikings go a Vik'ing over to Greenland, the planet is warmer by many accounts...

"In the 960s Erik the Red, a fiery Norwegian, was exiled from his home in Norway. He went to Iceland, where he married Thjodhildur. He was later banished from there for three years. Erik headed west and discovered a land with an inviting fjord landscape and fertile, green valleys. He was greatly impressed by the land's resources, and he returned to Iceland and spoke about this land, which he called "the green land"'.

Greenland is an ag region in some parts. Now, we have an extreme correlation between Vikings and tempertature. All the models of the time take this into account, so that when the Vikings decline in the 1200s and the global temprature goes back down and Greenland ices over and Iceland gets more icy, the extreme correlation between Vikings and Global Climate is proven.

So today, since CO2 is entering the atmo and the temp is going up a bit, all our models focus on that. It's bad science pure and simple. It's worse science because anyone who looks at other data, like the increased output of the Sun, they are pointed at and called Heretic!

For a "science" the study of Global Climate change is far, far too editorialized in scientific journals, look at how Lomborg was treated in regards to the Skeptical Environmentalist

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you explain the "Vostok Sensation" then? The Vostok Sensation is a study of Antartic ice cores, showing a strong correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature (with spikes in C02 resulting in temperature change soon afterwards).

I've seen some detailed graphs of the results, and they are damn frightening. The only one I can find on the web is here. It is not detailed at all, but it gives some idea of the implications of the Vostok data.

About 9% of atmospheric CO2 is attributable to humans. This may well be enough to have an impact if Jouzel's Vostok data is correct.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[drgonzo59]

Exactly. That is what defines a chaotic system. But we don't know if the Earth is a chaotic system. Again, the burden should be on the scientists who claim "It's the end of the world as we know it!" to prove that before they prove that we are beyond a certain tipping point. In other words they should clearly show what makes it the tipping point, so that means they would have to have a very good model of the earth's climate, now that is not an easy task to do. I think we would see news about it, if anyone had created it. So we should first see "amazingly accurate model of Earth's climate created" before we see "This is the end of it all!" news.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[dasunt]

Okay, lets be pragmatic.

How much resources do you want to take away from other causes to devote to global warming?

Lets limit it to ecological causes. Should we preserve less habitat? How about clean up less toxic sites? Perhaps remove it from wildlife law enforcement?

TANSTAAFL. Lets assume global warming is real. We'll even go with the ICCC's report that we'll its like we'll be 3 degree warmer climate in 2100. What will the effects be? How much should we spend mitigating those effects? Is that the best use of that money? Or would the ecosystem be better off if we spent that money on habitat preservation and on moving the people in the worst environments?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[anopres]

I agree with the scientist completely, and apparently so do the Chinese. The best approach to conservation is not having kids. Unfortunately, you have to figure out a way to survive the "tragedy of the commons".

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Red Flayer]

In addition, I'm not sure the parent to your post is aware of the impact of 6 degrees of change on agricultural suitability and yields for major crops.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

BZZT! Wrong Answer!

The correct answer is, "Ethanol has traditionally been more expensive than crude oil. However, with gas pricing rising, Ethanol blends have helped keep prices of gasoline down. Now the only issue remaining is to find a good method for phasing out gasoline rather than a direct cut over to Ethanol.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[WindBourne]

Well, actually the contrails from jets appear to be doing a good job reflecting more light, then the CO2 that they emit. In fact, one idea being mentioned is to create more contrails via passenger jets. So, Al helped, but not anywhere near as much as GWB. GWB has been flying on vacations all over the country and the world. So, yes, GWB is helping the world. :)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[clem9796]

Sources, monetary and otherwise for conflicting studies...

Greenpeace: Global warming is in effect
OPEC: Global warming doesn't exist
PETA: Global warming is in effect
George Bush: Global warming doesn't exist
Kyoto Accord: Global warming is in effect...

There are many sources of studies and they definitively create two sides of the fence. I grew up in Estevan, SK and there are two coal fired plants within a ten minute drive of one another. Estevan has increased levels of skin cancer, and lung problems, lots of external issues like eyes and asthma and a perma haze over a town of 11,000 people. Not ot mention if you look out to the east of the city (Hwy 39) on google maps you'll see the wonderful spill piles from years of careless strip mining. While the results are in fact cloudy, you can't change the fact that what we're doing to the environment is having an effect in some way.

Mother nature is way more powerful than a lot of people realize (see: trying to control a hurricane). I agree that Earth will continue on it's merry way wether we manage to kill ourselves or not in the process of stripping it bare and filling the sky with garbage.

It'll all work out in the end, we only notice and care because we're the only ones aware enough to see the problems we're creating.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Atzanteol]

Isn't that what the dinosaurs said about 65 million years ago?

With all due respect, we are *not* dinosaurs... Our species has already survived an ice-age. And that was while we were still very primitive. What makes you think we couldn't do it now?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Because what? Are you saying that if 100 yrs from now the climate sucks that it's all the humans' fault?

That's what I don't get, we have stacks of hundreds of papers saying the climate has been warming in the last 100 years on a planet that's been around for 4 billion years. OK... Now prove that humans are the cause. Humans being around while it's happening IS NOT A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP by itself, (as much as Al Gore and the Kennedys would like it to be).

So, without proving that link, if the environment sucks later, that does not prove/disprove human contribution. This would be like a housefly in the month of June saying that 'wow, it's been getting warmer for the last few fly generations (like 3 weeks)- it must be our fault somehow!!!'

Duh.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lukewarmfusion]

Interesting... Looking at the IPCC reports, I see no conclusion that suggest humans are responsible for the warming. The 2001 report concludes that there is a warming, it has increased, and it will continue to increase.

A quick Google Scholars search reveals hundreds of articles dissenting from the "consensus" that many claim. A non-scholar Google search (sorry, I don't have access to any more professional litsearch tools right now) shows many articles (admittedly, from sources with varying levels of credibility). However, some of the most informed sources that I was able to find in my previous reading were not in agreement with this conclusion.

Again, I see the general consensus that a climate change is occurring, but many articles contest the view that it is entirely or even largely human-induced.

I'll keep reading about these things. Like I say, I'm no expert but I also haven't been convinced by any experts yet.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[srock2588]

I had a Vikings class recently and found the most interesting reason for the colony in Greenland was Eirik beig kicked out of Norway, then Iceland, due to "some killings". At least that is how the saga's put it.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[stlhawkeye]

Global warming is predicted to continue, agreed. Just because it may or may not be caused by mankind or prevented by Kyoto doesn't mean it's nothing to worry about.

I didn't say it was nothing to worry about. I said that the severity of the increase is measured enough that we'll be able to survive. Earthquakes and hurricanes and tornados and terrorists and anal warts are all things to worry about, too, but we survive them.

Try saying "I think we'll survive" in the context of rising water levels to the residents of New Orleans

At the current time, approximately 99.92% of New Orlean's population survived the hurricane and flood. I'm not concerned. Even if the number of dead quadruples over current estimates, it means 99.3% of the population survived the hurricane. Again, not worried.

YOU might survive, WE might not be so privelaged.

Irrelevent red herring. I said we'll survive, as will the food we depend upon. You're shifting the scope of the discussion and changing the definition of "we" to make a case. You're right i "we" may not survive if "we" is the cheery-picked 1000-odd people who may end up dead after New Orleans is drained. Or the ungodly number of people killed by the December 26 tsunami. The tsunmi took out about 0.003% of the world's human population. Again, I'm not worried. Yeah, it sucks to be them, and it'll suck to be me when Missouri gets annihilated by another rash of insane tornados. What am I going to do about it? Nothing. I'm going to drive my car to work, play Warcraft, read Slashdot, download porn, play poker, drink beer, and enjoy my life.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AviLazar]

we have ice at *both* poles?

Considering our poles are always in flux, I am not surprised. I'd imagine it being pretty hard to get ice along the equater if our poles were around there at some point.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Cyberherbalist]

There was an interesting article in Scientific American in March 2005 that definitely attributed the heat rise over the last 8,000 years to human activity -- but the article was pretty clear that 10,000 years ago global climate was supposed to have begun plunging towards an ice age (as gp indicated), but the plunge got shortcircuited by us. According to the article, which should have been in Slashdot (and might have been, I don't know), temperatures right now should have been much colder, in fact with perennial icecaps beginning to form in parts of Canada and similar elevations throughout the world, except for this human activity.

So if implemented, Kyoto could kill us, apparently. Take your pick: reverse global warming and freeze to death; or let it go and get even bigger hurricanes. Don't even think you can tweak it to make it "just right." I vote for the heat. Just stay away from the coast.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Catbeller]

In other words, when you find yourself trapped in a burning building, it's not wise pump a barrel of gasoline into the flames.

We may be in a warmer cycle, but it is a firm fact that we've pumped up the methane, CO2 and CO in the atmosphere. We are pumping a tanker of gasoline onto a raging inferno.

No matter the overall climatic changes, OUR activites have made it much worse and much faster. Ice is melting everywhere. Glaciers are going, Siberia is melting, releasing methane in a vicious cycle, villages in Alaska are disappearing in the meltoff of the land, we're getting four times the normal number of hurricanes in a year -- and they are stronger, for the waters are warmer than they have been in centuries. The Northwest Passage over the arctic ocean is opening up as the ice floes melt.

It's real. The only choice we have, in the short run, is whether we wish to mitigate the changes by cutting down greenhouse gases -- immediately. We wait, there'll be new oceanfront property really soon.

Of course, the same industrial and financial firms who wished to maintain their status quo by resisting change and financing PR fake science will shift gears in the new warm world and find massive profit in the meltdown. It's all the same to them.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Our entire dating technology is completely and utterly circular.

No, it isn't. Whoever told you that was lying.

We truly do know that carbon dating tells us when the carbon in a living creature was absorbed from the atmosphere, and these numbers are good from 150 to 50,000 years before present. Other radioactive methods are good for determining when rocks solidified, millions of years ago. Counting and comparing tree rings is good for 9,000 years.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[seek31337]

The world isn't going to end from global warming. It will exist long past it, if it is indeed happening. The real issue is, can we survive without any changes to our daily lives? You know, like half the population living on the coasts not having homes because they're under water. Additionally, if you really believe that the Aeolipile is even remotely powerful enough to be considered 'the technology to manage power production', you're seriously insane.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[bombadillo]

I always heard the same thing about the name being a marketing ploy. Looks like you are spot on about the west coast. Wikipedia of Greenland

Re:Doom and Gloom

[sockit2me9000]

Those are all perefectly valid questions that aren't being asked by our government. We don't even have a national dialog yet.
Listen, I have no problem with the pragmaticism cutting both ways, but I would at least prefer an honest discussion, as opposed to faith-based suppositions.
The problem right now is the fundamental framing of the issue by our politicians and media.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ifwm]

"rise in sea level will start to inundate the homes of millions in every country."

With all due respect, I don't care all that much. Of course I'll get modded troll, but those people won't bother to read past that first sentence.

The truth is, global catastrophes can be GOOD for humanity. They often drive innovation, either from fear of a recurrence, or the inability to return to the previous situation.

If you're trying to save everyone while also trying to stop global warming, you are going to have to give something somewhere. There's no way to know that the consequences won't be worse than the cure.

My honest opinion is to be as conscientious as you can, within reason (and that is highly subjective) but to prepare for the certainty that humanity will endure some type of culling. From global warming or a global pandemic, or who knows what else. I really don't see a world filled to the brim with starving, infected people as something to strive for.

Now flame away.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Karhgath]

The parent is right. Furthermore, the scientist community never linked the ozone layer to global warming, just as much as Saddam was never linked to 9/11 but everyone thinks he was linked.

Not to say that it isn't another problem, but it doesn't have any direct consequences on Global Warming.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[mbourgon]

Wouldn't you rather be wrong about the fact there is global warming than be wrong about there not being global warming? That's what I don't understand.

You're missing one gigantic piece of it. If you're wrong, billions/trillions of dollars were spent with absolutely no benefit, aside from making certain people richer and more famous. What an _amazing_ waste of resources.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[apt142]

Sadly, there isn't a commandment to be good stewarts. However, there are several referrences that do specifically state it. There is no excuse for the religious right not to be more environment friendly.

As for the Earth being destroyed in "the rapture" being a good thing, well saved or not, the descriptions for that sound extremely terrible. A lot of bad shit is supposed to happen before anybody is raptured up.

On both accounts I ask people to remember something: There are a lot of dumb people out there. Most of these people have been sucked up by one major religion or another (usually by other dumb people). And while they are strong believers they don't fully grasp what they are believing in.

So, don't blame the religion for the stupid people. That goes for Islam too!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[WindBourne]

Actually, scientists routinely tell exactly what is assumed and what is not. What happens is that others will read more into what is being said and distort it. For a good example, one of my past students told me that he did not believe in carbon dating. When I asked him why, he told me about a radio show that featured Focus on the Family. The gist of it was that they tested a pocket knife blade and found that the age indicated it was only 200 year old metal. Of course, it is well known that carbon dating can only involve once-living material. So these ppl will go to great lengths to lie about nothing.

What does this mean about your statement? All the scientists will tell you that base assumptions are made. Few are questioned, because they appear to be reasonable. More importantly, there is a very strong correlation between all the various approaches such as ice core and tree rings. If assumptions were incorrect, or the approach was wrong, we should expect to see major differences, but there is not (some minor, but that is expected due to local variability).

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Chosen Reject]

Well, it couldn't be because we don't have a clue about how to date things could it? Our entire dating technology is completely and utterly circular.

Seeing as this is slashdot...No, most here don't have a clue about dating. And the fact that you have to have dating technology, wow, I mean just wow. If you think dating a woman can boil down to some technology, then yes, you got it wrong. And what is this cycle thing of which you speak. Every year you go back to date the same woman? Wow. Just Wow.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

Additionally, if you really believe that the Aeolipile is even remotely powerful enough to be considered 'the technology to manage power production', you're seriously insane.

Oh, well thank you very much. Cripes. It's called, "Technological Development." The path was open to the Romans, but they didn't take it. The aeolipiles they produced could have been useful for low powered stuff like pumping a vacuum. Further development could have produced far more powerful steam engines (especially since they had a great deal of experience with furnace heating from their baths) that could have assisted labor even beyond what the slaves could do.

Heck, that was the whole point of the industrial revolution, wasn't it? Machines could do the work of low-payed men at a far better cost?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[HiThere]

And that's what you expect right after a big melt. Warm oceans evaporate more water at their surface, yielding more percipitation. That means SNOW & Glaciers near the poles. Eventually the oceans will cool down, but they have a lot of thermal mass.

Ocean temperature is the critical feature. Hey, "The Day After Tomorrow" got something right! Actually, it got a lot of things right, but the time scale was compressed to make it appropriately dramatic. People don't react the same way when things are actually taking place over several (?) generations, though truthfully given the state of my knowledge I couldn't rule out "over several years" as a possibility, and I couldn't rule out "over several centuries". Climatologists talking about things changing quickly are often quite vague about just what quickly means, and I'm no expert.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[joeljkp]

"... we may just be egotistical to think that we have an effect on the planet's climate."

The point is, however, that "may" isn't good enough when it comes to global climate change. Isn't it better to err on the side of sustainability?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ecki]

I think it is Hubris for humans to think that we can destroy the Earth

Indeed

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Red Flayer]

"Do Slashdotters ever get out of their houses and lighted up?"

Getting out of the house to get lighted up works fine for me 8)

"But the solution to the Earth's violent and chaotic changes is not to stop meddling and hope it all corrects itself (because it won't, history can prove that), the solution is to change the world around us for the purpose of securing life for ourselves, and plants and animals around us."

I disagree. The solution is to mediate the impact we've had as best we can, and then try to minimize our current and future impact. We should not be in the business of preserving life as we know it; we should be preserving the ability of life to 'choose it's own destiny', for lack of a better term. I know, we've passed that point (global climate change due most likely to human action has been documented from 20,000 and more years ago).

Slightly on a tangent, but relevant -- the rebuilding of New Orleans. I believe we have a unique opportunity to let the Mississipi delta reclaim some if its natural state. I believe resources directed to rebuilding should instead be directed to relocating to an area with a lesser impact.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[jadavis]

I think this goes back to that "bad science reporting" article a little while ago.

Computer models need assumptions. What assumptions are used to model the loss of artic ice by 2070? A computer isn't magically smarter than people, it just calculates using the numbers a human gives it.

I'll give an example: Let's say it's 60 degrees F when you wake up, and 75 degrees F by 2pm. A computer model might say that we're all going to be cooked in a week.

A computer is not a scientific source to be cited in a news article. The alternative, however, is a little bit less exciting to print. What they really mean to say is that "If assumptions X, Y, and Z remain true, then [horrible thing] will happen by [really soon].".

Not only that, but "some scientists now believe"?! Of course "some scientists" will believe almost anything. You can find scientists that think the Earth is 5000 years old. What matters is a consensus among reputable, peer-reviewed scientists.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[harl]

I call Bullshit!

The ice core samples only show that amount of "green house" gases is going up. The ice cores tell us nothing zip zero ziltch about the temperatures of the past.

Please learn the difference and the implications there of.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lgw]

Here's one chart of the Vostock data, here's another in a weird movie format that you have to scroll around in, but has some additional data. The commentary on the first page may be BS for all I know, but the charts are good. You've probably seen all this, but many slashotters haven't.

You can see the 100,000 year cycles clearly. Temperatures spike from -8 or -9 degrees (C) below present to 2 or 3 degrees above present in about 5000 years, then almost immediately reverse, dropping about 5 degrees over the next 10,000 years, then cool off slowly over the remainder of the 100,000 year (give or take) cycle.

About 15,000 years ago temps spiked as normal, reaching today's temps about 10,000 years ago but *didn't* dive as would be expected. Humans started messing with the climate significantly only in the past 200 years, but something unprecedented in the 400,000 years of good data we have happened 10,000 years ago - we should have been back to the norm for the Current Ice Age by now. What happened? During the previous cycle CO2 levels stayed at the ~275ppm level for 10,00 years but temperatures dropped nearly 10 degrees during that time anyway - why?

Yes, indeed, as I said repeatedly, the volcanic cycle is far slower than the timescale we care about. But CO2 level changes driven by the big geological cycle dominate the geological data. There have been geological periods when CO2 levels were 6-7 times as high as they are now (we think), but temperatures were about the same. Why? We really know very little about the factors that govern the climate.

What we *do* know is that it's a historical anomaly during the past 50,000,000 years for temperatures to be this warm for even 1,000 years at a stretch - the climate simply isn't naturally stable.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[HiThere]

Actually, Greenland was a real estate developer's name. The Greenland Viking colony was struggling to be self-supporting in a narrow strip along the coast. True, the cold coming back wiped out that narrow strip, but it was never a pleasant vacation retreat. It was small, cold, and very poor land. Marginal, even for people from Norway/Iceland. (Actually, Iceland is a much better place to live now than Greenland was then.)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[sockit2me9000]

But what if I am not wrong? Then we could save billions of dollars and save millions of lives.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[EvilTwinSkippy]

And don't forget, there are vast fields of methane in the Ocean that are trapped there by the cold temperature of the water. Heat up the oceans too much, and you'll have even MORE sources of greenhouse gas to deal with.

Skip Mars and the Moon. NASA ought to be working on large scale habitats for mankind to flee too along with enough livestock and crops to keep us going.

I'm not saying we need it just this minute, or even just this century. But to quote "Contact", "There are a dozens of reasons we can thing of why you would need it. But it's the ones that we haven't thought of that are more important."

Re:Doom and Gloom

[kfg]

Putting aside the fact that a forest fire or volcano is a hell of a lot more energy than humans normally put out.

Ah yes, the old "Since hurricanes release far more energy on a city than several atomic bombs there's nothing wrong with my nuking your city" argument.

KFG

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Red Flayer]

Yet, we can get a pretty good idea of relative climate change.

My point is not that we can or should prevent climate change; my point is that we should do our best to make sure we are not the cause of the climate change.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[RKBA]

"While there have been shorter spikes that have been steeper, nothing in history even approaches what we're experiencing right now."

Actually, it sounds like it might be fun. :-) I only have another 15-25 years left to live anyhow, so I wouldn't mind spending it watching the world end, or to at least see some interesting weather for a change. Here in Southern California it's always hot and dry.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Another is that there much of the worlds carbon is locked away in soil (much more than in trees, by a factor of 100 or so). If the earth gets warmer, things that live in the earth, like worms, burrow deeper and allow oxygen to reach the locked up carbon. This brings more carbon dioxde into the atmosphere and assists global warming.

I don't think it's quite that easy to make CO2 by placing carbon in the presence of oxygen. The the only way animal life can do it is with the help of bio-catalysts, the only way we can make CO2 from hydrocarbons is combustion. There is a significant energy barrier that needs to be overcome to oxidise carbon.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, even if it does warm up I'll just crank the A/C in my SUV down another notch.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Red Flayer]

Right on.

The unintended consequences are why we should try to minimize our impact.

But minimizing impact != static climate, nor should it.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Obfuscant]

Quite honestly, it's the fact that we aren't quite sure that scares me the most.

Then be very, very afraid. There are a lot of things we aren't quite sure about, from where all the missing matter is in the universe to exactly how the nuclear forces operate.

In fact, all the missing matter might just be waiting outside your back door waiting to mug you the next time you walk out. That's a scary idea.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[mickwd]

"I think it is Hubris for humans to think that we can destroy the Earth."

I think it is Hubris for humans to think what we can't.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[cluckshot]

Well to really muck things up here takes some curiosity. Lets assume that the conclusions are correct and we proceed to rebuild New Orleans...?!!! If we assume that global warming is going to raise ocean levels or that it is just going to heat up the ocean, will New Orleans is going, going ..... Gone! Er.. Blub, blub blub

Of course none of this could be assumed to be from the fact that the Mississippi delta like most others in the world is sinking into the sea.

But even if this is wrong we could still be doing a lot of stupid stuff. For example: What happens to the earth when you suck out the oil and 100 times more brine. Does the earth sink? What happens to the tons of toxic heavy metals we bring up and pave our roads with. Just for kicks is it possible that we have more serious things to deal with?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Pentagram]

CO2 is going up at the same time the Climate changes. That DOES NOT mean that CO2 is causing the Climate change.

No it doesn't. Necessarily. But it's the prime candidate. Basic physics suggests that increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere leads to a greenhouse effect.

So today, since CO2 is entering the atmo and the temp is going up a bit, all our models focus on that. It's bad science pure and simple.

You have a complete lack of understanding of how science works.

It's worse science because anyone who looks at other data, like the increased output of the Sun, they are pointed at and called Heretic!

Because no one has yet found a decent correlation, and no one has found any evidence that increased CO2 concentrations isn't the main culprit.

For a "science" the study of Global Climate change is far, far too editorialized in scientific journals, look at how Lomborg was treated in regards to the Skeptical Environmentalist

"Too editorialized"? What the hell do you mean? Do you have even the faintest idea how scientific journals operate?

Lomborg was a hack, a "scientist" with a background in politics who was treated far more gently than he deserved.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ameline]

Blasphemy! Everyone knows that the number of Vikings has nothing to do with global temperature averages. It's clearly the declining number of PIRATES that is the direct and sole cause of global warming. Ramen

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Golias]

You know, I've heard from hundreds of people who think that everybody thinks Saddam was linked to 9/11, but I've yet to meet a single person who actually thinks that what you think they think.

Here's how it goes:

George Bush (or one of his asshole flunkies) says something along the lines of, "Saddam supported terrorism, and 9/11 taught us just how horrible that can be."

Then some talking head or columnist says, "there go those Republican assholes again, trying to link 9/11 to Saddam in the minds of Joe Sixpack."

Then some red-state Joe Sixpack says, "I'm glad we took Saddam out, because he was supporting terrorism. Hooray for George Bush! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drive my SUV while smoking a cigarette and talking about my oil investments on a cell phone as I cut people off in traffic."

Then some modern, caring, sensitive liberal hears that (without listening very closely) and says, "Joe Sixpack actually bought into the lies of the Republican assholes who are trying to link Saddam to 9/11, and that's total bullshit!!!1!!!one!! Buck Fush! I'd complain about it more, but I want to go buy one of those 'Darwin' fish for my car, so I can show everybody how incredibly witty I am while pissing off backwards creationists." ... and the cycle of people merely talking around each other continues...

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Obfuscant]

No, it was Erik the Red's competitor George the Bush that caused the return of the ice. He and his offspring are responsible for everything bad, don't you know.

The latest member of the family was even able to direct hurricane Katrina directly through the gap between his ranch in Texas and his brother's state of Florida. I mean, who wants to mess with someone who has the power to make hurricanes go where he wants them?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[soft_guy]

We can give a government tax break to companies that advertise with Sky Writing.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

I disagree. The solution is to mediate the impact we've had as best we can, and then try to minimize our current and future impact. We should not be in the business of preserving life as we know it; we should be preserving the ability of life to 'choose it's own destiny', for lack of a better term.

I disagree with your disagreement. I hope we don't disagree on tha? :-P

The problem with mediating the impact is that it's an "us or them" situation. Your choices for mediation are:

1. Stop using technology. Since humans are ill-suited as anything but tool users, the animal kingdom will "choose its own destiny" and wipe us out. If they don't get us, disease and sudden climate changes will.

2. Continue to use technology, but mitigate the effects through defensive planning. We won't catch everything (as with Katrina), but the survivability of the human race (as well as whatever plants and animals we bring under our protection) will be statistically far higher.

I'm afraid that the laws of physics say that there can't be a middle. We use energy on a daily basis. That energy usage rejects massive amounts of thermal waste heat into our environment. We also rely on inexpensive chemical processes. That requires that we also reject large amounts of "burned" chemicals like CO2 and water into the atmosphere. Since the energy for powering our infrastructure *must* come from somewhere, we're on a losing path to think that we can develop miracle solutions that will somehow make the problems go away.

Slightly on a tangent, but relevant -- the rebuilding of New Orleans. I believe we have a unique opportunity to let the Mississipi delta reclaim some if its natural state. I believe resources directed to rebuilding should instead be directed to relocating to an area with a lesser impact.

I agree with you from a practical standpoint. The amount of engineering that's required for moving rivers is astounding. Unfortunately, New Orleans has a rich history on its current land. I don't think you're likely to get people to move. Thus the only pragmatic thing to do is learn from the tragedy and build new levees where weaknesses were found in the infrastructure.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Colin Douglas Howell]

When a society fails, it comes from the inability to see where policies will lead. If you look at great empires that have crumbled, they fail from the inside out.

Not necessarily. Sometimes they just get overwhelmed.

Easter Island? It failed because no one was smart enough to say "Gee, maybe we should stop cutting trees."

We don't know that there was no one smart enough to say that--in fact, it's likely there was. It's one thing to say such things, quite another to actually turn the society away from a self-destructive path. Easter Island was being overwhelmed by civil war.

Rome? "Gee, maybe we shouldn't over-extend ourselves." Followed by, "Nobody could have expected the Huns to invade."

Uh, this one is completely wrong. Augustus imposed a policy of halting imperial expansion after the annihilation of Varus's three legions in Germania in A.D. 9. There were some further expansions after that, including Claudius' conquest of Britannia in 43 A.D., Trajan's conquest of Dacia (modern Romania) in A.D. 106, and Trajan's temporary eastern conquests during his war with Parthia--of which only Armenia was kept. After that the empire was fairly static for around 200 years; only then did it begin to fragment and shrink.

The empire started to fall apart partly from internal social changes which made it harder to maintain the massive army needed, and partly from an enormous westward barbarian migration which the Romans could not possibly have expected (it began in Central Asia in regions far outside their knowledge), and which they lacked the military strength to hold back. The Huns were only one of the later phases of that migration.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Rei]

I see no conclusion that suggests humans are responsible for the warming

From the third TAR (the most recent that they have published on their site)'s summary:

"Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses and areosols since the pre-industrial era" (goes on to discuss how)

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." (goes on to discuss why)

etc. Did you even read the TAR?

A quick Google Scholars search

Ok, lets look at the first page:

Pro global warming by human causes: 10
Anti-global warming by human causes: 0

Perhaps that page was a fluke. Lets look at the second.

Pro global warming by human causes: 10*
Anti-global warming by human causes: 0*

* - Two papers make the argument that global warming is more due to gasses like methane and CFCs, and thus will be easier to control; one of them argues further that while the models show clearly that global warming will continue, people shouldn't take dire actions because of the uncertainty of rates in the predictive models.

One more page? 10:0

While several of the covered papers in the search are somewhat tangential (for example, the effects of global warming on forests or birds), you're going to have to do better than that.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but the Earth isn't older than 6,000 years. So it's clear that humans have been polluting God's creation to the point where we're going to run into some serious problems. I don't understand why people don't want to take better care of His creation? Aren't we supposed to be good stewards?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Humanity cannot destry earth, as in the 8,000 mile sphere of iron and rock.

Humanity is also very unlikely to eradicate life on earth. There's too much, and life is too clever.

We do stand a good chance of affecting global climate in such a way that the trillions of dollars in investments we've made in food production suddenly becomes inappropriate because the climate changes over years-to-decades. And then hundreds of millions to billions of people starve or dehydrate or die in migration to places where there are food and water and people consuming that food and water who don't want no foreigners crossing the border.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Rei]

In 998 when the Vikings go a Vik'ing over to Greenland, the planet is warmer by many accounts...

Nope.

*Greenland* was warmer. But we're talking about *global warming*. The Sahara, by contrast, used to be cooler and less dry than it is today.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Decaff]

You can't get rid of CO2 without causing thermodynamic problems for the machines that keep us safe, warm, and economically properous. (Which ultimately translates to well fed.)

Except for the use of nuclear, wave or wind or solar power, which produce no CO2.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[OwnedByTwoCats]

We won't be able to build large scale habitats in space with materials lifted up from the surface of the earth. We'll need to get materials from space: the moon, mars, and the asteroids. Maybe water from comets. To get those materials, we'll need people to be able to live and work up there. Which starts with permanent, self-sustaining colonies on the moon and mars. Which will probably require clanking replicators (see wikipedia) to produce the power infrastructure we'll need up there. Make sure you build an "off" switch, guys!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Obfuscant]

Most countries have built major cities very close to sea level.

Most countries don't decide where to build cities. Small towns grow into big towns into small cities into big cities, because people move there and/or reproduce there and stay.

Major cities happen to be close to the sea because that happens to be where the people want to be, at least originally. Access to trade and shipping, for example, is better at a sea port than in the middle of nowhere, Kansas, or on the top of Pike's Peak.

Make it less hospitible and they'll leave. Just like many of the people who have fled/been dragged away from New Orleans have decided they do NOT want to go back. Heck, if I'd just lost everything I own and was now living someplace far away from the sea and hurricanes, I doubt that I'd want to go back, either.

The only reason a lot of people go back (e.g., to the Outer Banks in North Carolina) is because misguided governments help them rebuild fancy houses to replace the ones they had. If every hurricane that went up the east coast was a million dollar loss for someone, they'd get the idea that living on the Outer Banks isn't really a swell idea after all.

The next generation is going to have a hard time.

EVERY generation thinks it has a hard time.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[radtea]

...nothing in history even approaches what we're experiencing right now.

There is nothing unique about the scale of anthropogenic climate forcing.

For example, the Mount Pinatubo erruption resulted in a drop of global temperatures on the range of 0.3 degrees per year over a three year period, for a total drop of over 1 C. This is an enormous impulse forcing, yet global temperatures did not undergo any run-away cooling despite the know proclivity of Earth's current climate for such events.

There is nothing unique in time-scale or magnitude about the current anthropogenic climate forcing. Over the Earth's history we can be sure that both positive and negative forcing events have occured that far outstrip anything humans are currently doing. Recent regional climate fluctuations, such as the little climatic optimum in the North Atlantic region around 1000 CE, and the little ice age that affected the same region half a millenum later, make it clear that climate variation occurs on all sorts of scales in time, space and temperature, for all sorts of reasons.

Ice core and other data, such as paleolimnology-- suggest that interglacial global temperature has a tendency toward bi-modality, with the "hot" state about 5 C warmer than the temperate state we are now in, and lasting about 1000 years on average. Most interglacials show one or more hot transitions of this type. We may be entering one now, and anthropogenic forcing may very well be tipping us in that direction.

But to suggest that there is anything unusual about this is simply mistaken.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Karhgath]

That was exactly my point. The administration never directly said that Saddam was responsible, but people spun that for their own propaganda. Maybe only a small % of people were affected by the propaganda, but activists from both side spun the issues. Same with Ozone and GW.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Obfuscant]

...which will not necessarily be suitable for human civilisation.

Do you not realize the vast range of climatic conditions under which humans already live? From Siberia to the Sahara, people exist, and modify their environment to succeed.

...that wouldn't be a very pleasant thing if it caught you by surprise.

Do you really imagine that you go to bed one night in a temperate climate and wake up in a sauna? "SURPRISE! It's chili today, hot tamale!"

Re:Doom and Gloom

[OwnedByTwoCats]

This post is one of the most insulting posts I've seen in ages.

It seems to assert that the people who make computer models are too stupid to avoid linear extrapolations from cyclic data.

You can't have a consensus among reputable, peer-reviewed scientists when discussing new results.

Yes, the article reports a prediction of an ice-free arctic (at the end of summer) in 65 years. That's the result of a model. But the article also reports that the September ice coverage of the arctic was at a record low in September 2004, which followed a record low in September 2003, which followed a record low in September 2002. Ice coverage at the end of August, 2005 is 1/6th lower (2.0 million square miles vs. 2.4 million square miles) than it has averaged since we've had satellites watching. And that the more of the arctic ocean that is ice free, the more of the ice melts.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

What's a darwin fish? If it is known to piss off creationists, then I want one! :-)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Braino420]

Uhhh... I thought the parent was talking about not worrying about global warming.. I think you pulled this "Rules free" thing right out your ass.
The point your missing is: Now no one has to worry about spending rediculous amounts of money
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA328.html to try and slow down a problem that we have little to no control over. Environmentalist are going to have to find a different way to persuade us all from polluting now!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Karhgath]

Oh, and, btw, lots of people thought that Saddam was involved. Maybe much less today, but polls showed that a large majority believed that at the time.

A near-unanimous majority believes that the Iraqi government trains and supports terrorists. In an August 2002 Gallup survey, 86% said they think "Saddam Hussein is involved in supporting terrorist groups that have plans to attack the United States."

That's one poll. There are tons of others.

Now, are we to believe polls? That's something else. Anecdotal evidence might also be biased due to location and demographics of the sample. You can conclude whatever you want, do you hold more faith in your anecdotal evidences or polls? I can't answer that question for you.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Fulcrum of Evil]

What in the hell are you talking about? The Saddam/911 thing was but one in a string of lies meant to justify our invasion. Other knee-slappers include the WMD hoax and the whole 'liberation' thing, wherein we liberated the oil ministry but left the museums wholly unguarded and failed to restore electricity for over a year.

This modern, caring, liberal considers the whole exercise a massive waste of money, life, and time that's left us poorer and weaker with nothing gained.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading Bill Moyer's comments I am left with a sour sad taste in my mouth. While I follow the Christian faith, I less subscribe to the Christian religion that supports such drivel as the rapture, suppression of others, and "Our God is Better then Yyours". What banality. The teacher that Christ was would never advocate such mindless following of bad doctrines like, destroy the environment and God will hasten your ascent to heaven. YIKES!!! For my part, I see the beauty in Christ's teaching along with Buddha, Taoism, and even those of Wicca that speak of how we are all part of the creation. These become part of my faith, not my religion. Destroy a part and we destroy a part of us. I passed along the comments of Bill Moyer to friends in the hope that they may gain understanding and try in their own way to stem the tide of lunacy that is spreading as fast across this country. AC but wisenedtechguy would be my nickname.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

Any ideas on how to get nuclear, wave, or wind into a car, bus, or truck? Because I'm all ears.

(Nuclear *would* work for shipping, and POSSIBLY for trains. But there are a lot of political problems with those avenues.)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Captain Splendid]

Did you know that it's an oddity in the Earth's history that we have ice at *both* poles?

Really? I thought relative lack of sunlight and subsequent low temperatures were responsible for the ice? Why wouldn't that happen at both poles? (Unless the earth is shaped like a pyramid!)

Not trolling, sincerely curious about this "oddity".

Re:Doom and Gloom

[animalmindreader]

There were once tens of millions of buffalo that roamed the western plains... Same with Redwoods, forests, moutains that have been mined, fish that are now being deep sea dredged (look at the cod stocks around Newfoundland). I could go on and on Puuulleeeezzz. The amount of time when buffalo and fish and redwoods didn't even exist is many millions of times greater than when they did. Just because something on Earth exists and then it doesn't (either gradually or instantly) doesn't mean the Earth is/was "destroyed". The Earth is constantly in change. Sometimes fast, sometimes slow. People are only freaking out because they've recently figured out ways to measure the change -- sorta like looking at a 20 year old photo and realizing that you've gotten fat, wrinkled and ugly. Humans are arrogant little fleas who think they're in charge of the dog because they ran the ticks and mosquitos off and made a pimple on his ass. Got news for you - one day the Earth will shake us off too.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Decaff]

Any ideas on how to get nuclear, wave, or wind into a car, bus, or truck? Because I'm all ears.

Yes. Use those to electrolyse water, produce hydrogen. Use hydrogen power in fuel cells to power car, bus and truck.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Snaller]

Yeah, lets just sit on our fat asses and say its normal.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[sgt_doom]

I think that guy you're posting in reference to uses Rush Limbaugh as his primary source (do pill-popping draft-dodging dopeheads really know what's going on??????).

Re:Doom and Gloom

[d34thm0nk3y]

We certainly can make it uninhabitable for certain flora and fauna, including Humans, but we can't destroy it.

Is that supposed to make us feel better? I personally don't give a rats ass about the planet if it can no longer support human life.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[3nd32]

AAAAGGHHHH! Not "birds are dinosaurs" again! Birds are birds, not dinosaurs. Humans are humans, not fish. Just because a species is descended from another doesn't mean it is that original species.

Now to address your other statements. If you'll look at two of the issues you raised, glaciation and being a moderately intelligent ape with rough tools living on the plains of Africa, you will see the first was not a threat to the species. After all, we were living on the plains of Africa, where glaciers haven't been much of an issue. As for the second, being a moderately intelligent ape would place us into a reasonably safe area in regards to extinction. Even comparatively stupid apes have done well over the years.

There is concern that we could render the Earth uninhabitable for humans. I think that ranks pretty high on the scale of dire threats.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the name Iceland sort of the reverse of the naming of Greenland? People living there liked it so much that they didn't want all sorts of people moving in and mucking things up. There used to be tight restrictions on immigration, but this led to mild inbreeding and Björk, so they have been relaxed lately.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ZeeExSixAre]

we're getting four times the normal number of hurricanes in a year -- and they are stronger, for the waters are warmer than they have been in centuries.

You need to check your numbers because you're very, very wrong:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Re:Doom and Gloom

[YrWrstNtmr]

In other words, when you find yourself trapped in a burning building, it's not wise pump a barrel of gasoline into the flames.
We may be in a warmer cycle, but it is a firm fact that we've pumped up the methane, CO2 and CO in the atmosphere. We are pumping a tanker of gasoline onto a raging inferno.

Or, another analogy might be:
If you're in an Olympic size pool, don't spit in it. You'll raise the water level and drown.

What magnitude, as compared to natural cycles, is OUR contribution to global warming? I'm NOT saying we shouldn't reduce, or that mankind has zero effect on the environment. But what, really, is the level of that effect?

How much?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[aaronl]

The Sahara was a bad example. ;-) It used to be quite small, but grew to the current tremendous size without human intervention. Much of that land was inhabitable even 5,000 years ago, but by 1,500 years ago it was mostly considered wasteland.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Loonacy]

It's a play on the Christian fish people put on their cars and such.

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/emblems.html

I've had 5 of them, and every one goes missing after no more than a week.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Golias]

In an August 2002 Gallup survey, 86% said they think "Saddam Hussein is involved in supporting terrorist groups that have plans to attack the United States."

The statement used in that poll:

1. Does not mention 9/11

2. Is known to have been completely true.

Therefore, you are merely echoing the same mistake I was railing against: that people must think Saddam was behind 9/11 because some poll says that people believe he supported anti-US terrorism.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

Which then ejects water into the air, increasing the general humidity, creating a different type of global warming than we currently have.

BZZT. Try again.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[acb]

Aren't the Global Climate Coalition an astroturf group funded by fossil-fuel companies?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hard core scientists" simply discover how things work. Engineers create solutions.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[0xABADC0DA]

Lets put it in context. If the average american put down 14 thousand square meters of white paper we could counter just the current loss of all that reflectivity. So adjusting for angle, maybe a few thousand square meters would do it. Given that the average american donated about $2 to the hurricane relief it doesn't seem possible.

But that's not the point even, just an indication of the massive scale of the problem. We can't even counter the effects of losing the ice, much less the cause that will keep accelerating the change. And that 'volcanoes do it too' is just bullshit... this is our fault, and ours alone. Sure, life will go on but not with us. Every massive climate shift has decimated the dominant species. Hell even just a large centipede just walking over us gives a red trail of irritation, and everything in nature will get more fearsome and deadly as the current order is destroyed. I'll be willing to bet that no technology will be enough to save our weak-ass selves us from nature gone wilder.

What's really sick though is the religious that want the world to end so they can be beamed up. They recklessly destroy the planet on the guess that they and they alone will be saved. But last I read of the bible, suicide doesn't get you into heaven so these people will be in for a rude (and hot) awakening.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Rei]

For example, the Mount Pinatubo eruption

lowered the temperature by the addition of aerosols (dust and sulfuric gasses), which mostly leave the atmosphere over the next several years. CO2 does not (there is sequestering, but it's a slow process). CFCs do not (half-lives often over a hundred years). Methane does not, although it is one of the shorter lived greenhouse gasses (12 years) and some of our actions have added new permanent influxes (for example, dambuilding). Etc. Mt. Pinatubo actually helped validate models of global warming

There is nothing unique in time scale or magnitude

Yes, there distinctly is.

The little climatic optimum ... the little ice age

Was nothing compared to recent temperature change; check the graphs. Some conservative sites distort the issue by citing temperature changes *In Europe* during this period, not global temperatures. If you want to talk *regional* climate change, be my guest - compare Europe's little ice age change to the modern Arctic climate change.

lasting about 1000 years on average

Completely false (unless you're, for some reason, talking about small-fraction-of-a-degree changes, as opposed to real ice ages). Again, look at the graphs; I can't stress enough that you review the data again, because you're wrong about what it says.

The pre-holocene glacial period had prpbably some of the most rapid climate changes in history, yet they still took a 650-3000 years to accomplish what we've done in a two hundred, and what we will repeat in 50 or less.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Snaller]

Ok, once more and in English please.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Rei]

In short, temperature rose, and rainfall decreased. I was showing the fallacy of picking a particular region when the discussion is global warming ;)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[tompaulco]

That is because there are not enough little Darwin fishes with randomly generated legs to have a sustainable population, and thus it fails as a species.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ThaFooz]

As much as $3 a gallon gas has changed my habits, I guess it is good because it makes other, more environmentally friendly alternatives, an alternative price wise

Not to be too pesimistic here, but I don't think it will help. Sure we're finaly seeing a little conservation now, but as the price goes up we'll just replace our oil infrasctructure with electric/fuel cells/batteries. The vast majority of electric power in the US still comes from coal, and we have no shortage of it. I'm no chemist, but I can't imagine its any better for emissions.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[R3d M3rcury]

To quote George Carlin, "The planet is fine. The people are fucked!"

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AndersOSU]

Holy propaganda batman!

The American coalition for ethanol is basically a lobby of Midwest corn farmers who really like their ethanol subsidies.

The talking points are a very slanted and biased. For example the claim that EtOH has a Net Energy Value (NEV) of 1.67 is so generous to be absurd. See http://zfacts.com/p/83.html

Now while EtOH may not impact the cost of gasoline the fact that EtOH production needs to be subsidized with tax money means that it is not an economically viable solution (yet.) The ONLY reason EtOH fuel is not more expensive than $3/gal gasoline is that it is subsadized.

Now the sterling engine you linked to is indeed interesting, and i wish them the best of luck, but I withhold judgment until something is actually mass-produced. In my opinion the best short-term solution is small turbo diesel powered vehicles, and the worst is hydrogen fuel cells.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Golias]

It's a parody of the little metal fish which many Christians like to decorate their cars with. (Back in Roman times, a line-drawing of a fish was used by early Christians as a sort of graffitti tag to identify themselves.)

Basically, it's the same fish, but with little feet attached to it and the name "Darwin" written where lettering is usually used to indicate Christ.

It doesn't actually piss off creationists, as far as I've ever been able to tell.

If anything, it would be far more likely to piss off Darwin, were he alive, because: 1. Darwin was at least a nominal Christian himself, and might be put out by seeing his name used like that, and 2. As a biologist, he would probably be appalled to think that educated people who should know better find a fish walking on four legs to be a meaningful shorthand reference to his theory of Evolution.

What it does accomplish is it separates a few dollars from fools who desperately want to show how cool they are by mocking religious kooks, while providing the rest of us with an easy marker for identifying somebody we have no need of taking seriously. If I see a car with a Darwin fish, I can safely assume that the person who owns that car has absolutely nothing useful or original to say, and ignore them forever.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Decaff]

Which then ejects water into the air, increasing the general humidity, creating a different type of global warming than we currently have.

Nonsense. The water that would be produced is totally insignificant compared to the amount produced by natural processes! To compare this amount of water by that evaporating of the surface of the oceans is ridiculous.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Wyatt Earp]

"Graph showing roughly 1000 years of temperature in the northern hemisphere. It is based on combined data from ice layers, corals, trees, etc. The 20th Century's one degree Fahrenheit warming stands out dramatically."

Thats the type of graph that's the problem. Picking data points that prove the argument isn't science. It's making shit up to get the grade or win the arguement.

"It is based on combined data from ice layers, corals, trees, etc." What the hell is the "etc" Thermometers perhaps? We don't know.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

We wait, there'll be new oceanfront property really soon.

See you down in Arizona Bay. Learn to swim, learn to swim.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Golias]

Nothing in my post indicated whether the war was a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. I was not trying to make any such case.

But thank you for completely talking around my post, and thereby proving my point about how far too many people are merely talking around each other.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense - temperatures are increasing due to a decrease in the number of pirates in the world! Sheesh...

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Rei]

There have been geological periods when CO2 levels were 6-7 times as high as they are now (we think), but temperatures were about the same

Where are you getting this from? The Vostok data shows a clear, amazingly unambiguous correlation between temperature and CO2 levels for the past several hundred thousand years.

the climate simply isn't naturally stable

No need to speed it up many times over by such dramatic alterations of our atmosphere ;) Rapid climate change is bad for species in the short-term (short term on the geological scale being thousands of years); given that we already stress many biological systems with our extreme levels of development and harvesting...

My personal opinion is that something needs to be done, but major cutting CO2 output isn't necessarily the answer (although it should be approached, with things like nuclear power and fuel efficient vehicles). I think we need to do more research on sequestering; my favorite idea, which I'd like to see at least tried in small scale, is summed up by the phrase "Give me half a tanker full of iron powder, and I'll give you an ice age". There are huge dead zones in the world's oceans due to iron depletion that we could potentially seed. The big concern, however, is that if we seed them, other fisheries will get mineral depleted downstream; we have to be wary of collateral effects, and thus need to start with small-scale testing.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Mister White]

The chance of us actually taking on to new planets is quite small. I'd bet my first born that we'll be in colonies, or space station-like confines long before we could consider taking up planets. Terraforming wouldn't be worth it, even if it were possible.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

If that were true, then the same would be true of CO2. Yet environmentalists tell us that we're having a significant impact on the CO2 ratios. And scientists are already warning about the effects of a sudden increase in vapors:

"The widespread use of hydrogen fuel cells ... would cause stratospheric cooling, enhancement of the heterogeneous chemistry that destroys ozone, an increase in noctilucent clouds, and changes in tropospheric (lower-atmosphere) chemistry and atmosphere-biosphere interactions," scientists from Caltech and Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena proposed in the journal Science in 2003. Noctilucent clouds are eerie high-altitude clouds whose abundance, some scientists suspect, is influenced by climate change.

See? You can't have it both ways.

BTW, there are no oceans in Arizona, Colorodo, Kentucky...

Re:Doom and Gloom

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

Oh, come on - don't be such a spoil sport! If I were a few years younger, I'd buy one and put it on my car. It wouldn't have much to do with pissing off creationists (there are not that many of them here in this part of Europe), but because they look sort of funny.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Snaller]

The only hubris is that we think our 100 years of precise weather experience will somehow prevent the climate from wildly shifting again. :-)


Nobody says that, there are only two types: Those who say what we do is irrelvant, and those who don't give a shit.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

Great link, thanks! I particularly like the T-Rex fish! :-)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[dpilot]

I find it highly *convenient* and *comfortable* but not profitable. I wasn't saying that the rest of us weren't beneficiaries... Now that you mention it, I guess I should have differentiated "profit" of the dollar sort from "profit" of the lifestyle sort.

Making that distinction, imagine if you were to put the question of "losing some profit" to the "lifestyle profit" group vs the "financial profit" group. I suspect that more of the former would be willing to compromise^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H give up a little than the latter.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[bc90021]

You disproved your own argument. You say at first that humanity has this grand power to burn all this carbon, but then point out that it would only be about 1.8 cubic kilometers if it were the density of water. Is that a typo? Frankly, it's a very SMALL number, which would indicate that humanity has a very small impact.

To give you some idea - the volume of the earth's oceans has been computed to be 1.37 BILLION CUBIC KILOMETERS. (See here.) So that carbon, if it were in the density of water, would be 1 billionth of the size of the oceans.

Now, as it relates to carbon, imagine that the earth itself is practically made of the stuff, as is most life!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lgw]

There is no sustainability. Stable climate is a myth. If we want to keep today's toasty temperatures in the midst of the current ice age, it will take dramatic human activity to stop the normal climate change mechanisms (and we don't even know what those are, on the revelant timescale). The normal course of nature, sans man, would be: hello glaciers, goodby Canada!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Red Flayer]

"The problem with mediating the impact is that it's an "us or them" situation. Your choices for mediation are:
1. Stop using technology. Since humans are ill-suited as anything but tool users, the animal kingdom will "choose its own destiny" and wipe us out. If they don't get us, disease and sudden climate changes will.
2. Continue to use technology, but mitigate the effects through defensive planning. We won't catch everything (as with Katrina), but the survivability of the human race (as well as whatever plants and animals we bring under our protection) will be statistically far higher. "

Sorry I didn't elucidate better -- by 'minimize impact' I meant within reason, considering the factors necessary for our survival and reasonable quality of life; the trick is finding the optimal mix. Minimize != eliminate.

Also, re: defensive planning for mitigation, you're talking about mitigating the effect of nature on humans; I'm talking about our responsibility to mitigate human effects on nature.

"Since the energy for powering our infrastructure *must* come from somewhere, we're on a losing path to think that we can develop miracle solutions that will somehow make the problems go away."

Well, one way to minimize the impact of our infrastructure is to lessen the demand for energy. Another is to choose energy sources that have a smaller footprint. Another is to continue to develop technology that decreases the footprint of the energy sources we already use -- whether it's more efficient motors, better emission controls for power plants, or anything else.

"Thus the only pragmatic thing to do is learn from the tragedy and build new levees where weaknesses were found in the infrastructure. "

There are parts of NO that are historic (these can be moved). There are people who won't want to move (this is *exactly* why we have eminent domain) from an untenable location. We could condemn the buildings, or purchase them. We could offer them better property nearby (which we'd have to purchase, of course). We could be heartless, and tell them we won't help them out if they stay -- this is probably the most pragmatic.

One way of preventing human catastrophe from flooding is to build levees. Another way is to allow natural flood dispersal. Practicality, in this case, depends upon public mindset, and the willpower and abilities of those supporting either method.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything. is. going. to. die. God. save. us. all
Yes, Mr. stupid... Everthing is going to die, and on this ones God will not help us...

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

Holy propaganda batman!

You rang?

The American coalition for ethanol is basically a lobby of Midwest corn farmers who really like their ethanol subsidies.

No. Really? Gee, I guess I've been duped.

Or more likely, I just like how their facts page is organized. :-)

Try these studies if Ethanol.org doesn't float your boat. For example, a 2004 study done by the Department of Energy (the same organization that found Ethanol to be energy negative under Pimentel 20 years earlier) found that Ethanol is at least 35% energy positive. (Report)

Even if these figures are overstated, the use of Ethanol would consolidate our oil dependence on farming equipment. The money then used to maintain the oil industry could then be diverted to replacing farm equipment with new technologies like hydrogen fuel cells or high density batteries.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[cunniff]

What your discussion seems to gloss over is the fact that the chart clearly labels year 2000 CO2 concentrations (370 ppmv), which are nearly 25% higher than any of the previous spikes (which are around 300 ppmv). The slope of the curve which got there is nearly vertical - indicating something unusual is going on. Personally, the historically unprecedented mass oxidation of fossil fuels seems like a very good explanation to me. But if you believe instead that it's the decreasing number of Pirates causing it, then, well, I suppose we're done talking.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[qray]

Would this really be ANY sort of issue at all if it weren't so darned profitable for some people that we emit a bunch of greenhouse gases?

Think about this. It's also profitable for some to "solve" such environmental problems. The tech needed to remove pollutants from emissions isn't free. There's a lot of companies that have a vested interest in see the global warming theory advanced.

Me, I'm going to invest in beach front property in the Antartic. Anyone know the number of a realtor?
--
hoto migtod dogtop

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Golias]

If you knew more of the people over here in America who had them, you probably would feel differently about it.

The real message the "Darwin" fish sends is:

"I am a tiresome snob who parrots every shopworn joke you've ever heard about religious nuts, yet for all my free-thinking idealism I have never once had an original thought. Please leave me off the invitation list of all your parties, because I'm no fun to be around. I don't understand even the basics of evolution at all, but I've embraced it as dogma with the same furvor that the Muhajadeen embraces the teachings of their Mullahs."

On the other side of the coin, I also shun people who home-school their kids out of fear of all that science their little moppets might get exposed to.

Bottom line: I don't like hanging around with group-think zealots, whether they consider me to be on their "side" or not.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Wyatt Earp]

Birds are evolved from dinosaurs. Well, not all dinosaurs for sure, but birds are generally considered to have evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Specifically, birds are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids.

A dinosaur, is not a Species but a Superorder.

The Ice Ages were threats to the plains of Africa because the Ice Ages created overall global climate changes many times greater than what we are dealing with now as the Ice Ages ebbed and flowed, even in Africa the effects would be great as the oceans rose and fell in coastal levels.

There is very little chance the Earth would be uninhabitable, even if Global Warming was the worst we figure it could be and we popped all the nukes in the World and there was an outbreak of some terrible virus at the same time, there would still be inhabitable places and humans which survived.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[dpilot]

Too many people on both sides want this to be a black-and-white issue, and it's just not going to be. Take a slight analogy, "PROVE to me that there's an icy patch on the highway up ahead!" The adjoining statement being, "I'm not going to slack off on my speed a bit until I have absolute proof that there's ice."

In that situation, most of us would slow down a little. I'm not saying stop, I'm not saying back up, I'm not saying take a detour. I'm saying exercise a little caution.

In the current environment, it seems to me that getting an "amazingly accurate model of the Earth's climate created" would be one of the absolutely most urgent tasks of our time. You may not agree with the conclusions some people are reaching, and I may not either. But given the amount of chatter, including chatter by highly qualified people, nobody with an open mind would say that there's NO cause for concern and study.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[uncqual]

My point is not that we can or should prevent climate change; my point is that we should do our best to make sure we are not the cause of the climate change.

This principle seems to have a couple of implications.

First... Suppose the climate was naturally changing in a way (such as towards a deep and extended ice age) that would drive many species (say, all mammalian species) into extinction. Even if we we knew how to reverse the change and "save" (at least for the moment) all of these species (including ours), your principle would disallow this. Note that this principle doesn't co-exist well with any argument that the reason not to cause climate change is to protect current species - since, by definition, this principle places a lower value on the survival of the current species than on "thou shalt not change the climate".

Second... It is impossible for man (or tigers, or elephants, or volcanoes, or ants, or termites) not to change the climate in some way (assuming, of course, that greenhouse gases are one source of climate change). How do we resolve this? I suppose we could kill off all the tigers, elephants, ants, and termites - but frankly I'm not too sure what to do with the volcanoes - I don't think we can plug them all with some "super concrete". If mankind intentionally killed themselves off (perhaps via Kool-Aid from Jonestown?), that would eliminate additional impact by man on the climate -- but if man had never evolved to the point of being able to make tools, harness energy sources and the like, he would have still had some impact on the climate so eliminating modern man (rather than reverting them back to some prior state that is sufficiently primitive to accept) would also remove that effect.

I think the absolute principle that we do our best to not affect the climate is not a very useful position (since, we know exactly how to do that - kill ourselves and I've not heard a groundswell of support for this - although, perhaps, if those who believe in this absolute principle should lead the way and maybe the rest will realize what a good idea it is and follow suit.)

Rather, the discussion seems better directed to determining the extent to which particular actions we take affect the climate and the extent of discomfort, cost, risk, or lack of advancement we are willing to accept to reduce climate change to some limit. For example, under their interstate commerce powers, the Feds could presumably effectively eliminate most global warming arising from power generation in the U.S. by banning power transmission across state lines unless that power was generated by climate-friendly methods (such as nuclear, wind, solar) and ban power imports or exports to/from any state which allowed any limits or prohibitions on building and operating nuclear power plants as long as these plants met Federal regulations (i.e., no NIMY rules at the state or local levels - if someone owns a plot of land, they can build a nuclear plant on it).

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Decaff]

If that were true, then the same would be true of CO2. Yet environmentalists tell us that we're having a significant impact on the CO2 ratios.

Yes, because CO2 is effective as a greenhouse gas at orders of magnitude less than water. Also CO2 is a minor constituent of the atmosphere, so anything we produce can have an effect.

"The widespread use of hydrogen fuel cells ... would cause stratospheric cooling, enhancement of the heterogeneous chemistry that destroys ozone, an increase in noctilucent clouds, and changes in tropospheric (lower-atmosphere) chemistry and atmosphere-biosphere interactions," scientists from Caltech and Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena proposed in the journal Science in 2003. Noctilucent clouds are eerie high-altitude clouds whose abundance, some scientists suspect, is influenced by climate change.

See? You can't have it both ways.

Yes I can! That is nothing to do with water production by hydrogen burning or fuel cells. It is to do with hydrogen leakage. That is something that can be controlled, and is certainly not an inevitable result of the use of hydrogen as a power source.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[cunniff]

Err, make that http://www.venganza.org/ - I even previewed and everything...

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

The ice core samples also show annual snowpack depth, which generally correlates with temperature.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[drew]

It's real. The only choice we have, in the short run, is whether we wish to mitigate the changes by cutting down greenhouse gases -- immediately. We wait, there'll be new oceanfront property really soon.


Bring it on. We don't really want Florida anyway...

Hey, I just moved to the mile high city a year ago, what do i care?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[tylernt]

"So we may, as a species, be in for a bumpy ride in the next few thousand years or so."

We'll survive. Remeber Waterworld? We'll just live on atolls and eventually develop webbed feet and gills and stuff. Just watch out for those Smokers... long live Ol' Saint Joe!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

(do pill-popping draft-dodging dopeheads really know what's going on??????).

I don't know. Ask Bill Clinton.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ultima]

Your argument is flawed in that you neglect to mention that computer-driven models can generate hypothesis that can be *tested*, both retrospectively, and in the future.

In your example, you'll know the computer model is wrong if in a week you are still alive. On the other hand, if the model can make accurate predictions about historical data, without being based on that data, then you have evidence to the model's accuracy. For example, use a machine learning technique to train a system to predict a 1-year climate trend using data from 1900-1990. Then, see if the system can accurately predict trends from 1990-2005. If so, there's no evidence that it would be wrong when predicting a trend from 2005-2015, when trained from 1990-2005. Other similar tests might include training on even-numbered years, and then predicting climate for odd-numbered years, or training on non-leap years, and predicting for leap years.

When you have sufficient data, you can use rigorous statistical methods to say with a known confidence how accurate your methods are likely to be in making predictions (and I'm not just talking about accuracy and recall; you can validate a hypothesis much more rigorously). You can then make rational, scientific statements.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

Sorry I didn't elucidate better -- by 'minimize impact' I meant within reason, considering the factors necessary for our survival and reasonable quality of life; the trick is finding the optimal mix. Minimize != eliminate.

But my point is that we've already taken those steps. We're still a long way from correcting the perceived "problems" that supposedly cause global warming. The physics of the situation suggest that we *can't* correct those problems, at least not without miracle technologies that we don't possess.

Also, re: defensive planning for mitigation, you're talking about mitigating the effect of nature on humans; I'm talking about our responsibility to mitigate human effects on nature.

No, I'm talking about changing the face of the Earth to protect nature as well as ourselves. When people choose a place to live, what are some of the things they look for? Perhaps clean air, trees, nature parks? Many of those nature parks are manmade creations, restored from land that was previously ripped apart. Yet they allow nature to balance with the people living there. :-)

Well, one way to minimize the impact of our infrastructure is to lessen the demand for energy.

Sadly, that's not going to happen. In fact, with computers becoming more power hungry, a greater desire to travel to locations faster, and a need for more goods transportations, we're looking at nothing but energy increases for the forseeable future. Sure, we could all decide to turn off our computers and stay in the park communing with nature, but that defeats the point of living as humans. (Not that a little nature communing isn't bad every once in awhile.)

Another is to choose energy sources that have a smaller footprint.

Actually, oil has the smallest environmental footprint. Moving to Ethanol would require massive amounts of farmland. Hydrogen would require hundreds more powerplants. Nuclear powerplants would require places for safe disposal. Coal destroys huge swaths of land during mining. (Are you starting to feel the frustration of engineers? :-/)

There are parts of NO that are historic (these can be moved).

That's not actually the point.

We could be heartless, and tell them we won't help them out if they stay -- this is probably the most pragmatic.

This is the point. Being heartless would be political suicide. For all intents and purposes, it would probably be easier to abandon NO for now. But we're going to spend billions of federal dollars to rebuild it. Why? Because people are compassionate. I'll let you decide for yourself whether that's a bad thing or not. (I know I have mixed feelings.)

One way of preventing human catastrophe from flooding is to build levees.

As I said, we'll reform the world to suit us, not the other way around. :-)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lupinstel]

These are darwin fish. http://www.evolvefish.com/ This is also an annoying poorly designed site, but they have darwin fish and are the first in Google.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AndersOSU]

Even if EtOH production is energy positive (I find the energy credits portion of the calculations suspect.) As long as a pound of corn is more valuable than the equivalent in EtOH it does not make economic sence to put EtOH in our gasoline. EtOH may be energy positive, but it is economically negative.

The cost of EtOH is held artifically low by government subsidies, then lowered even more by the tax credit on EtOH blended fuels. When the cost of gas is high enough to make farmers want to grow EtOH feed stock without the government paying them to do so then I'll stop complaining (or at least complain about something else.)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[barawn]

Temperatures spike from -8 or -9 degrees (C) below present to 2 or 3 degrees above present in about 5000 years ... along with a gigantic spike in CO2 levels, usually on the order of 75 ppmv.

Hey, that amount sounds familiar!

During the previous cycle CO2 levels stayed at the ~275ppm level for 10,00 years but temperatures dropped nearly 10 degrees during that time anyway - why?

What, exactly, are you looking at? The period from ~125K to ~150K years ago? CO2 levels were at about 275 for about 10K years, so that seems right. But the temperature sure as devil didn't drop 10 degrees.

I think you're misreading that graph. That chart actually sucks a little bit, because the "Relative to Present" on the Y-axis prevents the two from being obviously lined up, and they never show a "temperature deviation vs. CO2 level" plot, but the correlation's pretty obvious.

That drop doesn't correlate with the flat period. It correlates with the drop from 275 ppmv to less than 250 ppmv. You have to shift the bottom graph to the left.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Kodack]

Do you even have the foggiest idea how much energy it would take to raise the average temperature of the earth by 1 degree??? More energy than man posseses. It takes the energy of something like the sun. And the total energy of mankind wouldn't even equal a solar flare, much less the power of the sun. The same with carbon emmissions. Humans might have an impact on an environment. But to affect teh global climate? To raise the temperature of the earth? Get real. To put this on a smaller scale, just think how hard it would be to raise the temperature of one of the great lakes by 1 degree. Now imagine all the worlds oceans, all the land, all the atmosphere that extends thousands of feet into space.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[DrMrLordX]

There's more to it than that. One major(and somewhat legitimate) concern of environmentalists is the effect our industry has upon the environment. Much focus has been made on the pollution we eject into the environment in the form of waste heat and waste chemicals(CO2, mercury, lead, CO, etc). In the future, we're going to have to put more focus on the raw materials we take out of the environment. Our future industry is on track to literally strip the environment of most, if not all, free carbon. Don't believe me? Go back and read the stories posted here about diamond nanotubes, aggregated diamond nanorods, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, space elevators, and more. Reality dictates that we will need widely-available industrial-grade fabrication materials that exceed the strength and quality of our currently-available materials, and it seems that we'll be using pure carbon as the building block of our future materials. The result? Once we've stripped all the carbon out of the entire world's fossil fuel supply and emptied all our old landfills, the only viable sources of carbon will be agriculture products, waste products, and possibly extra-planetary sources such as carbon-rich asteroids, comets, or what have you. Of those three sources, two such sources(agriculture products and waste products) ultimately derive their carbon from carbon dioxide within the atmosphere. Plants use CO2 to grow, and animals eat plants. We will begin stripping the atmosphere of CO2, and CO2 levels will plummet. What do you think of THAT future? Have you even begun to plan for it?

Why is our environmental outlook still stuck in 1994?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[dpilot]

Now you're talking old money vs new money. I'm just wondering what a 20 ft rise in sea level will do to the level of Lake Champlain, usually somewhere between 90 and 100 ft. (and my house, about 30 ft or so above that.)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Rei]

No - 1.8 kilometers, cubed, i.e. 5.832 cubic kilometers. As a liquid.

the volume of the earth's oceans

The atmosphere is far, far more sparse than water. Of that, CO2 is a trace gas, measured in parts per million. We add around half a percent of our atmosphere's total CO2 into it every year.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[3nd32]

I'm not arguing that birds are not descended from dinosaurs (that's a debate for another time). I'm arguing that descent does not mean birds ARE dinosaurs.

Saying "species" was laziness on my part, I didn't know the correct terminology and didn't want to look it up ^_^.

The concern is that we will trigger an ongoing reaction and overwhelm the corrective systems of the planet. In that case, the Earth in 50,000 years will have as many inhabitable places as Venus. I agree there is very little chance of this occurring, but it would definitely be the most dire situation humanity has faced.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Sandor at the Zoo]

In addition, I'm not sure the parent to your post is aware of the impact of 6 degrees of change on agricultural suitability and yields for major crops.

Care to provide some actual information or links to some?

The original article, and many others on this topic, are full of predictions of temperature increases, amounts of ice melts, etc. but are completely lacking in what this actually means.

Given the temp increases, yada ya, what actually happens? Can we no longer grow corn in Nebraska? Will Boston be underwater? How far underwater? How much does the coastline move in on the U.S.? How many people does that displace? What actually happens in Bangladesh? How long does it take for the water to rise?

I hate dire warnings with no description of the results.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it. The sun _will_ be doing the warming, helped along by the reduced albedo of the surface of the earth (ocean having a lower albedo than ice).

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

Yes, because CO2 is effective as a greenhouse gas at orders of magnitude less than water.

Indeed. Yet it is also more easily removed from the environment by plants and microbes.

Also CO2 is a minor constituent of the atmosphere, so anything we produce can have an effect.

As greenhouse gases go, it accounts for 20% of the volume. 60% is water, and the remaining 20% is ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4).

Yes I can!

Uh huh.

That is nothing to do with water production by hydrogen burning or fuel cells. It is to do with hydrogen leakage. That is something that can be controlled, and is certainly not an inevitable result of the use of hydrogen as a power source.

You honestly think that hydrogen leakage can be controlled? The molecule is so small, it penetrates ANY material! Hydrogen leakage is an accepted fact of hydrogen transportation. Building heavier tanks to lower the amount of leakage only decrease the overall efficieny of the transport vehicle, while simultaneously having only a mild effect on the leakage problem.

Plus, there are other scientists who argue that the emitted water vapors may cause just as much of a problem.

Now you can stomp around all day yelling, "I can too have it both way, I can too!" but it won't change the fact that our mere presence and use of technology is what has the effects on the climate. So if we're going to affect the climate anyway, we might as well do it right and change the world around us to protect ourselves.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[barawn]

Where are you getting this from? The Vostok data shows a clear, amazingly unambiguous correlation between temperature and CO2 levels for the past several hundred thousand years.

I think he's misreading the Vostok data charts on that page. The temperature chart has an extra line "Relative to Present" which shoves the temperature about oh, about 10,000 years to the left. So he thinks the CO2 stayed stable, and the temperature dropped, but in truth, they both dropped.

This doesn't explain what he's talking about (which is here) but this page is kindof confusing timescales. Yah, CO2 used to be at obscenely higher levels in the atmosphere, but the Earth was a much, much different place then. Saying "hey, look, our models that are based on the modern geography/biosphere/atmosphere don't work half a billion years ago!" isn't exactly surprising. It also doesn't invalidate them for predicting climate in the current world.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[zardo]

Who cares. The article comes from newsweek. Verify the source.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[gmikej]

We may be in a warmer cycle, but it is a firm fact that we've pumped up the methane, CO2 and CO in the atmosphere...

If it is a firm fact than you need to look up those firm facts and supply them to us. If we are in a 'warmer cycle' like you suggest then how much of this global warming is caused by humans (i.e. in your mind they would be called 'evil oil-producing, earth hating, life sucking corporate-loving thugs interested only in money')?

...Ice is melting everywhere. Glaciers are going, Siberia is melting, releasing methane in a vicious cycle, villages in Alaska are disappearing in the meltoff of the land,

Would this not be happening still without our help? Maybe these villages in Alaska should adapt to their environment. This is one thing that is fundamentally different between people that believe in global warming, sudden climate change, etc. is that they believe that Nature is a prestine, perfectly balanced thing that would be PERFECT if it wasn't for us stupid humans screwing it up all the time. The truth is nature (notice the LOWER caps this time) is ever changes and has never been stable. Ever. Changes all the time.

we're getting four times the normal number of hurricanes in a year -- and they are stronger,

Absolutely false. We started recording hurricanes in the late 1800's. We average the same number (and intensity) of hurricanes each decade.

It's real. The only choice we have, in the short run, is whether we wish to mitigate the changes by cutting down greenhouse gases -- immediately. We wait, there'll be new oceanfront property really soon.

It's not real. It's fear mongering behavior. Cutting down greenhouse gases is only ONE PART of what we can do- and this article above says that we are too late! Come up with some more ideas and stop spouting nonsense.

Of course, the same industrial and financial firms who wished to maintain their status quo by resisting change and financing PR fake science will shift gears in the new warm world and find massive profit in the meltdown. It's all the same to them.

Ahhh... there it is. The oil-corporations-run-the-world-and-are-evil section. When you use the term "PR fake science," would that be similar to (let's use a real example) a scientist who was fired from a well known environmental organization because his 8 year study revealed that when CO2 levels go up- plant growth increases (this would mean that the earth itself is helping to get rid of CO2 emmissions). Hmmm... food for thought.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

This post is retarded. The Sun IS what's increasing the Earth's temperature. The problem that humanity brings to the table is messing up delicate equilibrium balances that allow the Sun's energy to radiate away.

Here's an analogy: I don't possess the physical strength to kill a grizzly bear. I can lure it into a cage, shut the door, and let it starve to death though. Closing a cage door requires much less effort than killing the bear outright, but the end result is the same.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[maxpublic]

No matter the overall climatic changes, OUR activites have made it much worse and much faster.

We *still* don't know what the human contribution has done to the cycle - if anything. Most scientists agree that humans are having an impact on the speed of global warming, but no one - not any person, anywhere on the planet - can make an authoritative claim on the degree of this impact. It could be large, it could be small, it could be entirely unnoticeable compared to natural processes.

And that includes you. Neither you nor anyone else can make the claim that humans have made it "much worse" and "much faster" than it would've been without human contribution. You don't have a clue any more than anyone else does.

Ice is melting everywhere. Glaciers are going, Siberia is melting, releasing methane in a vicious cycle, villages in Alaska are disappearing in the meltoff of the land, we're getting four times the normal number of hurricanes in a year -- and they are stronger, for the waters are warmer than they have been in centuries. The Northwest Passage over the arctic ocean is opening up as the ice floes melt.

This is evidence of the events, not the cause. All of these things are true (except for the hurricane bit, which you got wrong); blaming them on humans as the major cause is a crock of shit. It could very well be true that these things would be happening if humans were still stuck in the Stone Age, albeit at (possibly) a somewhat slower pace. Only a massive infusion of cash and personnel into various related sciences (e.g., geology, climatology) will ever be able to answer this question; divine relevation via alarmist propaganda isn't a good subsitute for actual empirical evidence.

The only choice we have, in the short run, is whether we wish to mitigate the changes by cutting down greenhouse gases -- immediately.

You have no evidence whatsoever that this would slow down global warming. Best guess at this point is that *if* humans are having a major impact on global warming it's probably far too late to mitigate the effects. And forget about reversing them, we have no clue how to do that.

Even if it were true, the obvious answer is to replace coal-fired plants with nuclear breeder reactors, and IC engine-driven cars with hydrogen (as inefficient as that is). Think that's going to happen with extremist greenie fuckers pissing their shorts every time someone says the word "nuclear"?

Of course, the same industrial and financial firms who wished to maintain their status quo by resisting change and financing PR fake science will shift gears in the new warm world and find massive profit in the meltdown.

Ah, I see. Your whole argument devolves down to a pseudo-socialist rant that amounts to "It's the fault of the EEEEEVILLL corporations!". Please, get a fucking clue; if humans are to blame then it isn't the corporations at fault - it's YOU, asshole. YOU are the one to blame. So suck it up and take it like a man, rather than trying to pass the buck to someone else.

Max

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lgw]

Where are you getting this from? The Vostok data shows a clear, amazingly unambiguous correlation between temperature and CO2 levels for the past several hundred thousand years.

I can't find my original cite (or site), which annoys me because it was layed out clearly, but:

• CO2 levels: http://earth.usc.edu/geol150/variability/images/ca rboncycle/berner.gif
• Temps: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/ first chart.

You can see that during the late Ordovian and early Silurian CO2 levels were 10-12 times todays levels (by this model, anyway) and temperatures were actually colder than today's.

The Vostok data shows correlation, but not of course causation. There are so many feedback mechanisms at work that assuming causation only makes sense over a very short timescale. There are bigger cycles which affect both temp and CO2 levels, and which may change the relationship between them dramatically. This page talks about some of those cycles.

Personally, I'd rather see the current warm spell continue than return to the norm for the current ice age! Better a little flooding than all of Canada under a glacier (OK, maybe not, it *is* just Canada, but I like it warm!)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[barawn]

replying to myself, just to clarify:

The main argument on that page is that the Ordovician had obscene CO2 levels, and temperatures indicative of the current age "so greenhouse has to be wrong!". That fact is true, for a short period. This ignores the fact that the main cause of the temperature drops were due to the dropping sea levels due to Gondwana drifting over the pole. Unless that page is suggesting we shove South America, Africa, and Australia into Antarctica to combat global warming, I don't think this is really that applicable.

Of course, it's also been suggested that a GRB is actually what caused the Ordovician temperature drop, and I don't think anyone's recommending that as a method, either.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Hartree]

In this case, it doesn't really matter as to the Newsweek article referenced.

There was indeed in the mid 70s a flury of popular media about the world being on the way to entering a period of cooling. They were fretting about a new ice age.

The media often goes in fads about what the current expected disaster is.

(I was in Jr. High at the time and being a science geek followed it a bit.)

I've seen the cycle go round a few times in the area of food. In the 60s, were were warned about starchy foods. In the 70s-90s we were warned about fat. In the early 2000s, the media was preaching the gospel of Atkins, so were were back to worrying about starchy foods and fat was ok again.

I'm quite happy to switch the fuel sources over to something that doesn't emit CO2, but a good part of that is that I don't like burning these wonderful chemical feedstocks (oil, gas, coal) etc that societies of the future will need for better uses.

I'd like to use nuclear power in large amounts, but that's an anathema to quite a number of groups who can block it with endless lawsuits. *shrug*

Re:Doom and Gloom

[zardo]

I'll tell you it's those gosh darn HOLES in the OZONE layer! They're lazering the gosh darn icebergs to death.

I'll tell you what I'm doing. I'm gonna build me a bomb shelter so that when the earth blows up from global warming, I'll still be alive and kickin! I think I'll go out and buy me some bullets, now that I think about it!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

EtOH may be energy positive, but it is economically negative.

I hate to bring up this point, but so is gasoline. The government heavily subsidizes oil companies to keep pump prices down. Not to mention the amount of force we must project internationally to maintain oil interests. (No, I'm not talking about Iraq.) Have you seen the price tag on a carrier?

Ethanol is far less subsidized than the oil industry is. And if the demand for Ethanol goes up, all that land the government is *paying* to keep empty can be farmed again.

As for the relative price to gasoline without the pump subsidy, I've only recently jumped on the Ethanol bandwagon because gas prices have surpassed the unsubsidized cost of ethanol. So it is a winning proposition, any way you look at it. :-)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

but something unprecedented in the 400,000 years of good data we have happened 10,000 years ago - we should have been back to the norm for the Current Ice Age by now. What happened?

Just as a guess, maybe that corresponds with the widespread buffalo herds that used to carpet the northern hemisphere, producing excess methane. Now that we've eradicated them it should start returning to normal in a few thousand years. Get your down coats ready.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[joeljkp]

Not sustainability as in "keep the climate constant", but sustainability as in "not causing a drastic change in the Earth's natural climate cycles".

Re:Doom and Gloom

[TheSync]

How much suffering will be endured by less rich nations while we race to adapt our agritech?

History shows that if a country decided to adopt pro-market reforms leading to high levels of economic freedom, it can go from being extremely poor to a "western style economy" in 50 years.

Given the effects of global warming, some of which may be already locked-in, poor countries have just enough time to get the political will to do this...

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Cally]

Sweet suffering baby jesus, who ARE you people that mod this sort of ignorant diahorrea up to 5?!

Seriously, we've had the technology to detect global climate changes for what, a hundred years at most?

Well you did the right thing adding the ? to the end of your question, otherwise I'd assume you were stating this as factual! I'm not going to explain to you why and how you are UTTERLY UTTERLY WRONG, but here are some free google / Wikipedia tips: paleoclimatology. climate proxy data. radioisotope dating. 100,000 years, with less direct proxy data before that.

Of that, we've had useful tools (such as satellites) for less than 50 years.

What is it about non-satellite data that makes it useless? Show your reasoning and data, then book your ticket to Stockholm where Swedish royalty are waiting to give you the Nobel Prize for Extreme Cleverness, and all the world's scientists will be waiting to hear how they could have been so very, very wrong for all these years.

the earth has gone through a variety of climate changes in its history, and it will continue to go through plenty of climate changes regardless of whether we eject terawatts of thermal energy into the atmosphere or not.

"plenty" isn't a very precise term; it's kinda true, but what you have to remember is that anthropogenic climate influence is unambiguously distinct from natural variability in the data (google: detection and attribution) and that no other process *except* the sudden and massive release of CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere could cause such rapid change. (Hmmm, google for "260 million years ago" "10 degree rise" "methane hydrates" for the last natural climate change of this amplitude and rapidity.)

Secondly, did it occur to you that at the time that such changes occured mankind was cowering in caves making chipping rocks into pointy shapes (the end of the last ice age) and wondering whether to evolve into mammals, respectively. Put it this way. Hurricane Katrina was a gnat's fart in a tornado if compare the energy involved with that of the thermal inertia caused by even a 0.1 degree rise in global temperatures. Think about that for a bit. Remember that we're basically monkeys with speech and written culture, and that all the natural aggressive instincts that got us out of the trees and into the caves in the first place (frenzied killing rages, for example) are still with us. Oh and this time the pointy rocks are nuclear tipped.

(Putting aside the fact that a forest fire or volcano is a hell of a lot more energy than humans normally put out.)

You're merging two straw man arguments into one mega-strawman! Firstly, the issue is not the energy humans release into the environment; it's the energy the SUN puts into the environment, and the fact that we've increased CO2 concentrations by 40% or so in the blink of an eye. See, the CO2 traps the sun's heat inside the earth's environment - just like the way glass traps heat in a greenhouse. hence the term GLOBAL WARMING. Secondly, the 'volcanos' canard goes: "anyway, like, Mount St Helens releases 100,000,000,00000000 times more greenhuose gasses that humans have in the whole of history!!" - and, of course, it's utterly untrue. I'm not giving you google pointers on this one, go educate yourself on your own time.

Life will continue on, and we'll adapt.

If by 'us' you mean 'zygotic life', then you're quite correct. Right at the other end of the scale, if you mean "life as we hav known in it in the West since the end of WW2"*, well, sorry kid, but you're talking through your rectum once more. OK, OK, suppose that 'hundreds of millions' figure is wrong. Say that everyone in the new dustbowl areas just politely drops dead on the spot, rather than trying to move somewhere where there's more than sand to eat. You're still much more likely to end up choking on your own intestines in a pool of burning

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lgw]

Yup, I was talking about geological timescales, not the blink of an eye that the Vostok data represents. I don't think anyone doubts that CO2 is greenhouse gas, but there's a lot more going on here.

I'ts also worth noting that human-made NOx contributes about as much to the greenhouse effect as human-made CO2 (natural NOx is quite low). America can quite easily cut back on NOx production, compared to CO2 production (and NOx is noxious, besides). I was a bit annoyed that Bush's energy bill, which actually took strong measures to reduce NOx, was shot down in committee largely because it didn't do anything to reduce CO2, and now we're going to reduce neither for another year. Way to let ideology trump effectiveness, guys!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Cally]

Nice story. Got any references?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[barawn]

You can see that during the late Ordovian and early Silurian CO2 levels were 10-12 times todays levels (by this model, anyway) and temperatures were actually colder than today's.

The Ordovician and Silurian is not the Quaternary, and it certainly isn't the Holocene.

Look up the Ordovician period. Most life was confined to the sea. There weren't continents at the poles - so sea levels were very high.

One of the major continents (Gondwana) drifted south during the Ordovician. And when it drifted over the pole, suddenly sea levels started tumbling, because water began being trapped on land, and temperatures plummeted as the albedo of the planet changed massively.

Also, remember that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas: water vapor contributes a huge amount. Ignoring levels of the other gasses over huge regions is crazy.

Anyway, my entire point here is, again, the Ordovician is not the Quaternary, and definitely not the Holocene. Sure, temperatures were low then, and CO2 high, but that does not mean that the two aren't related . Just that other factors affect temperature as well. But we know this. And none of the other factors related to temperature are over 100% higher than their natural variation like CO2 is.

Unless you're talking about shoving North America north into the North Pole to try to lower sea levels to compensate for rising CO2, I don't think the Ordovician really applies to today.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Decaff]

"Yes, because CO2 is effective as a greenhouse gas at orders of magnitude less than water."

Indeed. Yet it is also more easily removed from the environment by plants and microbes.

But slowly. That is the problem. Excess CO2 easily removed over centuries or millenia - which is too long to avoid global warming.

You honestly think that hydrogen leakage can be controlled? The molecule is so small, it penetrates ANY material! Hydrogen leakage is an accepted fact of hydrogen transportation.

No. Only of current bulk transportation. Hydrogen can be stored chemically in ways that don't leak (such as in reversable metal hydrides).

Plus, there are other scientists who argue that the emitted water vapors may cause just as much of a problem.

As against the water evaporated off of the 70% of the world's surface that is ocean? Or the water that is breathed out by every living organism that respires?

I think not.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Mysticalfruit]

Here's the problem. Yeah a few volcanoes violently release millions of tons of CO2 in the atmoshere, but that's balanced by millions of squre miles of plants busy doing photosynethis that obsorb the CO2.

We (Humans) come along and do two things.
1. We start displacing the plants.
2. We start producing copious amounts of CO2.

Thus we're knocking the planets balance of CO2 off.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[maxpublic]

I thought relative lack of sunlight and subsequent low temperatures were responsible for the ice?

It is. But ice caps are far more stable when based on a land mass, which the North Pole (currently) isn't, and hasn't been for quite some time. And we're seeing the effects today; while it appears that the north polar ice cap is melting rapidly and may be completey gone before century's end, the south polar ice cap is in no such danger. Although it too seems (and I do stress 'seems') to be melting somewhat, the pace is orders of magnitude smaller because the ice cap itself rests on the Antarctic land mass.

So, any significant warming of the Earth will melt the north pole, but not the south pole. The reverse would be true if the south pole cap was ocean ice and the north pole cap was sitting on a land mass.

Max

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Red Flayer]

You make a a presumption here that I'm not comfortable with.

"Even if we we knew how to reverse the change and "save" (at least for the moment) all of these species (including ours), your principle would disallow this. Note that this principle doesn't co-exist well with any argument that the reason not to cause climate change is to protect current species - since, by definition, this principle places a lower value on the survival of the current species than on "thou shalt not change the climate".

I don't believe the goal is to protect current species. The ideal is to not interfere.

Yes, you are right about the ideal not being attainable -- but this does not invalidate the principle. We should still strive to do the best we reasonably can.
br. My view is that the cost for humankind acceptable to those who set policy should be far, far higher than it is...

Re:Doom and Gloom

[barawn]

Yup, I was talking about geological timescales, not the blink of an eye that the Vostok data represents.

But what's your point? That other things affect temperature besides CO2? Well, that's definitely true. If you massively change the Earth's albedo, or boil off all of the water on the planet, that'll have an effect.

Pointing out that temperature was low and CO2 was high in past time periods just confuses the issue. There were other things going on then that are not going on now.

Is it possible that there is something going on now that we don't understand that might cause climate change? Yes. But is there an explanation that we have that doesn't need to invoke an unknown? Yep, and it has to do with that ridiculously high spike in CO2.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Jeff Hornby]

I wasn't talking about the fragile ecosystems, I was particularly referring to the fragile infrastructure that keeps 6.5 billion people alive.

Changes in temperature will royally screw up agriculture. Food will be very difficult to come by if most of the truly productive agriculture areas become deserts. And the not so productive areas for agriculture - Africa for example - are very volatile areas; armies don't stop fighting when they're trampling crops.

So let me ask you this: if you couldn't get food from a supermarket, could you still eat? Can you name at least 100 edible plants that grow within a one mile radius of your home? Can you hunt, kill skin and dress a deer without any manufactured implements?

If things go bad, can you survive?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[dajak]

Even WITHOUT the Kyoto Protocol, the planet's mean temperature is expected to increase by 6-8 degrees over the 300 years. I think we'll survive, as will the food we depend upon.

This is more than enough to scare me. This is a map of the coastline where I live (Netherlands) according to Ptolemaeus' Geographia in the early Dark Ages when most of the ice on Greenland had disappeared, compared to a projection of a higher sea level on the current coastline. It takes a 2-3 degree rise in Greenland to reach this level, so I suggest taking it easy with the CO2 until I die at least. I still have huge mortgage loan to pay on a house in the middle of the darkblue area, and am not willing to emigrate to another country.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lgw]

You didn't have to get the link right, I have the T-shirt. ;)

Clearly mad-made CO2 is both a greenhouse gas and very high, but what next? There's some mechanism that reduces CO2 significantly every 100 Ky (presumably to do mostly with single-celled sea life, but the evidence isn't compelling) when we go through this warming cycle. Why didn't it work 10 Ky ago? What's up? What process does high CO2 levels usually trigger that strongly reduces CO2 levels, keeping us in an ice age for the last 50 million years?

A small change in ocean pH would double or halve atmospheric CO2 levels pretty quickly, but the mechanisms which control ocean pH are poorly understood (the amount of CO2 dissolved isn't a big part of it).

The small changes in CO2 levels we're seeing (relative to geological history) makes a very small difference in heat retained by the greenhouse effect (all CO2 together is about 2% of the effect, or about 1% of the total solar heating). Sure, you can put together a model that demonstrates a tipping point at current levels, but you can put together a model that demonstrates a tipping point at just about *any* level of CO2 - it's easy when we don't have any real knowledge of the underlying mechanisms to constrain our models.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

We're currently experiencing a change of 0.2 degrees every decade, I.e., thirty times as fast.

uhh. nice try.

We could agree on this, if the 0.2 degrees were in the same direction every decade (but they haven't been), and over a period longer than 2 decades. But 2 decades of 0.2 degrees (preceeded by a decade of -0.2 degrees) just doesn't a trend make. Take off the tin foil hat.

Fluctuations of 0.2 degrees (one way or another) is completely consistent with historical fluctuations over thousands of years.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Jeff Hornby]

If you were dumped in the middle of the wilderness, could you split the atom?

My point is, if things go bad, we lack even the most basic skills that our ancestors of 200 hundred years ago took for granted: the ability to hunt and find food, the ability to build shelter, the ability to find clean water (that was MUCH easier even 50 years ago), the ability to make fire.

The dire circumstance that I referred to is not just that we are running into some very nasty times but also we don't have the skills we will require to survive them.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lgw]

Just as a guess, maybe that corresponds with the widespread buffalo herds that used to carpet the northern hemisphere, producing excess methane. Now that we've eradicated them it should start returning to normal in a few thousand years. Get your down coats ready.

Excellent! Now *that's* a theory that doesn't hide from being called a "bullshit theory"! ROFL

Re:Doom and Gloom

[maxpublic]

The solution is to mediate the impact we've had as best we can, and then try to minimize our current and future impact.

Thanks, but no thanks. As the previous poster pointed out, nature is incredibly violent and quite fond of change. Nature doesn't give a shit about you, me, or the species as a whole. Me, now, I *do* give a shit and would much rather change the world to suit my species in whatever way is required. If this bothers the folks who worship nature as a god, fuck them and the horse they rode in on (assuming they don't worship the horse, too).

We should not be in the business of preserving life as we know it; we should be preserving the ability of life to 'choose it's own destiny', for lack of a better term.

That's nothing more than New-Age religious propaganda. It's our planet and we can do whatever the hell we please with it. The only 'business' that's mandatory is survival of ourselves and the species; everything else is optional.

I believe we have a unique opportunity to let the Mississipi delta reclaim some if its natural state. I believe resources directed to rebuilding should instead be directed to relocating to an area with a lesser impact.

There aren't any safe places on Earth. It's a mark of intelligence that we can build any goddamned place we please AND survive any disaster that may befall that place. I say rebuild New Orleans and this time make sure the damned dikes work as advertised.

Max

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Pharmboy]

No "fall of civilization" as Hollywood predicts every other day, or massive Slipstreams that make airplanes the only viable tech. Life will continue on, and we'll adapt. Okay? :-)

Yea, but if you make a Hollywood blockbuster about how everything is ok, and no one will die, you won't even be able to get people to pirate it, no less sell it to the masses. As to media news, "If it bleeds, it leads", and if they have to invent the problem, thats ok, too.

My conclusion is that we have no freaking idea what is going on with the climate, because we have too little base line data to compare with, as you state. Its not that I don't care, its just that I can't see why we are assuming we are so freaking powerful and smart, and we couldn't even tell that a catagory I hurricane in Florida was going to wipe New Orleans off the face of the map.

I also see that UK pulled out of Kyoto, and I applaud them for this. Biodiesel counts against Kyoto, even though it turns more CO2 into carbon than the other way around, just one of the major flaws of the treaty. We need solutions to pollution and to research the potential of global warming, but it would be preferable if they were less political, and more scientific in basis.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[zardo]

What's even more absurd is the same scientists would rather enforce a policy of prevention, rather than study the effects of global warming. I live in an area where temperatures go subzero every winter, which could potentially kill a man in minutes, but somehow we survive.

I think temperatures in the 120 to 130 range would be harder to deal with than subzero temperatures, but life will go on as normal, maybe we'll all go live in caves, heh heh.

Anyways, that's the thing that bothers me is their science is meant to promote a political agenda. I say keep the air clean of pollutants, CO2 is not a pollutant in my book, and until some OVERWHELMING evidence is presented that it is going to destroy the earth, for example "CO2 levels are too high and we're running out of oxygen", I'll ignore it.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Golias]

The thing that people forget is that "slow down a little" also has a cost.

This is not a matter of greed. Macro-economics is about survival. When economic times are bad, rich people get by fine, but poor people suffer and die.

Restricting the use of oil raises the cost of both energy and transportation, which means that those people who could just barely afford to eat, heat their homes, ride the train to work, etc., will suddenly be able to almost afford to eat, heat their homes, ride the train to work, etc.

So we should only damage the economy in the fight against global warming after several important assumptions have been demonstrated to be correct:

1. Global warming is happening and will continue.
2. Changing our behavior can prevent it.
3. Allowing it to continue will result in greater harm than the measures it will take to prevent it.

Some people are still arguing over points 1 and 2, and nobody I've seen has made a convincing case for point 3.

In fact, it could well be that we will all be far better off in the long run if the global climate rises four or five degrees. Most of the land in the world lies outside the tropics, where warmer temperatures means more productive agriculture and less need for heating fuel.

Yes, our behavior is impacting nature, but that is as it should be. As a species, we have always been better at adapting our environment to ourselves than ourselves to the environment. We can't grow thick hides so we farm for cotton. We can't run down enough antelope to keep us fed so we raise cattle. We can't communicate across vast distances by howling, so we run copper wire all over the place. This is simply part of what we are.

So while I agree that there is cause for concern, it would be simply reckless for us to negatively impact the lives of people today without first making a very solid case that the way we are currently changing our environment will ultimately do us harm, and that the cure is not worse than the disease.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

But slowly. That is the problem. Excess CO2 easily removed over centuries or millenia - which is too long to avoid global warming.

Er, no. Not quite. Natural CO2 sinks adapt very slowly to increases. However, it's still basically a big cycle with a given capacity for absorbtion in comparison to the quantity produces. As humans, we can and do artificially affect the balanace of these sinks. Promoting the growth of CO2 absorbing plants in urban areas has been one of the greater achievements of the later 20th century. There's still room for improvement, but it has helped.

Hydrogen can be stored chemically in ways that don't leak (such as in reversable metal hydrides).

Fair enough. But then we run into the environmental impacts of metal hydride disposal. It would be a bit like suddenly causing a thousand fold increase in batteries being thrown in landfills. Perhaps recycling can find good ways to deal with this, but that would likely involve a variety of disposable chemicals as well.

As against the water evaporated off of the 70% of the world's surface that is ocean?

Two words: Cross-Section.

Besides, we'd be releasing water that's already vaporized. That's not true of normally cool water sources on the surface.

Or the water that is breathed out by every living organism that respires?

One of the links I gave (I think it was the PDF I just pointed to) made the point that the very presence of humans has already affected the water vapor distribution in many urban areas. A few others have been pointing out the tale of Erik the Red and Greenland, and how there seems to be a correlation between the decline of the Vikings and lowering temperatures.

I think not.

Think Harder. (Or was that Think Different?)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because the Vikings were white men, duh!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lgw]

, temperatures were low then, and CO2 high, but that does not mean that the two aren't related .

I never made such a claim. I'm merely pointing out that there is more at work here than a simple CO2->temp relationship. This is a damped, driven system with multiple feedback mechanisms, not just a jar we're pumping CO2 into.

And, as you so correctly point out, CO2 is a minor player in the heat retention ability of our atmosphere (about 2% of the greenhouse effect, at current levels).

My whole point is that obsessing over CO2 levels is not a great way to combat global warming - asking people to reduce their standard of living just won't get very far. There are so many other factors at work here, and I for one don't want to see us slip back into the normal temps for the current ice age! Let's, for example, aggressively reduce NOx emission levels in the States - man-made NOx is just a big a problem, it's (relatively) cheap to reduce emissions, and even people who deny global warming agree that NOx sucks. Or Hell, pursue 100 other ideas that all make some sense. But this whole CO2 thing has become a battle of ideology and culture, with the actual goal of climate stabilization being quickly forgotton (eh, it's a lost battle in the long run, anyway).

Re:Doom and Gloom

[glider0524]

I feel compelled to submit a long quote from Michael Crichton's book State of Fear (he has it posted online as well at http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html under Excerpts, Author's Message). It was an illuminating book. I, like most people, figured a smoke/fire deal must be going on for global warming--even though I never looked deeply in to it before. Crichton did a LOT of basic research on the subject and came to the conclusion that the scientific methods were highly flawed, the claims unjustified, and the conclusions had so much intrinsic uncertainty as to be unusable for any practical policy decisions. The scientific community for some reason has taken a real bath on this one.

This is a synopsis of Crichton's views, what he wrote in the appendix of his book. The particular flaws in 'estimation science' (an oxymoron?) are detailed during the main book.

The quote:
A novel such as State of Fear, in which so many divergent views are expressed, may lead the reader to wonder where, exactly, the author stands on these issues. I have bee reading environmental texts for three years, in itself a hazardous undertaking. But I have had an opportunity to look at a lot of data, and to consider many points of view. I conclude:

• We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.
• Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.
• We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year old cold spell known as the "Little Ice Age."
• Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.
• Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.
• Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess --- the only thing anyone is doing, really --- I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else's. (We can't "assess" the future, nor can we "predict" it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. And informed guess is just a guess.)
• I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor.
• Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.
• I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don't know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardly perennial in human calculation.
• There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transportation in the early twentieth century.
• I suspect the people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don't think we have to worry about them.
• The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is desperately needed.
• I conclude that

Re:Doom and Gloom

[shmlco]

Of course, there's a major flaw in your reasoning. Yes, 99% of New Orleans survived. But only because of a major and ongoing support effort from outside of the affected region. What would be the death toll WITHOUT that effort, if everyone there had to fend for themself? No clean water, no food, no sanitation, no power, no medicine?

What happens in a major event, when there ARE no unaffected regions able to provide aid to those that are?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[neurojab]

But we are actually still coming out of the last ice age, so we may just be egotistical to think that we have an effect on the planet's climate.

Argeed that correlation does not imply causation, but I don't think it's egotistical to think that we can have an impact on the global climate at all. We do - all the time. Imagine you're on Easter Island and you start noticing that there are fewer and fewer trees. Is it egotistical to think that maybe the fact that you're cutting them down might be causing the deforestation?

We know the mechanism by which global warming occurs, and we know that that mechanism is happening in small portions, multiplied by billions, all over the globe. A small effect, multipled by billions, can be really big. What's egotistical about that?

The question is not whether the mechanism by which global warming happens can occur; it can and is. The question is whether or not those effects appear as noise when we measure the global climate, or to what degree they might be involved in the percieved temperature shifts. We're not going to know that until it's too late.

So yes, the majority of the warming could indeed be due to a natural cycle. But given that we can and do affect the global climate, and we know that the planet is warming, and that warming is BAD, why wouldn't we do what's in our power to at least elimate our contribution to the problem?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[toddbu]

Food will be very difficult to come by if most of the truly productive agriculture areas become deserts.

There was a time when the Sahara Desert was green and lush and agriculturally productive. That doesn't mean that if one place becomes uninhabitable that another won't take its place.

Can you name at least 100 edible plants that grow within a one mile radius of your home?

Do you mean in addition to the corn, sunflowers, radishes, carrots, tomatoes, and cucumbers that I have growing in my garden? ;-)

Don't get me wrong - I think that reducing greenhouse gasses is a good idea. I just think that the way that we've approached this whole argument is really very unproductive. "The sky is falling" is not the way to make the argument. The way to make the argument is to provide alternatives that have less of an environmental impact and then promote those. Show me a car that runs on a fuel cell and is powered by a nuke plant. Then sell it to me for no more than 25% above the sticker of a regular car. As part of the sales process, make sure that I understand that not only will I be helping the environment, but I won't be dependent on foreign oil any more. Certainly this is all very doable over a reasonable period of time, and you're likely to get a lot of support from many different sectors along the way because you've included everyone in the process.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought it was Don't shit where you eat. And I always used to say that about dating a co-worker. But now I do so whatever....

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether or not burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, I'm just getting sick of breathing the damn polluted air. I wish I could go back a few thousand years in time just to breathe some fresh air for a change.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[barawn]

I'm merely pointing out that there is more at work here than a simple CO2->temp relationship.

It is a simple CO2 -> temp, if all other factors are held constant. I don't understand how pointing out that there's another variable (that isn't changing) affects this.

If you want to reduce other emissions as well, that's fine also. But the other gases, according to the IPCC, have a smaller radiative forcing compared to CO2 (CO2: 1.46 W/m^2, CH4: 0.48 W/m^2, NOx: 0.15 W/m^2).

CO2 is the one that needs to come down, and unfortunately, it's also the one that you pretty much can't beat with cleaner burning.

And, as you so correctly point out, CO2 is a minor player in the heat retention ability of our atmosphere (about 2% of the greenhouse effect, at current levels).

Depends how you measure it. It isn't additive. According to the IPCC, If you removed all greenhouse gases save CO2, the greenhouse forcing would be 25% of what it is now.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Obfuscant]

But what if I am not wrong? Then we could save billions of dollars and save millions of lives.

In five years, I will be working in a laboratory funded by a generous government grant, being paid an exhorbitant salary ($15mil/yr sounds good), and I will discover not only the cure for AIDS, but for ebola and a handful of other diseases. Please start building my lab and start sending me my paycheck.

I mean, the chances of this actually happening are remote, but what if I am not wrong? Then we could save billions of dollars and save millions of lives.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

What it seems you consider "talking around" your post is simply a response to another aspect of it. That aspect may or may not be what you request response on, or it may be that simply by behaving in such fashion as you have you have gained what you wanted and desire no response to any aspect of your post; still however, a reply in public forum is reply. It addresses an aspect of your post which by implication may be interpreted in varied ways. Deal with it. If you demand specific replies only address that specifically in your post with such as: "Demand: reply only to primary subject, not ancillary, and do not object to my attempts at witty hypotheses." Complaint afterwards without such clear statement of strict limit is useless. With limit at least is demonstrated your distaste for conversation and dissuades response-as you then from the first are plainly one who does not want any discussion.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Decaff]

Er, no. Not quite. Natural CO2 sinks adapt very slowly to increases.

That is my point.

There's still room for improvement, but it has helped.

It hasn't helped enough - which is obvious given the increase in atmospheric CO2.

One of the links I gave (I think it was the PDF I just pointed to) made the point that the very presence of humans has already affected the water vapor distribution in many urban areas.

I'm sure it has. But compared to the effect of (for example) transpiration by vegetation it is insignificant.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, more like just simply devoid of intelligence. I would have used Overrated.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

It hasn't helped enough - which is obvious given the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Indeed. But that's the appeal of Ethanol as a fuel. You'll add CO2 sinks to match the CO2 production. Suddenly our cars would become working members of the eco-system instead of strip-miners. :-)

But compared to the effect of (for example) transpiration by vegetation it is insignificant.

I think that's a difficult thing to predict at the moment. The CO2 production of cars was once thought to be insignificant, yet environmentalists today are chomping at the bit about it. We can't just throw out any effect as insignificant until we have hard data to back it up.

In any case, my point still stands. We don't get something for nothing. Energy usage will increase, and that will have effects on our environment. If we're smart, we'll reshape the environment to compensate. If we're not smart, we'll reshape it anyway after the effects devistate a few more major cities.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lgw]

So somewhat clarify the discussion, total carbon reservoirs (GT) to put 6GT per year in perspective:

Atmosphere: 720
Land plants: 560
Soils: 1,500
Ocean: 39,000
Rocks: 100,000,000
Fossil fuels: 4,000 (this is a pretty loose guess, as almost all of this is unavailable to current technology)

If this were a static system, human production would have been a huge problem long ago. It's become a big problem recently because we've exceeded the rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. However, we don't fully understand the process by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, nor what factors change the rate at which the known factors work.

We're sure that CO2 levels are spiking now, and that . We're sure that eventually (on the geological scale that the big carbon reservoir cycles) the total CO2 in all the fossil fuels won't make a difference.

The *real* question is: where are the tipping points. Does some CO2 level cause a dramatic change in the natural rate of CO2 production or absorption, and if so in what direction. There's not much hard data to answer that question, but researches *love* to get grants and make models that confirm their preexisting beliefs!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Mac Scientist]

The climate will change, and we'll adapt.

Even if global warming is "normal", just how do we deal with the 100+ million evacuees from the 50 miles on each coast that are expected to get flooded out when Antarctic ice melts? Do we build giant dikes? Relocate each metropolis?

Even though it will take years to occur, it took more than a hundred years of "free" wood, coal, and oil and to build these cities' infrastructures in the first place. Already people are complaining about the expense of rebuilding just one city!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[mengel]

According to USGS in Hawaii

Kilauea volcano emits more than 700,000 tons of CO2 each year, less than 0.01% of the yearly global contribution by human sources. For some local perspective, this is about the same amount of CO2 as is emitted by 132,000 sport utility vehicles (there are 118,000 registered vehicles on the island).

So that means for the island of Kilauea, Hawaii, USA, which I suspect has one of the highest volcano:human CO2 ratios, it's almost even. That is to say, humans on Kilauea are putting out approxomately as much C02 (just from their cars) as volcanos are.

According to US DOE EIA

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2003 were ... 6,115.2 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent...

So that's 6 billion metric tons of C02. There are about 1,500 active volcanos in the world, so if Kilauea is representative at 700,000 tons of C02, that makes about 1 Billion metric tons of C02 from volcanos.

So that makes the volcanos:USA ratio about 1:6.

Does that help clarify?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[bobbuck]

"For example, use a machine learning technique to train a system to predict a 1-year climate trend using data from 1900-1990. Then, see if the system can accurately predict trends from 1990-2005. If so, there's no evidence that it would be wrong..."

Isn't the problem that the computers can't predict a 1-year climate trend? If they throw a dozen models at a data set and tweek each one to match what really happens how can they say that their models are exclusively correct when there are countless assumptions about the inputs? Aren't they just fishing for a formula? Here's an example: I observe that Bob drives 20 miles on Monday. I repeat the same observation on Tuesday through Friday. So the computer makes a model that says Bob will drive 20 miles on both Saturday and Sunday.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Decaff]

Indeed. But that's the appeal of Ethanol as a fuel. You'll add CO2 sinks to match the CO2 production. Suddenly our cars would become working members of the eco-system instead of strip-miners. :-)

I agree. Use of any such bio-fuel is a good idea.

"But compared to the effect of (for example) transpiration by vegetation it is insignificant."

I think that's a difficult thing to predict at the moment. The CO2 production of cars was once thought to be insignificant, yet environmentalists today are chomping at the bit about it. We can't just throw out any effect as insignificant until we have hard data to back it up.

As a biologist, I think it is reasonable to assume that until there are huge clouds of steam rising above our cities we aren't going to have anything close to the impact on water vapour that rain forests have.

In any case, my point still stands. We don't get something for nothing. Energy usage will increase, and that will have effects on our environment. If we're smart, we'll reshape the environment to compensate. If we're not smart, we'll reshape it anyway after the effects devistate a few more major cities.

Well said! I agree.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Deathly809]

And Christians call it "Intelligent Warming"!

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Skip666Kent]

So, the summary of the entire article is that many people have already been saying there is "nothing we can do" to stop what is a naturally occuring process that has happened before without us and will happen again after we are gone.

EXACTLY!

This article is nothing more (or less) than the Elite Euro-Intellectual Establishment's attempt to cover their asses as they back away slowly from the pointless and embarrassing morass of their failed Global Armageddon campaign of nonsense.

They've tried and ultimately failed to change/affect world political policy, and now they're giving up on this front. Hooray.

My only question now is, what will they come up with next?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Rei]

Uhh, nice try to yourself, but the average temperature *is* increasing. Methinks you need to look at the data again. The precise slope depends on how long of a period you look at, as the curve has been steepening; 20 years shows just under 0.2 per decade.

The overall plot is a an upward curve, matching CO2 concentrations, just like what we've seen in long terms in ice and sediment cores. There's only one difference: it is happening many times faster than any other change visible in core sample histories.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[mfrank]

You know the fish symbols born-agains sometimes have on their car? It's like that, only with feet and the word "Darwin" in or under it. Kind of like the one at the end of http://www.wagoneers.com/pages/RocketCar/rockit.ht ml

Re:Doom and Gloom

[mvdwege]

the same industrial and financial firms who wished to maintain their status quo by resisting change and financing PR fake science will shift gears in the new warm world and find massive profit in the meltdown. It's all the same to them.

Already happening. Remember Bush and Blair's position at the G8 summit regarding climate change? No to Kyoto CO2 reduction, yes to technological innovation.

Somehow in my ears that sounded suspiciously like two heads of state setting up a new pork barrel for their corporate cronies. In the meantime, I can live in fear everytime the winter storms come around; fear that another 1953 will wipe out all that I own (I live in the Netherlands. We know what happens when flood barriers are not up to the task).

Mart

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Kenrod]

Yeah, but scientists didn't know shit back then. Now they know everything, even how to keep rats with the plague from escaping their ca...oh never mind.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[mfrank]

Don't know what state you live in, but here in Texas it's not too bright to have one on your car. It'll be gone pretty soon and you'll be lucky if you're not keyed as well.

Oh, and before you ask, no I've never had one. :)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Red Flayer]

You believe non-interference is so impossible that it's not worth it to bother trying. Therefore, we need to accept the impacts we make, but still try to 'save' some of nature.

I believe that a sea change in opinion on the value of nature vs. man is still possible; and even if it is not, we still must try. Nature is not something you 'save'; we are not stewards. Nature should be something you 'leave alone'. We should try to correct past errors, but beyond that... let nature run its course.

"But my point is that we've already taken those steps"

Have we? Do we allow people to drive vehicles that are not fuel efficient? Do we really encourage mass transit? Do we require all power plants to have up-to-date pollution controls? Do we strongly encourage people to live in centralized population centers, reducing the energy demand for transportation? Do we factor in environmental costs when doing CBAs for private industry?

"Actually, oil has the smallest environmental footprint. "

Of fuels that are consumed, you mean. What about hydro, tidal, wind, and solar? Especially wind.

"But we're going to spend billions of federal dollars to rebuild it. Why? Because people are compassionate."

No, the reason we are rebuilding is to save face (with ourselves, with $DEITY, with whomever... it would require too much humility to relocate.

"As I said, we'll reform the world to suit us, not the other way around. :-) "

I stated that we could build levees to indicate the contrast with less harmful (to natural state) ways to rebuild/recover.

I don't believe we should reform the world to suit us -- egocentrism has no place in my philosophy of humanity.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[mfrank]

We'll never get that far. In a few years somebody's going to start up the first quantum computer and the reality emulator we're running on is going to dump core.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Bill Dog]

It's a play on the Christian fish...

Or rather a poke at. (Such as the one with the darwin fish swallowing the Christian fish, or the classless but indicative darwin fish humping the Christian fish.) You know you're a liberal if you're hate-centric, feeling more like advertising what you're against than what you're for.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[maxpublic]

Isn't that what the dinosaurs said about 65 million years ago?

No, what they said was "if only we had opposable thumbs..."

Max

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Thuktun]

He was greatly impressed by the land's resources, and he returned to Iceland and spoke about this land, which he called "the green land"'.

He was just trying to sell time-shares.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

If people rip off these darwin fish off other people's cars, maybe they are a little pissed off, huh? Besides, if someone would actually bother studying evolutionary theory, one would eventually come across the idea that fish evolved to walk on land (gasp!) I would imagine at least some of the drivers with the darwin fish on them are biologists. But we all know scientists have nothing useful/original to say, right? Personally, I think they are cute and funny

Re:Doom and Gloom

[TemporalBeing]

We truly do know that carbon dating tells us when the carbon in a living creature was absorbed from the atmosphere, and these numbers are good from 150 to 50,000 years before present.

Actually, it is. Who did the guy getting the dates from to generate the initial carbon dating get the dates from? For example, the biologists validate their dates by citing the geologists, who validate their dates by the archeologiests, who validate their dates by the bioligists, and at the beginning of it all was someone with a bias who stated that something was X years old just because they wanted it to be to disprove what person Y believes since they don't agree with it, etc. etc.

Being this is slashdot, I know you're familiar with the various "evolution" here and "creation" here, and "intelligent design" there arguments. This is at the heart of it all. The evolutionist wanted to disprove the other two, and gave a date to do so. Then another science quoted him to give a dating, and the cycle began. Check the history. You'll find it. However, it is going to require more than research text books will tell you. You'll likely have to go through the biographies and notes of all the scientists involved.

Though it is also funny that you completely missed the sarcasm too.

Science - a wonderful thing if you like agreeing with the majority.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[maxpublic]

But of course, I could just ignore global scientific consensus and listen to some random slashdotter who obviously has no clue about what the problem actually is instead.

Or we could allow the chicken littles of the world to take charge of our governments and cause untold suffering reordering every modern economy according to their own personal "scientific" gospels. Yep, I'm sure that'd be far less destructive than global warming....

Max

Re:Doom and Gloom

[buraianto]

"Plant growth increases"

Do you mean that we have more plants on the earth, or that the plants that are growing grow more rapidly, or both?

It's possible to have increased growth in plants while still having less plant matter in the world. From your statement I'm not sure what the truth is.

Do you have a link to anything on this scientist?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[mgv]

I hate to say it, but the earth has gone through a variety of climate changes in its history, and it will continue to go through plenty of climate changes regardless of whether we eject terawatts of thermal energy into the atmosphere or not.

No, its not quite like that. Ejecting terawatts of energy into the atmosphere doesn't cause global warming. CO2 doesn't cause global warming (directly).

The sun causes global warming. CO2 traps heat and changes the balance of heat loss. But nothing short of the sun can cause global warming. Compared to the daily solar energy input into the planet, our direct heat production is trivial. And even if we did put more heat in, it would just radiate away at night if it isn't trapped by the green house effect.

What is most sinister about this is that it means that we are on a slow bake in an oven called the solar system. And, as I've said before, if you think it takes a while to cook a large turkey, just wait till you realise the time scale for a whole planet. But the CO2 is in the atmosphere now, the oven door is closing, and the slow bake is beginning. The effects of this will take decades to be fully felt.

Michael

Re:Doom and Gloom

[maxpublic]

but if it means that half of the world population dies due to famine and the other half has to be relocated over thousands of km

As if any of this would occur. Where's your evidence that global warming, which the Kyoto Treaty would do practically nothing to slow down (even if the assumptions it's based on are correct) would result in the inevitable starvation of half the world's population? And force the other half to move?

Really, you've got the drama queen act down pat. Perhaps you should think about moving to Hollywood and trying out for a part in a disaster movie....

Max

Re:Doom and Gloom

[dpilot]

Couple of points...

I'll lump you in with others, perhaps unfairly, who seem to think that any attempt at conservation will DESTROY OUR ECONOMY, and therefore must be avoided until absolute evidence is found otherwise. Funny thing, it seems to me that energy is an *expense*, and perhaps in other less car-happy societies, it's a good idea to reduce expenses. I've done what I can do insulate and seal my house, or instance. When I buy a car, I take mileage into account. I buy incandescent lights, but that's because my wife doesn't like the color balance of the compact fluorescents. I drive to work, because I'm too far to bike, alone because I usually need time flexibility.

There are *many* things that can be done to reduce energy usage without compromising lifestyle.
There are more things that can be done without serious impacts to lifestyle.
Yet as a nation we practically refuse to do anything at all - perhaps because the terrorists will WIN if we do. (unfair remark, I admit) One thing from the past that really FROSTED me was when Reagan cut $5e7 from the budget to help people insulate their homes, to save money, then ran up gigantic defense deficits. The $5e7 wasn't even a pimple on the deficit, and would have done some serious good.

If our economy can't tolerate efforts to consume energy wisely, then something's wrong. In that case, we ought to be fixing it.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[CrowScape]

I don't know why you're not looking forward to it. I mean, what are you, a professional ice breaker?

Plus, let's not forget that the antarctic ice mass is increasing. So we're all concerned about the ice that is already floating melting while ice is building up around areas where it doesn't float. Hardly a doom and gloom sceinerio, unless you're pro-flooding.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Lord Apathy]

Oh we are all goign to die.. doom is upon us.. we are not long for this world.. ph whoo was me.....etc etc etc..

Re:Doom and Gloom

[kprox]

You know about ice core sampling? Hundreds of thousands of years of accurate temperatures. Neat huh?

Now do share data for the energy ouput of the sun over time.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Noel]

This comprehensive hurricane data is more interesting. It has all storms rather than just the ones that hit the US.

Here's the total counts for Atlantic storms by storm category (from Tropical Storm through Category 5) for the worst decade listed in your source (1941-1950) compared to the most recent decade (1995-2004):

1941-1950

Tropical Storms: 41
Category 1: 14
Category 2: 14
Category 3: 15
Category 4: 11
Category 5: 2

Total: 97
Total 3,4,5: 28
Total 4,5: 13

1995-2004

Tropical Storms: 69
Category 1: 30
Category 2: 14
Category 3: 16
Category 4: 20
Category 5: 3

Total: 152
Total 3,4,5: 39
Total 4,5: 23

Nope, it's not "four times the normal number", but it sure is:

• more storms (57% more)
• more storms in almost all categories (0% - 114% more)
• more strong hurricanes (39% more 3-5, 77% more 4-5)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Burz]

I'ts also worth noting that human-made NOx contributes about as much to the greenhouse effect as human-made CO2

The total warming potential from NOx is a small fraction of CO2's warming potential.

Where do you get your facts from: Ideology?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Boronx]

I see the same things in reverse, does that mean that right wing bible thumpers who hate Darwin are liberals, too?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[horror_vacui]

It's not absurd to call it unstoppable when you take into account our obvious uncapability of dealing with such matters. Sure, a scientifically versed humanity could contrive to stop or reverse something like this, theoretically at least, and a responsible and reasonable humanity might even find a way to bring up all ressources necessary for such a gigantic feat. Only: we're not all that. We won't be able to do anything, because we hardly ever do anything about anything. Vide the current Most Important Tragedy In The Whole Wide World (tm) - for years past scientists have been warning in unison, their models have been predicting a catastrophy, the measures necessary would have cost peanuts... And what happened? So what reason does anyone have to assume that by some miraculous process we're going to change just in time to prevent the catastrophy?

I'd wish people would trust scientists more - after all, they're no idiots, and their community has rules and controls in place designed to prevent any individual scientist from talking absolute rubbish - neither of which can be told about politicians or whoever it is that keeps contesting their theories.

It is true that we're comming out of an ice age, and that the warming is normal. Only the RATE this happens at is all but normal, something like it has never happened before. This could well tip the earth out of the equilibrium and make it uninhabitable. Those who have researched this for decades seem to agree that this is a possibility and this is exactly what seems to be happening, so why are laymen ever contesting it?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Dracophile]

Assuming that our production of greenhouse gases is responsible for all the problems, there's no point in just cutting down emissions. There needs to be a net decrease in the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We can keep emitting them, but we have to sink more than we source.

It may make no bloody difference at all, too. But if the hand-wringing about human greenhouse emission is right, then we need to work out how to get it out of the air.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Boronx]

There are plenty of polls where they ask, "Was Saddam Hussein behind 9/11?" "Is Saddam an ally of Osama?" "How many of the 9/11 highjackers were Iraqi?"

You can guess what the results were.

Is known to have been completely true.

Really? Are we in fantasy al-Qaeda land or palestinians are anti us land? Or do you have some bit of info that the rest of us missed?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Itchy Rich]

Earthquakes and hurricanes and tornados and terrorists and anal warts are all things to worry about, too, but we survive them.

Who survives them? We do not. You do. You have not been killed by one yet. Many, many people have, and will continue to die by hurricane, tornado, flood, earthquake, volcano, etc. in the past, present and future.

Do not judge other peoples' fortune by your own. Just because you survived anal warts, doesn't mean the guy down the street will.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[susano_otter]

You're implying that the people with a lot of dollars like those dollars as such, in the way of Scrooge McDuck. I think that except for maybe one or two very unique individuals, anybody who's wired to prefer the dollars themselves over the lifestyle those dollars can buy is probably not wired to get very many dollars in the first place (on account of them being too crazy to do much useful work for anybody).

Re:Doom and Gloom

[kcbrown]

Dunno why that's modded as "informative". It's a very funny page he links to.

For instance:

Mike Trainor writes, "Just because we don't have the technology to destroy the planet doesn't mean no one else in the universe does. What you need to do is to point our most powerful radio-telescope transmitters at likely solar systems and taunt them. 'The girly-beings in your miserable solar system could never destroy a planet as cool as this one...'" Thanks, Mike. We'll get SETI on it.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[arminw]

....What matters is a consensus among reputable, peer-reviewed scientists....

Yes and that consensus resisted for 50 years the measured experimental fact that light takes a finite amount of time to travel, rather than being instantneous. Finally the 'respected peer reviewed scientists' accepted the idea that light had a finite constant velocity. Now they are resisting increasing evidence that the velocity is not constant. Show me ONE scientific journal or texbook that does not somwhere therein contain the phrase 'it is believed' or 'we assume' or any number of such implied faith statements.

Of course scientists believe in their religion just as others believe in theirs. Unlike other faiths normally classed as "religious", scientists are able to use computers and mathematics to bolster their faith and somehow try to convince the rest of us that because they get a boost of their faith from a computer printout or display, their faith is not as "subjective" as other faiths. As you and others here have pointed out, computer models are based on "assumptions" which is a code word for nothing more than what other religions call faith or belief. A very basic assumption or belief of most "reputable peer reviewed" scientists is that there is no God and there are no realities beyond what they can measure or grasp with their human intellect and reasoning. Nobody KNOWS for sure that this assumption is true or not, it is just believed like any other religion's basic tenets. Any scientist who doubts this basic article of faith is by definition NOT a "reputable peer reviewed" scientist.

So choose whether you want to believe in the Johnny come lately religion of science or one of the older ones, some of them as old as human civilization itself. Everybody is religious, even atheists. The difference is that the religion of science is not called a religion and so it is OK to teach its faith and beliefs in public schools. Humans are religious creatures with an urge to worship someone or something outside of ourselves including other humans, a trait that makes us fundamentally different than animals.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[zoydoid]

You are wrong...
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/PiriR eis_eng.htm

Re:Doom and Gloom

[arminw]

...."PROVE to me that there's an icy patch on the highway up ahead!"....

That doesn't really need to be proved, but you have to know the nature of the road ahead, not whether it has ice in a certain spot. If the ice patch is on a straight piece of road, such as a bridge, then a higher speed will actually make it less dangerous because the high intertia of the fast moving car far exceeds the momentary loss of friction of the tires on the ice. It therefore tends to just go in a straight line in such a short time the driver may not even have realized that there was an ice patch. So in your analogy you would also have to know whether the ice patch is on a curved section of the road, where the car would go straight off the road into the ditch. If you have never traveled that particular road before, you would not know whether there was a curve or the road is straight.

Nobody has traveled the road of the future climate before, so of course nobody knows where the climate is really headed long term. Most things in nature are cyclical and so it is highly likely, although not certain that climate also goes in cycles.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Golias]

Don't know what state you live in, but here in Texas it's not too bright to have one on your car. It'll be gone pretty soon and you'll be lucky if you're not keyed as well.

I live in Minnesota, and they are all over the place. Never heard of one being torn off somebody else's car until reading this thread. Seems like a rather petty thing to do.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Golias]

I'll lump you in with others, perhaps unfairly, who seem to think that any attempt at conservation will DESTROY OUR ECONOMY...

Translation: I realize everything you said is valid, but I think I'll make you guilty by association with the most radical reactionaries out there, because I need a straw-man to take down, dammit.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ocelotbob]

Whole lotta nada, most likely. Lake Champlain is pretty far inland, which means it most likely will not be affected by a rise in sea levels.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[arminw]

.....I can live in fear everytime the winter storms come around; fear that another 1953 will wipe out all that I own (I live in the Netherlands. We know what happens when flood barriers are not up to the task)......

When it will it finally dawn on us humans that we are not in control of the forces of nature and ultimately cannot defend ourselves 100% against them. If you live below sea level, such as much of New Orleans also, you WILL get flooded at some point. That is a chance you take. Someone who lives near an earthquake fault takes a chance that they may lose all they own and/or their life. Someone who lives in a forest may have to flee a raging inferno fire, such as we had to do three years ago when almost 500,000 acres of forest land went up in smoke.

Every time you get in a car, bus, airplane or turn on the lights in your house, YOU are contributing to this supposed problem. The big corporations sell you the cars, run the air and bus lines and operate the generators that enable the light to come on when you flip the switch. Without you and millions like you, the big eeevil corprations would not exist for you to shift the blame off onto.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Random Hacker]

Actually, we are not "still coming out of the last ice age". Were this a "normal" interglacial period, we would be well into the cooling phase of the next ice age. By the early part of the 20th century we had modified the Earth's atmosphere sufficiently to prevent it from entering another glaciation. The substantial increase in CO2 since has moved us off the scale entirely.

There is now a wide spread thawing of Siberian lakes http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg187251 24.500 that may add billions of tons of methane to the atmosphere. Methane is a much more potent green house gas than CO2. There are more such positive feedback loops to come -- if the ocean warms sufficiently, deep sea methane hydrates will thaw and release enormous quantities of methane into the atmosphere (trillions of tons of methane are locked up in such methane hydrates). Such a release of methane into the atmosphere will cause a catastrophic increase in temperatures. Some paleontologists believe that precisely such releases of methane were the final acts in processes of global warming that caused the marine mass extinction at the Paleocene/Eocene boundary and the much larger mass extinction at the end of the Permian.http://www.geotimes.org/nov04/feature_clim ate.html.

But of course all Bush lovers and libertarian ideologues know that the melting Arctic ice is just a socialist plot. After all, we know that government regulation is always bad, so if a problem requires government regulation to solve, that problem must not actually exist.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[dpilot]

As long as you're lumping me in with eco-nuts, why not?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[seek31337]

Oh! You must have done some HS class report on the industrial revolution, and use WikiPedia as your source.

This isn't much of an issue, except the slight discrepency where they talk about how the industrial revolution was /STARTED/ with the steam engine, but was not possible without "machine tools". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_tool), which are required to make steam engines. In fact, I am pretty sure there were a lot of other steps necessairy to get to 'machine tools', including the ability to make metals capable of cutting iron.

See, I know exactly where you were mislead. It's the first part of 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Engine'.

See, I don't pretend to know any more than the average Joe about such things, but this is what sets people like you apart from people like me. I try not to make outlandish claims without a firm understanding of what I am talking about. And if I fail this, then I don't go off in another tangent about something else I don't know about.

I mean seriously, man. Compare the description of what's necessairy to make http://www.pr.afrl.af.mil/aeolipile.html vs. a steam engine. That's more than the length of the Roman civilization was capable of.

This isn't starcraft. This shit doesn't happen in the span of a 30 minute game.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[arminw]

.....if all other factors are held constant.....

That is a big if which is most certainly not true. Most things in nature are NOT constant, but are always changing, most often in a cyclical manner. There are so many variables that can affect climate. Solar output is a big one.

Warmer oceans evaporate more water. Water vapor is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 simply because the specific heat of water is so high. That is why in humid Florida it stays quite warm even at night, while in California it cools off much more after dark. As it gets warmer, most plants grow better and there are more of them and CO2 gets locked up in organic matter.

That is what happened ages ago to make all the fossil fuels we are burning now. If it gets warm enough to grow things in the cold places of the planet, we can use those growing things to make fuel and eventually there will be a balance of plants taking carbon out of the air and humans putting it back. As it gets warmer, there will be more water in the air and result in changed patterns of precipitation, such as more water in desert areas.

There is evidence that the Sahara was once fruitful territory. The large amounts of oil under the barren sands of Saudi Arbia is witness that at some time in the past that part of the world had abundant life upon it.

Perhaps some day the arctic north slope climate and that of Hawaii wil be very similar. Just because the arctic gets warmer doesn't mean that the tropics will get hot enough to be uninhabitable. A warm humid atmosphere could even out world wide climate differences in the same way the oceans or even the Great Lakes mitigate temperature variations. Global warming could make the planet very different, but a very pleasant warm place for all.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AndreyF]

Do you know how many foreign leader out there "support terrorist groups that have plans to attack the United States"? I don't see a correlation between that and the US invading them...

Re:Doom and Gloom

[wattsup]

I'm a meteorologist in California, and here the state climatologist has uncovered something very interesting. "Benchmark" weather stations in the Sierra Nevada don't follow the warming rend that many other stations do. These benchmark stations hav ben around since the 1890's and are far from urbanization. They show a net cooling, statewide, of about 0.1 degree over the last century while others closer o habitation show a marked rised. Add to the fact that we have a very active sun right now, with lots of sunspots and solar events, and that can account for far more change than any human intervention. Ever hear of the "Maunder Minimum" ? From Wikipedia: The Maunder Minimum is the name given to the period roughly from 1645 to 1715 A.D., when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time. It is named after the later solar astronomer E.W. Maunder who discovered the dearth of sunspots during that period by studying records from those years. During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, for example, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000-50,000 spots. Also of note during that time, The Thames river in England stayed frozen well into summer and in new England, early settlers saw snow in July in the early 1700's. My point is that its all about cycles, and humans are but a fly speck on an elephants butt in effecting change compared to our suns energy.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Peaceful_Patriot]

"...and that the cure is not worse than the disease."

This brings up an interesting point. We can argue all day about why it is happening but there is very little argument over the fact that it IS happening. The real question is what will this mean for the world in 20 or 50 years. What should we be doing now to prepare for a significantly warmer, wetter world?

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

You must have done some HS class report on the industrial revolution, and use WikiPedia as your source.

Nope. I actually paid attention, unlike yourself. :-)

except the slight discrepency where they talk about how the industrial revolution was /STARTED/ with the steam engine

The power producing phase of technology DID start with the Steam Engine. Prior to that, the only power available was a) humans, b) horses, c) water wheels, d) windmills.

but was not possible without "machine tools"

Couple of things:

1. Note that machined tools started after the steam engine took off. It was actually the invention of the steam engine that spurred the need for more precise metal working.

2. The Romans had advanced metal works. They worked with Iron, crude forms of steel (particularly wrought iron), brass, and lead. Their lead works were particularly impressive, with lead drainage pipes bearing the seal of the Roman Caesar still being used in Rome today!

3. The Romans had other fine crafts work such as impressive glass work. In particular, their cage-cup glass is something that has confounded modern glass makers despite the fact that we make glass today in much the same way the Romans did.

4. The ancient Romans understood the concepts of power transfer as demonstrated by their invention of the overshot water wheel for milling, and their little-known attempts at analog computing.

See, I know exactly where you were mislead. It's the first part of 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Engine'.

That particular point of "combining rail and steam" is a bit of a stretch considering the low power output of an aeolipile. The actual article on Aeolipiles makes the point much more clearly. All you had to do was click through!

See, I don't pretend to know any more than the average Joe about such things

Really? Then we wouldn't be having this argument, would we? I find it ironic that you argue that I have failed to do my research when it is you yourself who have failed to do so.

I mean seriously, man. Compare the description of what's necessairy to make http://www.pr.afrl.af.mil/aeolipile.html vs. a steam engine. That's more than the length of the Roman civilization was capable of.

Do you have *any* idea what you're talking about? For example, have you ever paid attention to the construction of the Roman baths? We're talking thousands of gallons of heated, running water and steamed rooms. All made possible by a Roman invention known as the hypocaust. The hypocaust was an advanced system of thermal transfer that cleverly directed the thermal energy of a furnace into heating the pools as the water cycled. Its widespread usage (in baths as large as today's Olympic swimming pools, no less!) shows that the Romans had a working understanding of the thermodynamics of heat transfer. If you ever get your hands on a diagram of a hypocaust, you may find that it looks a bit similar to the early aero-steam engines. The primary difference was the lack of a pressure vessel in the Roman design. (And what did the aeolipile have that the baths didn't?)

The aeolipile could have been initially used for early power generation experiments. As I said, a vacuum pump could have been attached, or something equally useful at lower power production levels. The problem was NOT that the Romans couldn't have advanced from the aeolipile to the steam engine in the remaining span of their empire. They had the engineering capabilities, the necessary iron works, the experience with steam generation, and everything else that was required. The problem was that the Ro

Re:Doom and Gloom

[holy zarquon's singi]

Because everything from refrigeration of antibiotics to high-yield/acre farming and the treatment of potable water involves energy consumption.

And <sarcasm>obviously the incredibly inefficient way that we use energy is a core requirement for our economic prosperity.</sarcasm>. I don't want to be excessively rude, but many people really need to get their heads out of thier arses on this matter. From your post, it appears that your head may only be partially inserted.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AaronGTurner]

I'd heard that Iceland got this name as the settlers arrived during a series of unusually hard winters and so it was even more icy than it is normally. The name then discouraged settlers, and so when founding Greenland a decision was made not to make the naming mistake twice.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[OhioJoe]

Have you ever heard of the snowball theory? It states the earth was once completely covered in ice, like Pluto looks. It was hotly debated and shot down by many scientists of the day (back in the 50's or 60's, I don't recall). Many stated this was impossible because even just a large covering of the poles (more so than now) would cause in irreversible freezing of the earth because of the reflected sunlight, causing the ice covered poles to grow larger and larger until they met at the equator BUT.. due to that same principle of reflecting sunlight, it could never have warmed back up to melt away. Therefore, it could never have been totally covered in ice.

However, it later went from a hypotheses to a theory when large boulders were found in geological layers in near the equator (and everywhere else, but the equator was most telling) that were layered in a position that can only be attained when "dropped" from an ice glacier. So it bolstered the theory that the equator was once covered in ice. But there was still the paradox that there would be no way for the earth to warm back up again to melt the ice away due to all the reflecting sun radiation that caused the covering to start with. That was when one scientist who had been studying the theory realized that volcanic activity of even minor proportions would shroud the atmosphere in ash, trapping greenhouse gases, causing a major melt down. Volcanic activity was hot and heavy in our past as we know from geological studies, and so now the snowball theory made sense. Not a fact, but makes sense.

So, we may be still receding from that, a reverse of what would be if the ice poles got larger.. if they get smaller, they will eventually melt away due to less and less sunlight being reflected back. Therefore, global warming may be a natural fact that has been going on for millions of years, never retreating, causing our temperatures on earth to rise more and more and prove the global warming criers right. But they might be wrong that we are causing it, and it's just a thing the earth will do, is get hotter and hotter until it is not livable.

OJ

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Bill Dog]

No one hates Darwin. He was just a scientist who had some theories. I'm not sure he'd be pleased about how his name is being used.

You make my point in your very language. You don't speak positively about secular humanists, you speak derogatorily about the Christian right. In the last election conservatives were saying "Bush for prez" and liberals were saying "anybody but Bush". You guys didn't invent your own symbol, to show for example that you're pro-science, or pro-human achievement or intellect, you felt compelled to base them off of the Christian symbol, to get a dig in. It's this negative orientation of expression that gives a strong indication of the political bent of a person.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[seek31337]

Very good points, and I admit this is not, in any way, my area of expertise. However, you still haven't proven the following statement:
"Not even the Romans managed power production, even though they invented the tech early on. (See: Aeolipile [wikipedia.org])."

Aeolipile != technology to manage power production. This is the crux of my argument.

And I damn myself for arguing on slashdot. It's just stupid. I apologise for anything that came off as a personal attack. Seriously. My whole argument against this statement was mostly knee-jerk reaction. I still disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but I don't think it's worth arguing about. No one gets more information from arguments in on-line forums, IMO.

    -Brian

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ccmay]

Remember Bush and Blair's position at the G8 summit regarding climate change? No to Kyoto CO2 reduction, yes to technological innovation.

Remember that Bill Clinton and 95 Senators also told the world to take Kyoto and shove it up their ass?

-ccm

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

We do not know whether something like this has happened before because we do not have anything resembling complete climactic records for the entire history of the planet.

As to making the place uninhabitable: balderdash. During life's tenure here, the planet has been both much warmer than it is now, and much colder, and none of these events have made it uninhabitable (if they had, then life would have ceased long before we had a chance to evolve). Sea levels have been higher than the current ones, and lower, and the polar caps have seen massive changes in size, with the antarctic one not even being present for extended periods. These differing climactic conditions have been punctuated by (and in some cases, possibly precipitated by) natural disasters whose scale dwarfs anything we've yet managed: comet strikes, eruptions of super volcanoes, violent geological events that sent repeating massive tsunamis around the world and caused nearly every volcano to erupt within a few years, etc. Life is still here despite all these, and it will continue irrespective of what humans do.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[mvdwege]

Remember that Bill Clinton and 95 Senators also told the world to take Kyoto and shove it up their ass?

Yes I remember. I don't remember them calling for massive government subisidies to their cronies in industry for 'technological innovation'. When I see folks like Bush and Blair calling for this, I remember Blair sucking up to Microsoft and giving them cushy contracts, or the Bush cabinet giving out no-contest contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq.

In short, while I think that technological innovation is necessary to bring down our negative impact on the environment, a lot depends on who is calling for it. I have very little trust in folks that have a track record of spending billions on projects by their cronies that show no noticable improvements to the citizens (like the billions the US spent on the Department of Homeland Security, only to see incompetent cabinet cronies appointed under its aegis, like the head of FEMA).

And why do you think this was an attack on Bush exclusively? I specifically mentioned Blair as well. And for that matter, our own Prime Minister Balkenende and his cabinet are of the same ilk: all money for their cronies, no real improvements. Not everything is about the United States and its village idiot, you know.

Mart

Re:Doom and Gloom

[mvdwege]

Oh dear.

• Why bother with flood defenses since we are not in control of the forces of nature?
• Why bother with improving agriculture since we cannot rule out droughts and pests 100%?
• Heck, why even bother with building houses?

Had your attitude existed 10.000 years ago, we wouldn't have had a civilisation to begin with.

Ultimately, risk management is about severity v.s. chance of occurence. If flood defenses can reduce a once-in-a-lifetime event to a minor irritation instead of a disaster, they may be worth it. The mere fact that storms occur is no reason to not try to do something about their consequences.

And given that, why look the other way if human behaviour stands a strong chance of worsening the conditions under which a disaster may occur? Of course we cannot defend against 100% of the forces of nature, but why take the risk of reducing our chances?

Mart

Re:Doom and Gloom

[arminw]

....Ultimately, risk management is about severity v.s. chance of occurence......

It seems that we're saying the same thing in different ways. Life is filled with risk from all sorts of hazards, natural and man caused. In terms of death and destruction all throughout human history, the deliberately man caused ones have by far exceeded all the natural calamities. Just think of the wars and acts of terror and crime everywhere today and throughout history. Man is no more civilized today than at the dawn of history. Technology just has allowed humans to be more efficient at destruction of each other, our property and the natural environment. It also has made life easier in many respects of course.

We like to think that our fancy technology have made us less vulnerable to calamities, but the opposite seems to be the case. In the old days, when a nasty storm blew in, it did NOT make the lights go out, spoil our food and prevent us from doing business for days or weeks afterwards because there was no electricity, communication and clean water.

This planet is not ours since we did not create it, but we are allowed to live here for a short time. One of the things we all ought to learn while here is to be humble and thankful to the ONE who did make it.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ScentCone]

I don't want to be excessively rude, but many people really need to get their heads out of thier arses on this matter. From your post, it appears that your head may only be partially inserted.

Come on now. If you're following the thread, you know that I responded to the notion that only those who sell fuel are profiting from our releasing greenhouse gasses, etc. My point isn't that they don't, and I sure as hell wasn't talking about how efficiently we use hydrocarbons (though you'll note my express encouragement that we use more nukes and other non-oil energies)... no, my point is that huge swaths of other human activities (certainly in their current scope, and involving the sheer number of people now seen) wouldn't happen without energy use. To the extent that we're using a lot of oil as part of that energy, well, there you have it. But you can't suggest that someone who produces crops of wheat for a living (and makes a family/business-sustaining profit doing so) would be doing it as well, or would be feeding as many people, without his internal combustion heavy equipment.

Not to say there aren't other ways to move 20 tons of grain across a field in 10 minutes, but using 50 mules and a team of handlers, and farming even more and to feed the mules... well, that's not very efficient either.

I don't want to be excessively rude

Nah, I think you do, actually.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[AKAImBatman]

Apology accepted. Sorry for coming down on you hard, but it can be a bit difficult to remain objective in the face of a heated argument. :-)

Aeolipile != technology to manage power production. This is the crux of my argument.

No, it's technology to produce power, not manage it. Power management is handled on aeolipiles by managing the fire underneath. Hotter flame == more power conversion into rotational energy. When I said, "Not even the Romans managed power production," I meant that they didn't produce power creating devices. As in, "he didn't quite manage to get the basketball in the hoop." :-)

The smaller aeolipiles probably only produced a watt or two of power, which isn't useful for very many tasks. But it was still producing power. Scale it up to a larger size, and the power output could range anywhere from hundreds of watts all the way up to a kilowatt or so.

Of course, the size to weight ratio wouldn't have been so great, and a larger aeolipile would have been rather dangerous with steam shooting everywhere. Had they followed that path, it's likely they would have reached the apex of aeolipile technology rather quickly, and learned to build closed systems. It wouldn't have been long after that they would have figured out how to use steam compression to drive rotation instead of direct thrust. :-)

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course plant growth increases, but as man has chopped/burned down a hell of a lot of trees and has put cities in place, that won't have enough effect.

btw, everyone seems to have forgotten that very coincidently, temperature has started rising since the industrial revolution. Chances that it's really just a coincidence are almost inexistent.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[tpgp]

My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?

The irony of it - someone who is obviously one of these new age pagan revivalists scorning someone else's irrational beliefs.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[ArtStone]

>>This post is one of the most insulting posts I've seen in ages.
>>[...]too stupid to avoid linear extrapolations from cyclic data.
>>And that the more of the arctic ocean that is ice free, the more of the ice melts.

So how did all that ice get there to begin with then? Would growth of ice packs next year lead to the conclusion that uncontrolled future growth of ice will continue until all the world's oceans are frozen?

Why are there these big lakes with no summertime ice in between the US and Canada - where 10,000 years ago there was only glaciers year round and minimal human influence on the environment?

Do you not believe these mechanisms are self-limiting and have feedback loops? If this truly is a runaway positive feedback loop, then nothing we do now matters anyhow.

Maybe New Orleans needs to be built up a few hundred feet in the air.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[jadavis]

I didn't say computer models aren't useful.

However, they neglected to give any information about the assumptions that the computer model is using.

It's not informative to use a computer model as a definitive source. They should give a few basic principles upon which the model is based, and let the reader decide. They don't say which computer model, or who extrapolated the data, or anything.

The reader is left with the impression that the prediction is irrefutable because "a computer said it".

Re:Doom and Gloom

[jbengt]

Carbon Dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas.

There is a lot of water vapor in the air, and it is a greenhouse gas. The warmer the climate, the more water evaporates into the air, the more heat is trapped, and it gets even warmer, at least to a point where cloud cover reflects light.

Methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. The advent of civilization and agriculture roughly around 6,000+/- years ago significantly increased the amount of methane, though there are a lot of natural sources of that as well.

Even more effective greenhouse gases include refrigerants and other manmade chemicals not common until the industrial revolution. There are no siginificant natural sources of R-22, R-11, R-12, etc. and several other manmade chemicals.

Some particulate pollutants, manmade and natural, reflect sunlight and cool the earth, some reflect sunlight and cool the earth.

There is much uncertainty in the particular changes in climate that may hit a particular area, but there is no question that the models back up the general trend - it is getting hotter and human activity is a significant contributing factor to that trend.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1 .html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?ITEMIDCHAR= F9374686-2B35-221B-635B1D2A02A8B6D5&methodnameCHAR =&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=F9214C AB-2B35-221B-641728E52ACE63F4&ArticleTypeSubInclud e_BIT=0&sequencenameCHAR=itemP

Re:Doom and Gloom

[lgw]

My main complaint with the current global warming hysteria is this fixation on CO2. People seem more interested in a culture war than any actual details of climate change. As long as "global warming" gives ammo with which to bash SUV drivers and evil corporations, it's a good theory. If the optimal approach to stabilizing the climate doen't involve hurting oil companies, no one seems to care. And of course any research by geologists is roundly ignored, since it's well known that several geologists are employed by (gasp) oil companies.

I'm sure there are far more power levers we can pull to affect the climate then passing around treaties about CO2 emissions that most of the world will never follow, but it would be nice to know whether global warming is even bad in the first place! The normal conditions for the past 50 million years have been quite cold, and there's comparitively little good farmland in the tropics, especially in the Americas. But people are more interested in telling other people what to do than in actually learning what the best course of action is.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[The Kosmik Kid]

Although the novel was a typical Crichton made-for-the-movies potboiler, "State of Fear" is still a valuable contribution to the global warming debate. His detractors would like to shut him up, which only proves he struck some nerves and revealed some weaknesses. Yes, it's true that Crichton is not a scientist, but that didn't stop him from meticulously researching the available evidence, sifting out the incredible amount of hysterical nonsense coming from the far left (who have substituted "environmentalism" for their previous failed experiment with socialism, in their insane war against capitalism) and exlaining it all to the intelligent, open-minded reader. More books like "State of Fear" are needed to counter the pseudoscience in fear-mongering tomes such as "Earth in the Balance" by that famous scientist who invented the internet (now mercifully forgotten). The general public could also benefit mightily from a movie version, which might calm them down after "The Day After Tomorrow". Chicken Little is just a typical victim of public schools. Pity him, but pay no attention.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[NewsWatcher]

we are actually still coming out of the last ice age

Where does this BS come from? The last glacial maximum was about 18,000 bp (before present) and we have been in a Holocene period for about the last 12,000 years, which, incidentally is about as long as they normally last.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[holy zarquon's singi]

Now that's a little better. That's a nice exposition as far as it goes. However, you are still missing the point. As my uncle (who is in the services for oil companies business) has pointed out to me as often as he gets the chance, the opportinities for developing sustainable (think lasting as long or longer than the Balinese farming systems 10^3 to 10^5 years) energy systems has been squandered. With the political will, and time on our side, these problems could be solved. Many commentators think that time might still just be on our side. Many are also becoming not so sure. I am tempted to make comment about the brokenness of the american political system here comment here, but I will restrain myself, just.

I guess I meant to be as rude as I felt nescessary. But thanks for the reply. As I said, sustainability should be our primary concern here.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[BKX]

Do you not believe these mechanisms are self-limiting and have feedback loops?

That's the problem. What is projected is that the feedback loop has flipped to positive feedback meltdown mode. When the icecap starts melting, it becomes less of a heatsink (simply because there isn't as much cold mass) and, as such, cannot sink as much energy. However, the amount of energy it needs to sink isn't going down. It's going up due to greenhouse gases or, at a minimum, staying the same. When the icecaps sink heat they warm up and partially melt. Having a smaller heatsinking capacity means that more ice will melt. Less ice equals less heatsink capacity. But we still need to sink the same energy so even more ice is melted.

Once this tipping point hits, the icecaps go into a feedback loop causing them to melt completely. After they melt, the Earth eventually recools (since it's oceans are cooled by the melted icecap). Unfortunately, the icecaps will be melted before the other loops kick in to restore order. Meanwhile, our coasts are eaten up by the rising oceans causing around 80% of humans to die or relocate since 80% of humans live on the coast.

Don't think that only the North Pole is affected. This same thing has also been projected for Antartica. The data suggests that Antarctica has also entered a meltdown loop.

This isn't all bad though. It's likely that such a shift of water mass on the Earth's crust would cause volcanic activity and seriously change our lands' layout. Old land, polluted and sucked dry of nutrients, would be covered by cleansing and healing water, while new fertile land will be exposed for human use. With a large portion of our population gone, the survivors would have ample farmland to start over.

It is doubtful that enough technology or oil would remain for them to be industrialized. This isn't to say that we will loose our knowledge, just our commercial crap. The currently industrially produced goods would be procured on a stricly need-to-use basis.

Remember, this has already begun and cannot be stopped. Only survived. Beyond the caps, oil has peeked, and both natural gas and coal aren't far behind. Without oil, we can't support more than a billion or so humans on Earth anyway, half that comfortably, so one way or another, a lot of people are going to die before the first half of this century is out. I would be surprised if more than 100 million people survive past 2020.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: I'm an asshole with an inflated opinion of myself, and I have nothing useful to contribute so I'll belittle others.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Cederic]

>> Humanity cannot destry earth, as in the 8,000 mile sphere of iron and rock.

Of course we can. We just don't _want_ to.

I'm not saying it'd be easy. And it may take some time. And you'd need to define 'destroy'. But yeah, it can be done.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[TapeCutter]

Sure, anyone can make a model, but before complaining about a lack of information you might want to check out if there are "standard" models that climate scientists use. I can't be bothered doing your research for you but I assure you such models do exists and are well known to climatoligists (like ANSII C is well known slashdotters).

I could not read the article because it now demands rego but I agree it should at least state if the model used is a "standard" model (eg, The model used to predict Katrina's path and strength was a "standard" weather model).

If climate change simply means we get warmer weather and the sea floods a few cities then it's not the end of the civilization, we can adapt rapidly. OTOH: Plants, pollinating insects, plankton, coral, ect, are more sensitive to their environment and can not adapt as rapidly. If these changes cause the food web to suddenly collapse then we have along way to fall. Acidic oceans from Co2 plus massive crop failures from rapidly changing environments are the real dangers that barely rate a mention in the media. A quick google for historical trends on global grain demand, production and reserves might show you something surprising when looked at in the light of the "peak oil" (google it) predictions.

What I want to know is why don't the media practice "equal time" during the daily weather forecast. Now I know weather and climate are two different things but surely, in the name of fair and balanced reporting, they could find someone who wants (or is paid) to predict the path of a hurricane and consistently dis-agree with the official forecasts.

Climatologists have a kind of "official forecast" for our future climate using standard models, yet every prediction that is reported in the media is offset by a nay-saying stooge or an obscure nut-case. Nobody in their right mind claims the standard climate models are totally accurate (to me they seem optomistic in terms of feedback). Doing nothing about C02 emmisions would be like hanging out your washing when told to evacuate.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Golias]

As long as you're lumping me in with eco-nuts, why not?

I must have missed the line where I commented on you at all, let alone accused you of being a "nut" of any sort. My comments were strictly on the issue.

If disagreeing with something you said counts as a personal attack, then I don't think we really have a foundation in place to discuss anything, and we might as well go our separate ways. Cheers.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Golias]

Unless thing change.

I mean, geothermal and solar activity are contributing to the warming right now, they could actually change in subtle ways that result in cooling 20 years from now. There are those who insist that this would already be happening, were it not for the greenhouse effect of the Industrial Age. Maybe we are in fact holding back ecological disaster by our seemingly-irresponsible actions. Maybe "cleaning up our act" could result in a catastrophic Ice Age.

It's a discussion which nobody wants to have, because there is vast political capital in fretting over how agriculture and oil wells are "ruining" the planet.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[Golias]

Do you know how many foreign leader out there "support terrorist groups that have plans to attack the United States"?

Seventeen?

Okay, that was a wild-assed guess. I don't feel like combing through the World Factbook for the answer.

The question is not whether Saddam was a threat to the US. We know that he was. The question is not whether he was the only threat to the US. We know he was not.

The question is, was he enough of a threat (or "gathering threat" as Bush likes to keep repeating) to justify going to war? Since it's a matter of guaging many complex factors, different people are going to arrive at different conclusions. The Bush and Blair administrations concluded it was. Critics of them have concluded that it was not. The matter is still not settled.

My previous post (in spite of the assumption you seem to be making) made no attempt to answer that question, nor am I going to do so here. I was commenting on a misleading poll interpretation, not the rightness or wrongness of the war.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[dpilot]

It wasn't the way you said it, it was actually the content, which is usually representative of a way of thought. I lumped you in with that way of thought. If that's unfair, sorry. If not...

Background: I'm a die-hard moderate, with a hefty touch of contrarian thrown in. According to my brother, he, our sister, and me still adhere to the old-fashioned conservative Republican values we were raised with back in the 50's and 60's.

It's just that the political landscape has shifted that much since. Beyond that, there's a strong tendancy to take everyone who doesn't meet today's definition of "Conservative" and call them a Liberal, using that term as a curse.

I was taught "conservative" meant:
Mind your own business, let other people mind theirs.
Pay your own way.
Waste not, want not.
Take your fair share, let the other guy get his.

So on to what I said, and you said:
I said I wished we had more knowledge, in different words. I wish I had worded it more strongly, "One of the most urgent things we need to be doing today is understanding our climate!" Whether man-induced or natural, climatic catastrophe makes just as much chaos, and the people are just as dead. There is pretty strong agreement that change is coming, and regardless of the cause, we should be trying to understand it better. People are, but IMHO at a societal level it doesn't have sufficient urgency.

I didn't say anything about "slow down," though I don't think it's a bad idea, in moderation. I suspect you keyed in on my "profit" sentence for your response.

Your response was so "party line" that I lumped you in with others who erect an "environmentalist straw man" and pronounce it an utter economic disaster, then decide that things must remain exactly as they are. You didn't make a personal attack, but your argument mirrored others who do.

When I say "slow down" I mean for instance, "Do we really need to be driving around in 2 or 3 tons of steel, just to get to work or go shopping?" Drop that to 1 or 2 tons, and people could still get to work or go shopping, and have more money to spend when they got there.

As an aside, what is your opinion on "Peak Oil?"

Re:Doom and Gloom

[jadavis]

You make a lot of good points, however I wasn't really posting about the issues behind the topic of the article, I was posting because the article seemed to mislead more than inform.

My primary point was that a computer is not a source, and "some scientists" are not a source. There is a kind of "web of trust" of reputations among sources. To circumvent that and use nameless sources allows you to report whatever you want, which is exactly why the reporters do that. They want to make a sensationalist story, and they don't want to bother checking up on their sources, so they just use sources without names, like "a weather model" or "some scientists".

Anyway, I think we're in agreement there.

As far as the other points you made, basically I think this:

(1) There are many people concerned about the rise of C02 and CH3 from human activity. Whether they're right or wrong, it at least warrants caution about our output of those gasses.

(2) Statement #1 is highly political, and everybody (no matter what political party) is trying to use it to control the actions of others. Some want some foriegn nation to have power over the U.S., and vice-versa.

(3) The "solutions" to #1 range from a "let's wait and see" to "let's grind the economy to a halt". Unfortunately, there's no evidence to suggest exactly how far we should go to limit C02/CH3 production. When making economic decisions, we really need a cost/benefit analysis, but we have no way to make one. However, it seems reasonable to take some steps to reduce the human impact on the atmosphere.

What I want to know is why don't the media practice "equal time" during the daily weather forecast.

There are some situations in very specific geographical areas where a local forecaster is more effective than the bigger weather outfits. This might be the case in a narrow valley where the weather patterns are very different from nearby areas. However, aside from that, there aren't really any reliable forecasters that consistantly disagree. However, aside from that, I would be surprised to find many reliable dissenting opinions.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[glider0524]

Thank you for the supportive comment on the book, I agree wholeheartedly.

What Crichton did, in my view, was to bring up some reasonable objections that any reasonably intelligent non-scientists person looking at the raw data and methods might bring up. For example.. "So, most raw temperature measurements are actually 'corrected' for the heat-island effects due to all the concrete and asphalt use around cities to find the 'true' temperature? ..oh, really? And most temperature readings have traditionally been taken around cities. And who decides what these altertion factors are now, versus how much/how quickly they shifted for various different cities in the world over the last 50 years? Oh, different researchers choose their own factors.. you don't say? That's interesting. And while melting in some places, the Antarctic ice sheet is overall actually growing, not shrinking? Hmmm. I was given the opposite impression by some people."

Crichton included a long bibliography of scientific studies done--he directly quotes and draws upon hundreds of published scientific papers. Things peer reviewed and published in periodicals like Science, Nature, Technology Review, Geology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Animal Ecology, etc. He quotes Harvard professors and Nobel prize winners who doubt the theory.

Heck for that matter, see the 20,000 PhD's and trained scientists who recently signed a petition from the National Academy of Sciences officially casting doubt on global warming: http://www.oism.org/pproject/. The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

Crichton is a experienced researcher for science subjects, I don't think this can be denied. He is mainly calling out a warning against consensus science for disputed theories like secondhand smoke, global warning, and nuclear winter.

All of the criticisms I have heard or read in response to the book (including in this posting) are ad homenim attacks on Crichton. This actually indeed does strengthen his case because of the suspiciously weak retorts to his claims. I have never seen any sort of direct refutation on the facts and merits of his claim. Critics simply offer up "you can trust me, he's a nothing but a hack"... honestly this isn't what it takes to dissuade me of a factual claim, especially when that claim has the ring of truth to it. I would like to hear someone directly counter his scientific claims. Nobody is denying that the data has to get massaged in various way in order to come to the given conclusion.

Obviously a scientists needs to admit that they do not know everything. But the same token, they need to take a realistic view on the uncertainty. Due to the potential consequences, it seems that scientists have taken an excusatory view on shaky methods used in the research and uncertainty levels attached to conclusions.

The majority needs sound, unchallengeable science to back up counterclaims, not raw data that massaged in to place to support a popular claim. Poor science can get popular and be touted as truth. Scientific reality isn't established through majority rule, and it seems the world hasn't learned that yet.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[TapeCutter]

I agree, bad reporting is often worse than no reporting, particularly when it comes to politically charged science in the mass media.

Re:Doom and Gloom

[The Kosmik Kid]

Bjorn Lonborg (cited in Crichton's book, as I recall) can atest to the tactic of ad hominem attack. Since the release of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" he has been subjected to the most vicious attacks imaginable, including many death threats. You challenge the conventional wisdom at your peril, it seems, even in academia. I thought Crichton's summarization of his beliefs about global warming was a reasonable recitation of the actual scientific consensus: There is some observed warming; it probably has an anthropogenic component, although the exact amount is uncertain; and the alarmist projections about likely future warming are probably grossly exaggerated. The key words are "some", "probably", "uncertain" and "exaggerated". Contrasted to this, the histrionic claims of the alarmists are instructive to anyone with a scientific bent or background, because serious scientists never do that. They sound like what they more closely resemble, the religious zealots that have plagued us since the dawn of civilization. Believe it or else, Bjorn. Even if they're eventually proven right, reasonable people can, and should, reject their proposed remedies, and look for smart man-made solutions to man-made problems. Taxing and regulating us into poverty is the worst possible solution, and the first these types usually promote. That's the legacy of socialism, aka anti-capitalism, I'm afraid. Given the last million or so years of natural history, I see no reason at all for pessimism in regard to man's ability to adapt and survive. We'll do it while saving the planet, too, and real science will lead the way.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Winter's on its way in another few months. I, for one, look forward to our heat-seeking overlords.

On a side note, my "confirm you're not a script" image is "tolerant." How fitting. :)

Waterworld

[Anonymous Coward]

And you thought it was a bad movie, it's a FEMA training film now!!!

Re:Waterworld

[TrippTDF]

When Waterworld was made, it was the most expensive movie ever at the time.

It's a drop in the bucket compared to what FEMA will wind up paying for Katrina...

Re:Waterworld

[WindBourne]

FEMA will not pay a cent for it. You, me, our children, and our grandchildren will. Personally, I think that rebuilding the below water parts of NO is a huge mistake (unless, the buildings are designed to be underwater, which would be interesting). We should have paid to fix the levees, but being totally honest, they should never have been there in the first place.

Re:Waterworld

[ghukov]

it seems that old NO is fine, the French Quarter, Bourbon Street, etc. The areas that were affected the worst were drained wetland areas, where the suburban sprawl has sprung up. Maybe they ought to bulldoze it all and use it as a landfill until it is above sealevel...

Re:Waterworld

[jafac]

. . . with the part of Karl Rove played by Dennis Hopper?

283,750 Roubles

[nmb3000]

I wonder if the Russians have started counting their roubles yet?

No Return?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what the record shows.

Oh, thank you very much

[daniil]

As if it wasn't bad enough, the flamewar that's about to erupt here will further speed up the process...

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[Anonymous Coward]

As if it wasn't bad enough, the flamewar that's about to erupt here will further speed up the process..

FLAMEWAR!?!?! What kind of useless, no good, rotten bastard are you? There won't be a flamewar!!! Dammit!

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[FidelCatsro]

I could condense the entire flamewar to one post...

10:Global warming is not happening
20:yes it is you ignoramus
30:I agree but it's not caused by man
40: Yes it is you ignoramus
50:no it isn't
60: GOTO 40
RUN

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[fm6]

Oddly enough, it's not happening. Some moderately clueful sceptics, that's about it. I think Katrina has silenced the kneejerk "It's all just junkscience/liberal/treehugger hysteria." crowd. Every cloud has a silver lining!

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[mdielmann]

And in the process you start an even bigger flamewar by using basic to describe the other one.

Do you understand how chaos theory works now? Stop trying to kill butterflies until you know the full consequences!

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[Quiet_Desperation]

I've modified your code. It was open source, right?

Global warming is not happening!
Yes, it is, you ignoramus!
I agree, but it's not caused by man!
count = 0
while (count < 10)
   Yes, it is, you ignoramus!
   No, it isn't!
   count = count + 1
wend
do
   Hitler!
   Mao!
loop

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[ArsonSmith]

Are you blaming Katrina on global warming?

Wow, liberals are dumber than I thought. Either that or global warming has been happening sense well before recorded history.

Hurricanes are not a new thing.

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[Zigg]

Shouldn't you be catching a Godwin exception somewhere in the last few lines?

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[Kymermosst]

It'd be funnier if you wrote syntactically correct BASIC code instead of this. In reality, this is what happens:

RUN
?SYNTAX ERROR AT 10

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[JohnFluxx]

>Are you blaming Katrina on global warming?
Partly, yes.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/01/katrina .warming.ap/

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109 9102,00.html

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[Dausha]

Yes, but can you re-write the flamewar in any other language than BASIC? That invites a flame war in-and-of itself.

Let's see the flame war in your favorite programming language, Slashdotters!

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[HiThere]

1) Hurricanes aren't new, but warming of the tropical oceans is expected to intensify them.

2) You're sort of right, in that the REALLY new feature is the way the swamps on the ocean side of New Orleans (swamps? tidal islands? whatever!) had been worn away. This is partially due to land developers and partially due to flood control in the Mississippi Valley.

3) Liberals? When conservative politics means I can't believe in the evidence presented to me, then I become something else. Not sure liberal is the correct name, as I tend to consider myself a minarchist, which is the official Republican dogma, even if they never practice it.

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[Anonymous Coward]

From noaa.gov, dont let the facts hit you in the ass. The atlantic has had unexplained temperature shifts for as long as we have been recording data. Go look up Atlantic Multidecadal Mode.

Scientists at NOAA's Hurricane Research Division, part of the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami, believe this may be due to a natural ocean cycle called the Atlantic Multidecadal Mode, a North Atlantic and Caribbean sea surface temperature shift between warm and cool phases that lasts 25 to 40 years each. The scientists conducted research that shows warmer sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic combined with a decrease in vertical wind shear contributed to conditions for more hurricanes over a several-year period.

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[ThosLives]

Hurricanes are not a new thing.

Exactly: hurricanes are really good at dumping a lot of surface energy into the upper atmosphere where it's likely radiated off into space. Hurricanes just happen to be one of the atmosphere's dynamic responses to temperature differences between layers of the atmosphere.

From a strange point of view, you might want to try and increase hurricanes to counter global warming.

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[fury88]

I am not a subscriber to Global Warming either but doesn't it make sense to at LEAST curb the things that could be causing it? Just because Global warming may NOT be true doesn't give us the license to be reckless with the environment.

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of bringing liberals into this? Just to point out how right you are?

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course this one largely unprovable study is the gospel truth. That's it, let's all go back to sticks and stones, this industry stuff is no good.

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[SatanicPuppy]

First of all, don't be a dumbass; not all liberals are stupid.

Second of all, the conservative types probably think GOD did it to punish N.O. for liberal drinking laws, so I wouldn't be so quick to jump onto their side.

As a RATIONAL person, eg, a MODERATE, I understand that while Katrina is completely in accordance with the predicted cyclical upswing of hurricane activity, and nothign to do with global warming it is not a bad thing for the average shmo to see that nature is a bad enemy, and to think that maybe it's time to stop trying to beat nature, which isn't going to happen, and start trying to coexist with nature, which, if done intelligently in a non-hippy-commune manner, could have substantial benefits.

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[ArsonSmith]

I am a less rational moderate. Sort of an extreme moderate. I find myself disagreeing with extreme right and left with almost complete opposite extremity in hopes of bringing them to a more Moderate view.

Of course it doesn't seem to work with the reverse psychology thing.

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[mattsucks]

70: PROFIT!

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a friday night, I havn't done basic since the mid 80's and it was a cheap joke , but if it would make it funnier I could write a small perl script to fix the missing Print" "'s in the source . ..Fidelcatsro..

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[glitchvern]

Hurricanes are powered by the differential in temperature between the water and the atmosphere. Since global warming increases the temperature of both the water and air the affects on hurricanes are small compared to the natural variablity of hurricanes according to NOAA's faq. Here is NOAA's page listing the number of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes going back to 1850. The data from 1944 onwards is considered accurate with data on storms that actually strike the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts considered to be accurate back to 1899. They have graphs of 1944 to near present of the number of named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes. Note that these graphs do not resemble monotonically increasing functions as one would expect if global warming were continously causing more numerous and larger storms, but instead are closer to periodic funcions. Here is the NOAA faq page stating the increase in number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes since 1995 is due to the hurricane cycle. Note that 1991-94 are the quietest four years in the 1944-present record.

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[FidelCatsro]

Actually I do believe global warming is occuring.. I am just not yet convinced as to the cause .. or combination of causes

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[Kymermosst]

Nah, write a Perl script to convert the original code to Perl.

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[Anonymous Coward]

you might want to try and increase hurricanes to counter global warming

Appears we won't have to since it is happening automatically.

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[ksheff]

But what did the wetlands to the south and east of NOLA have to do with anything that happened in the last couple weeks? The flooding problem was due to a storm surge on the lake north of the city that broke flood walls along canals inside the city. This was created when the hurricane past east of the city.

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[Dausha]

Yes, but can you re-write the flamewar in any other language than BASIC? That invites a flame war in-and-of itself.

Let's see the flame war in your favorite programming language, Slashdotters!

Re:Oh, thank you very much

[JohnFluxx]

I had a look at the graphs, and read that FAQ. It seems that they aren't sure either way.

I do remember reading an article where they suggested that they might be able to divert (and to some extent, steer) a hurricane by putting down an oil slick. This would mess with the temperature differential (decrease it - act like a insulating layer iirc).

The graphs do not seem to convey enough information to be totally useful. What would be good would be to see a graph of: intensity*frequency against year. This would be more useful.

Also the graphs do seem to show it getting worse. But of course, too little data.

The FAQ basically says that there are so many variables involved, we don't really know.

It seems that it is not clear cut at all.

Yes!

[justforaday]

Soon I'll be able to sell my vial of ice-9 for billions!

Awesome news!

[dstewart]

Now I won't have to hear them drone on about the threat of global warming anymore!

Thanks, polluters! The power is yours!

Re:Awesome news!

[16K Ram Pack]

Does this mean that we can all go and get Hummers now, seeing that it's inevitable?

Re:Awesome news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh if only Hummers were inevitable...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Everyone should now by now

[Anonymous Coward]

That Global warming is total bullshit. All you tree huggin hippies need to cut your hair stop getting high and contribute to society for a change.

BTW the way FP.

The boy who cried....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wolf! Wolf! Why won't anyone listen to me? Wolf!

So when is global warming coming my way

[Anonymous Coward]

It is like 62 in the Silicon Valley this morning. Could use a little bit of that global warming out here!

OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!11111!1one!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid Republicans!!!!

If President Lincoln hadn't fought against the South, releasing all that carbon from the Gunfire, Global Warming would not have happened!!!

(note the sarcasm...)

Re:OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!11111!1one!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I missed a class or two but, could someone explain the title for me? What is BBQ and what is the significance of the 1111's?

TIA

Been there, done that

[Anonymous Coward]

I've already read that article... it was on Drudge Report earlier.

Do you know why articles make the Drudge Report? Because they're incredibly inflammatory. This kind of crap has no place on Slashdot.

Human greed knows no bounds

[MindPrison]

You know...

Our scientists have been warning us for the last 30 years and most people think...oh well...that's in the future, by then I'm old and we're going to die anyway, now we're paying for our neglect and ignorance.

We've been able to make a car run on water for the last 50 years (maybe even before) but the "big leaders" have chosen to stick with the polluting alternatives, guess why? Because too many businesses would be lost, all riches gone...who'd they sell oil to now? Lobby lobby lobby...

It's funny....as a Child I remember that a joke went around about good sellers...you know...they would be able to sell water to fishermen. 20 years later noone is laughing about that joke anymore... Because it's not a joke anymore, now we sell bottled water more than ever.

What's next? Bottled air?

Please think about the future generations - you're in it too! This isn't just some lone whack trying to tell you what to do, this could very well be you in 40 years.

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, 30 years ago they were warning us about global cooling.

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[MattyDK23]

What's next? Bottled air?

Please. Bottled air is so 1992.

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[MrByte420]

What's next? Bottled air?

Nope, canned from planet Druidia....

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[Anonymous Coward]

grow up you tinfoil hat wearing bed wetting child.

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[AKAImBatman]

Our scientists have been warning us for the last 30 years and most people think...oh well...that's in the future, by then I'm old and we're going to die anyway, now we're paying for our neglect and ignorance.

Blah, blah, blah. The climate will change, and life will go on. It's not like the real world is going to experience the Insta-Freeze(TM) problem seen in "The Day After Tomorrow." (It would have been such a fun movie too, if it weren't for the unbelievability of the "freeze chase scenes".)

We've been able to make a car run on water for the last 50 years (maybe even before) but the "big leaders" have chosen to stick with the polluting alternatives, guess why?

We have? How does that work? Do we pressurize the water and make it work like a bottle rocket? (All you smart asses out there can save your links to the air cars. I've seen them.)

I think you mean that we've had tech to run cars on hydrogen fuels. Except that there's a few snags:

1. Hydrogen isn't as energy dense as petroleum. So your MPG rating is going to suck.

2. Hydrogen is REALLY difficult to store. The molecules are so small, that they pass right through the containment vessels. When transporting liquid hydrogen, companies *expect* to lose a fraction of it on the way.

3. Hydrogen burns very fast in comparison to gasoline. This makes engine design much more difficult and shortens the life of components.

4. Hydrogen explodes nicely. Gasoline is actually quite safe as long as it's kept in containers so that fumes don't develop. (I know of a few people who had "fun" putting out matches by quickly sticking them in pools of gas.)

In other words, things aren't as simple as you're making them out to be.

(You might be interested in the article in my sig. Did you know that GM developed a Gas Turbine car that got 60 miles to the gallon of gas, could run on a variety of fuels, and cut emissions in half before abandoning the research?)

What's next? Bottled air?

"Oh my god, it's Mega Maid. She's gone from suck to blow!" --SpaceBalls ;-)

Please think about the future generations - you're in it too!

Disclaimer: Slashdot is not responsible for all the poking you're about to receive for playing the tired, "Won't somebody thing of the children?" card.

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[stlhawkeye]

Actually they've been warning us for a longer time than that, that there's global climate change coming and mankind is to blame for it, so we'd better change our ways. Except it was global cooling that was all the rage. Now that we have better data, it's easier to find correlations, although we haven't proved causation yet. Regardless, I am confident that as we move forward, the anti-intellectualism present in the global warming debate will decline and we'll be able to have a more open and honest scientific discussion on the topic. I mean "we" as in "we humans," not "we slashdot readers." There will never be an open, honest, intellectual debate about anything on Slashdot. :)

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[havaloc]

If making a car run on water was viable, you can bet that they would do it in a heartbeat. There isn't anyone in a backroom keeping this technology under wraps.

When the day comes, you'll be buying this water from Mobil/Exxon refilling stations. Why would they bother with difficult oil extraction from the planet when they could just tanker in sea water to their filling stations?

Let's be realistic, there's money to be made just selling water. Look at Aquafina and Dasani brand water.

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[NotFamous]

Currently the main limitation is the long hose trailing all the cars...

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[wcrowe]

Please think about the future generations...

I dunno. Have you seen the future generation? They're usually running around screaming at the restaurant, or disturbing me while I try to watch a movie.

No, I'm sorry. The argument is not convincing.

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[LightningBolt!]

Why would they bother with difficult oil extraction from the planet when they could just tanker in sea water to their filling stations?

Well, just playing devil's advocate here... Getting water into a tank and transporting it requires a lot smaller capital investment than the oil extraction/refining business. A lower barrier to entry means competitors would pop up from nowhere, margins would decrease or disappear entirely, etc. It would probably be cheaper to start a new company from scratch than to deal with the costs of downsizing an existing oil company to be competitive in the new "water fuel" economy. That is, if such a thing were feasible.

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[FhnuZoag]

Except it was global cooling that was all the rage. Old fallacy. Not among scientists it wasn't.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

What was being discussed at that time was that investigation of natural climate cycles showed that we should be beginning an ice age. Once we had better technology, we could see that despite this, we were in fact warming rapidly.

Causation is shown very strongly by the data we have, because (a) we know mechanistically it's possible, (b) we know by models this is the effect we expect and (c) it is deeply implausible that a natural effect can hide from us in 400,000 years of records and affect us in a timescale of a few decades without showing any substantial blip in our other data.

Re: Human greed knows no bounds

[_.- thimk! -._]

Ah, the imfamous "they..."

Actually. 30 years ago global cooling had already lost significant credibility as a theory because real data failed to suppport it.

As of 25 years ago, in my Earth Science class, while we discussed global cooling as a largely discredited theory, we did also discuss a growing body of evidence that suggested global warming.

Examining global warming as another theory, we tried to determine what we might see if it was indeed taking place. We thought, if it was, that given human nature, we expected the vast majority of people (who refuse to actually learn anything from science, or pay attention to history or to human nature) would stick their heads in the sand, or make stupid jokes about it until it was too late to avoid significant impacts to the environment, that the politicians and corporations would deny there was any such trend, then (once that was no longer possible) deny that humans were capable of causing a noticable impact, most loudly denying that major corporate attacks upon environmental regulation and a near-complete disregard of environmental concerns would have anything to do with it, all while the politicians and executives continued line their pockets and decide how much further north they'd have to move. In the interim, they would continue to stir up debate upon the possible sources, and upon possible actions, to delay as long as possible any action whatsoever that might impact their own fiscal bottom line, regardless of the cause.

To some degree, while the specific causes are important to identify and understand, the more significant question at hand is the what the extent of its impact will be, at what point we begin to have serious concerns, and at what point, if any, we should make serious attempts to mitigate the impact, or to even attempt to reverse it. We expected during our discussions that it would be at least thirty years or so from that point before global changes, if they were in fact occurring, would be generally significant enough for there to be some concensus that it was taking place. We expected it to be another fifteen to thirty years before any concensus at all about a response might be forthcoming, and probably another fifteen to thirty years before the effects of any response might be significant. All in all, the blink of an eye, in geologic terms, but long enough that most people would be reluctant to do anything that meant they might have to change one iota how they live. Human nature, after all, is to maintain habits (good or bad), and generally to be selfish and short-sighted. This still left open-ended, however (as any good discussion of theory does), whether a warming trend would be observed, or if one was, whether or not an attempt to counter it might be determined to be desirable or even viable.

In the meantime, however, we expected there would be progressively more significant increases in the severity of weather events (in number and severity for major storms, hurricanes, typhoons, and so on, with cold snaps and harsher winters in other areas, since continuing to add energy to a system increases the chaos inherent in the system, and contributes to swings toward both hotter and colder extremes until the system reestablishes some sort of equilibrium), increased flooding and loss of land area in regions at and close to sea level.

I for one, would like to see (and examine in toto) a number of studies of the last 25 years worth of data, year by year, and how they correlate to the large body of data available from other sources (glacial cores, tree cores, and other sources do, in fact, provide a record that goes back much further than the last hundred years or so of recorded meteorological data). Actually examing available data, however, is probably too much of a bother for all of the folks who's already decided they would prefer to simply make flippant comments about it, and listen to idiot politicians, pundits, and corporate mouthpieces rather than to engage in anything resembling science o

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[oborseth]

"When the day comes, you'll be buying this water from Mobil/Exxon refilling stations. Why would they bother with difficult oil extraction from the planet when they could just tanker in sea water to their filling stations?"

Eh? I just looked in my back yard. Behold! There is a water refilling "station" right there. I call it a hose.

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[BeanThere]

There will never be an open, honest, intellectual debate about anything on Slashdot. :)

So ... where can I find open, honest, intellectual debate on the Net? Please ...

Re:Human greed knows no bounds

[CaptainCarrot]

1. Hydrogen isn't as energy dense as petroleum. So your MPG rating is going to suck.

This is untrue on a kg for kg basis. One kg of hydrogen yields about as much energy as one gallon of gasoline, but the gallon of gasoline weighs 2.8 kg.

2. Hydrogen is REALLY difficult to store.(blah, blah...)

So you don't store hydrogen. You store it as some compound that you can reform either in the vehicle or at the fueling station. You don't run cars on liquid hydrogen anyway, you run them on compressed gaseous hydrogen. And it doesn't pass through a properly designed container, not quickly anyway. Just ask NASA.

3. Hydrogen burns very fast in comparison to gasoline. This makes engine design much more difficult and shortens the life of components.

That's why you don't burn it. You make electricity from it in fuel cells.

4. Hydrogen explodes nicely.

No it doesn't, not in the open anyway. You only get an explosion if it's contained, and it disperses very quickly.

For more information see here and elsewhere here.

What Global Warming?

[CarbonPath]

Hey, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona!

a fact

[Anonymous Coward]

The earths temperature should go higher, if it wouldnt then it would be unnatural. Global warming is natural and should happen. We are recovering from the ice age.. Eof

So there is now no reason to do anything about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Pass the Hummer, let's party like its 1999.

Schadenfreude

[YankeeInExile]

Talk about your schadenfreude experiences, eh? Either these scientists are wrong, or they get to gloat about how nobody listented to them.

I am just waiting for President Schwarzenegger's address from the beaches of Las Vegas explaining that global warming is not a serious problem, and there was never a place called Venice.

Re:Schadenfreude

[socalmtb]

Those who post don't RTFA. There are many people who read slashdot and the FAs but don't post.

Re:Schadenfreude

[stlhawkeye]

Talk about your schadenfreude experiences, eh? Either these scientists are wrong, or they get to gloat about how nobody listented to them.

What's interesting is that on the balance of scientific history the overwhelming majority of what science has "discovered" has turned out to be wrong. That's just how science works. There's been "overwhelming" evidence and "worldwide scientific consensus" on a lot of things that have turned out to be wrong, even though the evidence was based on the best modeling and mathematics available and blah blah blah. The global warming situation is too politicized right now and probably will continue to be until Bush is out of office.

This is EXCELLENT News!

[14erCleaner]

Now that global warming is irreversible, we don't have to modify our behaviour! No more Kyoto treaty, I can buy that giant SUV I've always wanted, and it doesn't matter! Yay! No more guilt!

On a tangential note, does anybody else get annoyed by the overuse of the phrase "tipping point"? It's like "perfect storm" was a few years ago, everybody's favorite trite phrase-of-the-moment. It's like we've reached a tipping point of "tipping point" usage, and this perfect storm of "tipping point"s has driven out the "perfect storm" meme.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[14erCleaner]

Oops. I said "meme". That was so 1998. Kind of like "that was so [year]" is uncool now. Uh, oh.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[lucabrasi999]

You also used "Excellent" in your Subject Line. So 1992.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[nightsweat]

Dude - "usage"? That is just SO 1847.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[LightningBolt!]

Your complaint about the phrase "tipping point" has become "ground zero" for a whole new "war on cliches".

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[jim_v2000]

On a tangential note, does anybody else get annoyed by the overuse of the phrase "tipping point"?

Yeah, it annoys me. How do they know where the "tipping point" is? Seems pretty arrogant to make such a claim when we understand so VERY little about the planet's various systems work.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, it is guaranteed that some day, you will die. There is nothing you can do about it, it's inevitable. You can't prevent death, no matter what kind of lifestyle you choose to live.

This message has been brought to you by Marlboro. Come to Marlboro Country.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[ynohoo]

unfortunately you're off by a couple of decades - "meme" first appeared in Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" from 1976. On the up side, that probably means it's back in fashion!

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[GoatMonkey2112]

I don't know. It was probably one of Pauly Shore's favorite words.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Anonymous Coward]

"tipping point" may be the phrase of the moment and possibly annoying, but there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the earth's climate is a bistable system. So "tipping point", as a term, may not be so off the mark.

I will not comment as to whether or not we are at a tipping point - I don't know.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[SlothB77]

We've been at the 'tipping point' or 'on the verge' of disaster. It never pans out. But it does scare up an increase in fundraising. Thats why you keep saying it. Environmentalism is a billion dollar industry - of tax-free donations.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Well, we can always find the "tipping point" by pushing until it does the tipping. Although this might be fun with cows, I'd rather not we did this to the climate.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Pentagram]

Yeah, it annoys me. How do they know where the "tipping point" is? Seems pretty arrogant to make such a claim when we understand so VERY little about the planet's various systems work.

Yes, very fucking arrogant do actually do the research and then report on what their results point to! What do you suggest, that all climatologists just throw their hands up, admit defeat and decide the climate is not understandable?

And of course it wouldn't be arrogant to dismiss these scientists' work out of hand with no explanation! I think it's a fair bet that you haven't read their work. Hell, I bet you haven't even RTFA.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[FauxPasIII]

> In other news, it is guaranteed that some day, you will die. There is nothing you can do about it, it's
> inevitable. You can't prevent death, no matter what kind of lifestyle you choose to live.

In yet other news, some people have kids. It's possible those kids will have kids of their own. Some people feel
attachments to those yet-unborn descendants. Still other people feel a generalized attachment to humanity
and the preservation of the species.

> This message has been brought to you by Marlboro. Come to Marlboro Country.

Either this is a sig, or you're tagging your post as irony, in which case I fail it.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Klaus Obermeyer]

You seem pretty arrogant to reach conclusions about an article you obviously never even read.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[bill_kress]

Actually that's been my feeling for a while. Not in a selfish bullshit way, but seriously--80% of the population of the US aren't going to take this seriously until it's obvious.

This means it WILL happen, there is no question. Maybe less damage (overall) will be done if whatever is going to happen happens sooner than later.

Or maybe I'm wrong and polluting faster will make things worse. I can't guess what actions are going to be good and what are going to be bad so I just don't try.

The only person who is absolutely wrong about the future is one who is certain of it.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Anonymous Coward]

cripes only a pussy would buy a tiny SUV like an esclade or Hummer.

give me my wanderlodge. the SUV for real men..

3.7 miles per gallon, and a bathroom + bedroom.

pussies drive SUV's.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is annoying that they have come up with a best guess on where the "tipping point" is. Why people even want to use their intellect and forethought is beyond me.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Anonymous Coward]

fyi, "tipping point" has been commonly used by real estate agents to define when a neighborhood goes from "friendly" (ie, 90+% white) to "dangerous" (ie, 10+% black or latino) and has been in use for decades.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[plj]

I can buy that giant SUV I've always wanted, and it doesn't matter!

Uh... we're still, although slowly, running out of oil, no? So have fun with your SUV when on petrol pump.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Anonymous Coward]

A billion dollars? You mean a whole 1/256th of US annual federal highway funds? Oh my God!

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh heh... cows are cool.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Anonymous Coward]

Top of the muffin to you!!!11one!!

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yeah, it annoys me. How do they know where the "tipping point" is? Seems pretty arrogant to make such a claim when we understand so VERY little about the planet's various systems work."

Ever considered that the people making this claim understand more about it than you - in fact, they understand more than pretty much everyone?

To call them stupid because they have mentioned a 'tipping point' - a phrase you get annoyed by is ridiculous. A tipping point as far as the environment goes is a point by which we can't undo the damage we've caused. By modelling, you can at least come up with a hypothesis. The more data you can add to that model, the more accurate it becomes. There are tried and tested ways for modelling systems like this now, models that can be retrospectively applied to what we already know.

As usual, everyone's now an expert, simply because they are unwilling to understand, or listen to anyone but themselves and their own small-minded opinions...

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your complaint about the phrase "tipping point" has become "ground zero" for a whole new "war on cliches".

And I shall build a "makeshift memorial" to mark the occasion.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[Zibblsnrt]

Seems pretty arrogant to make such a claim when we understand so VERY little about the planet's various systems work.

I love the tendency to run from "I don't understand this" to "you don't either" whenever this kind of topic comes up.

-PS

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[danila]

I find that asking an advanced factual question about the topic often works.

Such as "How does climate data from Athapaskan and Tlingit oral traditions and Shelley poems correlate with climate data acquired by ice core drilling?" or "What is general circulation model and what percentage of global temperature rise results, according to this model, from sea ice changes in the event of a doubling of atmospheric CO2?"

When the arrogant know-it-all gasps for air in indignation, you have a few seconds to quickly make a point. Suggest to him that a person, who cannot correctly answer such trivial questions is unlikely to be able to correctly answer much more complicated ones, such as whether global warming is happening and why and how.

Re:This is EXCELLENT News!

[pipingguy]

Today I read about a quasi-government-type person mentioning "target-rich environments" while referring to finding dead bodies in some areas of New Orleans. This disgusted me for some reason.

It looks like some low-level, TV-speaking functionaries have adopted military-speak (since it sounds so organizationally cool) but have no clue about the careful use of language when it comes to tact and respect for the dead and their families.

Better than an iceage :)

[VagaStorm]

I read somewere that the reason we have not had an iceage for some time, is that "we" have cleared the forests that once covered europe. If this is the case, is maybe some global warming needed for our survival?

Silly Scientists

[that_xmas]

It isn't "global warming". It's that big hole we poked in the Ozone layer that's causing all these problems.

Indifference reaches all-time highs

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. So about a year ago global warming didn't exist according to some people, and now it's impossible to prevent.

So I guess we can all throw up our hands and give up. I mean, what's the point in trying to stop it, right? Let's just give in and let the world end. Who cares, it won't happen in OUR generation.

.....Right?

What happened to the Ice Age . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

that was predicted during some of /.'s readers childhoods? Or was that prediction based on a temporary downswing of temps and the current prediction based on a temporary upswing?

Myths and Ice Age

[SumDog]

We really have a huge lack of evidence about global warming. The earth is warming yes, but are we causing it? The eart has gone to drastic changes over the course of several million years. Within the past 10,000 years, glaicers have formed and receeded in northern Europe and North America. Not too long ago, Chicago was covered in ice. It's why there is so much good farm land up near Indiana.

The fact is that humans, even with all our pollution, can't put a dent in our planets ecosystem compared to the power of one rhylothetic (sp?) volcanic eruption.

On top of this, many geologists believe that we are currently in an Ice Age and we're on the cooling side of it!

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

A lack of evidence? Maybe the neocon thinktanks want us to believe that.

Let's see what another 1.5 degrees of water temperature in the golf of mexico do to your newly rebuild New Orleans.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Do geeks trend more to being republicans? A lot of the anti global warming garbage that I read sounds exactly like the talking points of republican corporate whores...

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[north.coaster]

I don't think that it really matters whether humans are causing it. What matters is whether humans are impacting it. If there is something that we can do to slow it down or reverse it, then we should. Period.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[TheWhaleShark]

I'm curious as to what you mean by a "huge lack of evidence" as to global warming; there's no denying that, in fact, the globe is warming up. Glaciers are receding; that in and of itself is an indication of rising temperatures.

The real debate is the CAUSE of said warming; in short, we really can't be sure. It could be all man-made, it could be entirely a natural cycle, it could be some combination of those two things, or it could be fnord.

I'm inclined to believe that it's a largely natural process, and we might have sped it by an insignificant amount; the cause, though, is a bit moot. Natural or man-made, if things continue to get warmer, we're going to have to figure something out, or else risk losing our civilization as we know it.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[p2sam]

False Dilemma.

Fact: we are living on this planet
Fact: this planet is warming
Fact: weather patterns will change
Fact: we better damn well do something about it.
Fact: whether we are the ones who are causing the change is irrelevant.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[aafiske]

What exactly is your point? Even assuming your points are true, it's okay if low-lying cities drown because it's not our fault? Massive changes in the food supply situation and the balance of power between nations, but don't worry everyone, go back to work, we didn't cause it.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[mhamel]

The fact is that humans, even with all our pollution, can't put a dent in our planets ecosystem

Have you ever eard about the holocene extinction event? From wikipedia: A 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History found that 70% of biologists view the present era as part of a mass extinction event. Some, such E. O. Wilson of Harvard University, predict that man's destruction of the biosphere could cause the extinction of one-half of all species in the next 100 years. Research and conservation efforts, such as the IUCN's annual "Red List" of threatened species, all point to an ongoing period of enhanced extinction, though some offer much lower rates and hence longer time scales before the onset of catastrophic damage. The extinction of many megafauna near the end of the most recent ice age is also sometimes considered a part of the Holocene extinction event.

Well, 70% of biologists think that we are going thtought a massive extinction event and you say that humans can't put a dent in the ecosystem. With that, you get modded +5 Insightful..

We could at least say that your thinking is not shared by the science community, even if it seems to find echo on slashdot.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Pentagram]

We really have a huge lack of evidence about global warming.

No we don't. This is known as "argument by assertion". What, out of the current masses of evidence for human-influenced climate change do you disagree with?

The earth is warming yes, but are we causing it?

Yes. You're welcome.

The eart has gone to drastic changes over the course of several million years.

Leaving aside your spelling and grammar mistakes, your point is? The Earth has undergone changes over millions of years, yes, but the current changes can be measured over decades.

Within the past 10,000 years, glaicers have formed and receeded in northern Europe and North America. Not too long ago, Chicago was covered in ice. It's why there is so much good farm land up near Indiana.

Non sequiturs.

The fact is that humans, even with all our pollution, can't put a dent in our planets ecosystem compared to the power of one rhylothetic (sp?) volcanic eruption.

No you didn't spell it right and I have no idea what you might be referring to.

On top of this, many geologists believe that we are currently in an Ice Age and we're on the cooling side of it!

First, evidence for this statement? Second, if they did, that would surely be more of an argument that it is our species' influence that is heating up the Earth.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[ergo98]

Natural or man-made, if things continue to get warmer, we're going to have to figure something out, or else risk losing our civilization as we know it.

Isn't that a bit dramatic? Or by "as we know it" do you mean "exactly like it is today"? If so that is an untenable goal, and we'd have to fight nature tooth and nail to maintain - how and where we live, the energy we use, and how we adapt to the environment will be changing for time eternal, just as it has changed for time eternal.

As another poster rightly mentioned, about 10,000 years ago there was an ice age. Where I am sitting, here in the Toronto area, was under massive glaciers (oh noes! The oceans must have run out of water!). 10,000 years - that is, quite literally, a drop in the bucket of Earth history, yet there were giant 100s of feet deep glaciers covers 10s of millions of sq. km of land. Imagine the ecological "damage" this unleashed, such a dramatic, extraordinary earth change? Damn you mother nature!

This isn't to discount the reality that we as humans need to absolutely understand our impact on our environment, but it isn't a simple case of "every change is negative, and every change is caused by humans, and every change is well understood". Even if humans are indeed causing the Earth to heat up, an opinion that there is not any moderate amount of scientific consensus on, then perhaps it's avoiding the next ice age - Imagine all of the poor animals that will be saved.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Decaff]

We really have a huge lack of evidence about global warming. The earth is warming yes, but are we causing it?

It would be odd if pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere had no effect, wouldn't it?

The eart has gone to drastic changes over the course of several million years. Within the past 10,000 years, glaicers have formed and receeded in northern Europe and North America. Not too long ago, Chicago was covered in ice. It's why there is so much good farm land up near Indiana.

How is this relevant? During most of that period there were not that many people around (a few millions at most) and they lived tough lives. Now we have hundreds of millions living within a few metres of sea level, and we rely on subtle aspects of rainfall and climate to grow our food. Even a minor climate change could have a dramatic and very unpleasant effect.

The fact is that humans, even with all our pollution, can't put a dent in our planets ecosystem compared to the power of one rhylothetic (sp?) volcanic eruption

I can't check what you mean because of the spelling :)

However, we are having an impact. In a few decades we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - that is a major change.

On top of this, many geologists believe that we are currently in an Ice Age and we're on the cooling side of it!

We were on the cooling side of it!

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[m50d]

The fact is that humans, even with all our pollution, can't put a dent in our planets ecosystem compared to the power of one rhylothetic (sp?) volcanic eruption.

That's a complete lie. If you disagree, find me your nearest buffalo.

On top of this, many geologists believe that we are currently in an Ice Age and we're on the cooling side of it!

Not so long ago there was a wooly mammoth saying the same thing. Newsflash: we've been living in an ice age for our entire evolutionary history. We're not adapted to live in other circumstances. The fact that the Earth hasn't always been like this means nothing because it's always been like this when we were living on it. When ice ages end species go extinct, and we could well be one of them. Sure it's going to end eventually, but we could have the technology to stop it, or colonise other planets, by then.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[trixillion]

No, but Republican geeks tend to be very windy. Maybe its the combination of seeing most things in black and white and usually being able to outmaneuver others in a conversation - that's a pretty ugly combination.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

Why is it our job to "fix" the Earth?

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Newsflash: we've been living in an ice age for our entire evolutionary history. We're not adapted to live in other circumstances. The fact that the Earth hasn't always been like this means nothing because it's always been like this when we were living on it. When ice ages end species go extinct, and we could well be one of them. Sure it's going to end eventually, but we could have the technology to stop it, or colonise other planets, by then.

Yeah, I'm sure the next pseudo-habitable planet we encounter would love to have millions of ugly bags of mostly water infest it. Even if we had the technology to colonize other planets, would we have the "right"?

Also if we actually had the technology to stop the retreat of an ice age, what gives us the "right" to do that either?

I always surprises me how people self-loathe the science that got us in to this mess, but somehow have blind faith in "new" science to get us out of this mess. Who is to say the "new" science will be any better than the last round (e.g. we are living in the result of the science of the industrial revolution).

Maybe we just watch too much babylon5/startrek...

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[RapmasterT]

That's a complete lie. If you disagree, find me your nearest buffalo

Buffalo? Currect estimates place American Bison populations somewhere between half and a full million head. Hell, I can buy buffalo meat at "Trader Joe's" for lunch today.

For someone calling "lie", you've picked an extremely poor example.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Col. Klink (retired)]

> If there is something that we can do to slow it down or reverse it, then we should. Period.

Why? The Earth is changing, has been changing, and ever shall be changing. Should we have tried to stop the ice ages. Continental drift? Evolution?

We should do what humans do best: adapt to the changes.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Ihlosi]

1. It's a dirty job and someone's gotta do it. 2. No one else is gonna do it for us. 3. We have no other place to go at the moment.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Detritus]

Just like we should always put out forest fires. It's that sort of fuzzy-headed thinking that has caused many of our current environmental problems.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Colin Douglas Howell]

The fact is that humans, even with all our pollution, can't put a dent in our planets ecosystem compared to the power of one rhylothetic (sp?) volcanic eruption

I can't check what you mean because of the spelling :)

I think he means rhyolitic.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Pentagram]

I'm inclined to believe that it's a largely natural process, and we might have sped it by an insignificant amount; the cause, though, is a bit moot.

I love the way totally uninformed people think they can just decide what to believe in the same way they can choose what flavour of ice-cream they want for dessert.

Of course, you could listen to what the experts in the field who have done the research have to say about it.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Are those all wild buffalo or does that included domestic herds that are "ranched" and do not really exists naturally? I would guess that these are all farmed as the habitat needed for large roaming herds is gone.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Fact: we are living on this planet

Fact: this planet is warming

Fact: weather patterns will change

Fact: we better damn well do something about it.

One of these things is not like the other,
One of these things doesn't belong.
Can you tell what's not like the other
Before the end of this song?

Hint:

better: adv 1: comparative of `well'; in a better or more excellent manner or more advantageously or attractively or to a greater degree etc.; "She had never sung better"; "a deed better left undone"; "better suited to the job"

fact: n 2: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"

BTW, as long as we're altering global weather patterns, can we skip winter this year?

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[RapmasterT]

the vast majority are domesticated, but that's not exactly the same thing as "extinct". Wild bison (buffalo is a misnomer, there have never been american buffalo) are considered a nuisance species through many parts of the plains states, and populations are kept under strict control.

It's just a bad example that perpetuates this odd myth that buffalo are extinct.

(disclosure: my uncle raises bison commercially)

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[ifwm]

"If there is something that we can do to slow it down or reverse it, then we should. Period."

Why? Isn't is JUST POSSIBLE that we could do more harm than good by trying?

Of course not! Humans only do EVIL!!!!!!! to mother earth.

I'd prefer a bit more understanding of the complexities of the climate before we go off half-cocked. Period.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[wuice]

I'm not a scientist and don't know how close to true it is, but this line is used by people to justify doing nothing when it comes to modifying our habits (even though it makes a measurable effect on the environment) when we really should be doing these things anyway, until we know they aren't causing global warming. That way, if we're wrong, we can go back to our SUVs.. This way, if we're wrong, we won't realize it until the damage has been done. That's just dumb.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[prisoner-of-enigma]

It would be odd if pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere had no effect, wouldn't it?

Not if the planet's capacity for absorbing said CO2 is significantly in excess of your "millions of tons" figure.

To put it in perspective, in 1997 the United States produced 5.4 billion tons of CO2 emissions, most of it from fossil fuel burning (I would use more current figures, but the first Google link was to the DoE and all they had was 1997 data).

However, according to an Oak Ridge National Laboratories study, roughtly 97% of all global-warming gasses in our atmosphere are produced naturally, largely by volcanic activity. So, to say that we (as humans burning fossil fuels) are adding to global warming is entirely correct. But to say that we're contributing noticeably to the overall global warming of the planet is absolutely ludicrous. You overestimate our ability to alter our climate and you underestimate the planet's ability to deal with our puny, pitiful emissions compared to its own.

Further, in order to blame global warming (or "climate change" if you prefer the currently popular buzzword) entirely on human factors, you have to totally discount anything else...like, say, a thermonuclear fusion reactor 1.4 million kilometers in diameter operating right next door to Earth, namely our sun. It goes through semi-regular cycles of increased activity and decreased activity, altering its output significantly.

We just happen to be in the latter stages of a warming trend in the sun. However, these things are not exact, and nobody really knows how long the warming trend will go and how much warmer things will be. However, NASA studies predict that the current solar maxima might be an unusually high one. Indeed, the number of solar flare warnings dispersed in the last decade has increased quite a bit over the prior one.

However, we are having an impact. In a few decades we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - that is a major change.

I'd love to see your source for this data. I've posted mine from the Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, and NASA. One can only hope you've got sources of a similar caliber, otherwise your arguments are looking rather weak.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[ifwm]

Ok, how are you drawing conclusions, and even worse, being such a snide prick, when in your own post it says the 70% of scientists SURVEYED (and most of them weren't experts in the area, and so not qualified to comment, read a little about the things you cite in the future) PREDICT that our impact COULD cause an extinction event.

You're clearly not a scientist, because no self-respecting scientist would latch onto something like that as hard as you did.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[d474]

Myths? Really. You said:

"The fact is that humans, even with all our pollution, can't put a dent in our planets ecosystem compared to the power of one rhylothetic (sp?) volcanic eruption."

That's a nice little myth you are creating there.

First of all, there is no such type of volcanic eruption termed "rhylothetic" (bad spelling nor otherwise). What in God's name are you doing, making up words?

Your choices are: Strombolian, Vulcanian, Vesuvian, Peléan, Hawaiian, Phreatic, and the most powerful, Plinian.

So, maybe your are right. There is no way human pollution can put a dent into the ecosystem the way a rhylothetic eruption can, because there is no such thing as a rhylothetic eruption!

We'll let the rest wonder about the validity of your other fantasy conclusions...

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Decaff]

Not if the planet's capacity for absorbing said CO2 is significantly in excess of your "millions of tons" figure.

But it is obviously not absorbing it - this is evident from the atmospheric concentration increases.

In the long term, the CO2 will be absorbed by increased plant growth and the oceans. The long term is not soon enough.

However, NASA studies predict that the current solar maxima might be an unusually high one.

Irrelevant. This is an 11-year cycle. Global warming has been proceeding for much, much longer than that.

I'd love to see your source for this data.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California. Readings taken at Mauna Loa.

I've posted mine from the Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, and NASA.

No you haven't. You have given a link to one web page about an 11-year cycle.

One can only hope you've got sources of a similar caliber, otherwise your arguments are looking rather weak.

As weak as using an 11-year cycle to explain nearly a century of warming? I think not.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[soft_guy]

Fact: whether we are the ones who are causing the change is irrelevant.

Please define "we". If by "we" you mean "humans", I think it is relevant. If by "we" you mean "non-americans", or "non-SUV drivers", or "non-energy industry executives", then OK.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[soft_guy]

I eat buffalo steak all the time. Its very good.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[DG]

With all this alarmism about the doubling of C02 levels, you do realize that the current C02 levels are roughly 360 parts per million, right?

That's an itsy bitsy teenie weenie fraction.

It's easy to double things when the starting value is so small.

DG

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Decaff]

With all this alarmism about the doubling of C02 levels, you do realize that the current C02 levels are roughly 360 parts per million, right?

That's an itsy bitsy teenie weenie fraction.

It isn't! At least not in terms of heat trapping.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[not5150]

"That's a complete lie. If you disagree, find me your nearest buffalo." Last week I flew into Catalina Island. I ate a Buffalo burger, that came from a buffalo in a large herd on the island. So Newsflash to you, they are not extinct.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[RapmasterT]

it was YOU, you killed all the buffalo!

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be odd if pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere had no effect, wouldn't it?

Not really.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[gentlemen_loser]

Okay, I'm sold. You simly MUST be a conservative operative. :)

Lets being disecting your comments, shant we?

At first, your camp completely denyed that global warming was happening. Now, you consent that it is but claim "more study is necessary" and that you don't think we are causing it.

Then, you site strong evidence like "Not too long ago, Chicago was covered in ice." Why don't you tell all the nice /.ers exactly when that was? Your statement makes it sound like it happened in the 1970s.

Then you are nice enough (in the EXACT same fashion as our fearless leader) to throw in a stupid, completly unrelated (but true) fact about the farm land in Indiana. Its a good technique to get the mindless sheeple "feelin good" and having faith in what you say.

Now we're on to your ridiculous claim about how we could not put a dent into the planets ecological system. Allow me to update you - we HAVE. CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been. Most typical volcanic eruptions pale in comparisson to the crap we are spewing out. The supervolcanos are the exception rather than the rule. Bad comparisson.

"Many geologists" - really, which ones? Any that are not on the payroll of BP? Regardless, geologists can't scoop up a handfull of sand and tell you that. It takes years of sedimentation to accumulate data. When is the most recent they are able to report? Don't get me wrong, I think that geology has provided us alot of useful historical information and has been instrumental in furthering our understanding of how our planet works. BUT, I'd MUCH rather listen to the guys who are accurately measuring the temperatures NOW. Current ly, our instrumentation tells us that we're warming at an unprecidented rate.

I appologize for being "rude", but I'm frusturated with all the FUD thats been spread around about this issue. Wake up people, 1984 called, they want their tactics back...

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[GoatMonkey2112]

So what we need to do is kill off all those animals exhaling CO2. Thanks, great idea!

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Decaff]

So what we need to do is kill off all those animals exhaling CO2. Thanks, great idea!

Actually, the real problem is termites. They produce methane as well, which is far worse...

Now where did I put that Raid?

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you mean: rhyolitic eruption

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...hate to tell you but do you realize how much atmosphere there is on the Earth? Even at a gross overestimate of 10 mllion tonnes (to be on the safe side) that would make up less than 0.1% of the atmosphere. Reasearch before you post.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the intended term was 'rhyolitic'.

Although, as a qualifier to 'eruption', I agree that it doesn't quite make sense in the context of the comment. A rhyolitic eruption would mean (I think) an eruption that erupted lots of rhyolite.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[sm00f]

Ok let me just drive 5 miles down the road in any direction since there are probably 5 farmers that have buffalos around here within that range. Or I can go to yellowstone park again and see wild ones right in the park near old faithful again :)

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Decaff]

Umm...hate to tell you but do you realize how much atmosphere there is on the Earth? Even at a gross overestimate of 10 mllion tonnes (to be on the safe side) that would make up less than 0.1% of the atmosphere. Reasearch before you post.

Here is some science. Even a small percentage of CO2 can have a significant warming effect.

Research before you post.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Miniluv]

I'm surprised you ignored the meaninglessness of his "half of all living species" garbage. Most reports put the total number of species which are insects at ~75% of all species. While extinction sucks for the extinct, its a part of the natural evolutionary cycle.

I'm not one to claim that any species which can't survive us doesn't deserve to survive, however really broad statements about "mass extinction" leave me unmoved.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[barawn]

That's an itsy bitsy teenie weenie fraction.

Can I put an itsy bitsy teenie weenie fraction of chlorine gas in your immediate vicinity, then?

Small quantities of things cause large effects.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll find that intelligence and maturity usually lead to Conservatism.

(Although there are people in the Republican party right now that aren't conservative - ie: they like big gov't and big spending like Dems do).

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's a complete lie. If you disagree, find me your nearest buffalo."

D-K's Drive In, Ephrata WA, has buffalo burgers on the menu.

As far as going extinct, humans can live from the tropics to the tundra without modern technology. You underestimate yourself.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Mspangler]

Rhyolitic is the word. And for someone who claims to understand volcanos to not recognize this instantly implies dishonesty somewhere.

Rhyolitic volcanoes are silica rich, and therefor viscous, so they hold lots of dissolved CO2, and tend to go boom more than the usual volcano. Parts of Nevada have 40 foot thick layers of rhyolitic ash tuffs.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia is a source largely written by angry medicated Slashdot teenagers.

Shining sh!t by giving it a professional web design is an old trick; it does not make such content valid.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[m50d]

Yeah, I'm sure the next pseudo-habitable planet we encounter would love to have millions of ugly bags of mostly water infest it. Even if we had the technology to colonize other planets, would we have the "right"?

By whose standard? By ours, almost certainly. By the native inhabitants of the planet, probably not.

Also if we actually had the technology to stop the retreat of an ice age, what gives us the "right" to do that either?

Self-preservation. If we don't do it, we'll die. No-one blames any animal for doing whatever it has to to save itself and its kin.

I always surprises me how people self-loathe the science that got us in to this mess, but somehow have blind faith in "new" science to get us out of this mess. Who is to say the "new" science will be any better than the last round (e.g. we are living in the result of the science of the industrial revolution).

Scientific progress is real progress. Believe it or not we are better off than we were before the industrial revolution, and aren't living in any less "harmony with the planet" than we were then. Science makes us better.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[m50d]

Sorry, I was trying to pick one more relevant to the OP and my knowledge of American ecosystems isn't that good. I could have said something like "look at how much of Europe is covered by forest".

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[m50d]

If you have to fly out to an island to find one that's a pretty dramatically different ecosystem you're living in to what it once was.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[m50d]

As far as going extinct, humans can live from the tropics to the tundra without modern technology. You underestimate yourself.

The dinosaurs lived all over the world.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that there weren't many people around actually makes matters worse from a species survival viewpoint, because there's a greater chance of being totally wiped out by a major global catastrophe. There is evidence in our genes (which show a bottleneck in diversity) that this nearly happened when the Toba super volcano erupted 74,000 years ago.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's a complete lie. If you disagree, find me your nearest buffalo." -m50d (797211)

    I dont know about the guy your asking, but mine is right up the street. A place called "Ted's". It one of Ted Turnner's resturants. They serve damn good buffalo steak (buffalo prime rib is great if you get it before 8 pm when it's still really rare).

    What? Oh your one of those buffons that thought the buffalo were extinct arent you? I hate to be the one to tell you, but we still heard them and eat them. Beef still has better texture, but buffalo has a better after taste.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[north.coaster]

Are you suggesting that we should not put out forest fires that were started by people? I don't know of any credible scientist who would endorse that course of action.

My point is that humans should stop doing things that contribute to global warming. This is entirely different than putting out naturally occuring forest fires, which actually have a benefical impact on the environment.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[north.coaster]

When did I suggest that we should go off try any old half-baked idea that some idiot proposes? Why would you assume that I would support something as silly as that?

I'd prefer a bit more understanding of the complexities of the climate... The I hope that your are participating in the ClimatePrediction distributed computing experiment, that is trying to develop a scientific model for climate change.

Re:Myths and Ice Age

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Irrelevant. This is an 11-year cycle. Global warming has been proceeding for much, much longer than that.

Taken only as part of an 11-year cycle, I'd agree with you. However, overall solar output has been increasing since measurements first began to be taken. This output is assumed to be cyclical and may have contributed to past ice ages and so forth. However, nobody really understands what's going on with the sun completely. But the sun is the single largest contributor to any heating equation involving this planet. If it's getting warmer, the planet will get warmer, and extremely minor increases in solar output can cause relatively major increases in atmospheric temperatures.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California. Readings taken at Mauna Loa.

How about a damned link?

No you haven't. You have given a link to one web page about an 11-year cycle.

Then you're obviously blind, because I get you links to two completely different studies. Did you fail to follow them? I did neglect to post the ORNL link, and I can't remember where I found it now. However, I can leave you with this and this which presents equally compelling evidence supporting the solar input increase model.

As weak as using an 11-year cycle to explain nearly a century of warming? I think not.

The only possible way you can say that is because you didn't follow the links, because there's much more in there than just the 11-year cycles. That is a part of it, and it is likely related to the overall increase in hurricans over the last few years. However, global warming is over a much longer period of time, longer I'm afraid than humans have been putting out large amounts of greenhouse gasses. That alone shows the flaws in your "blame it all on American SUV's" argument, but you refuse to see it.

Global warming isn't necessarily our fault

[ikewillis]

Not all scientists agree that anthropogenic climate forcings are the primary cause of global warming. And hey, this guy is director of the American Association of State Climatologists and he's peer reviewed. He also resigned Bush's panel on climate change because no one else wanted to listen to a dissenting opinion, they were too up in arms about global warming alarmism like this dude

Re:Global warming isn't necessarily our fault

[Anonymous Coward]

American Association of State Climatologists and he's peer reviewed. He also resigned Bush's panel on climate change because no one else wanted to listen to a dissenting opinion

All I need to read are words American and Bush and I already know what we are talking about.

Before Iraq war there were many American experts declaring things about WMD and such, where are they now?

The problem with the climate change is that when you as an expert tell people to continue polluting as much as they want to and you are wrong, you cannot just say "I was wrong but lets not talk about this anymore because there were many bad guys there!" afterwards because the whole earth will be in very bad condition.

Re:Global warming isn't necessarily our fault

[FhnuZoag]

Ah, Pielke.

Why he is an idiot: http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/08/pielke-senior -has-blog.html#comments

He certain has been peer-reviewed, though. The feedback he got from his papers include:

The exchange is not worthy of publication. In fact, I do not understand why P&C even wrote their piece in the first place. They continually destroy whatever point they had in mind by noting Hansen 'did it right'... None of the participants in this pathetic exchange seem to have the slightest clue about the large decadal noise that exists in the oceans and some ocean models.

Which bring up the question about why he resigned, which in his own words:

The current discussion in the media based on the three Science Express articles misses the more significant issue of spatial trends in tropospheric temperature trends.

He quit because the committee was focusing on trends in the global average, and he was more interested in geographical locations.

Realclimate is a group blog focusing only on scientific analysis and which gives no recommendations for policy change. The views they give strike me as typically very cautious - so what do you consider to be alarmism?

Re:Global warming isn't necessarily our fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Pielke has been peer reviewed. The problem is, his papers on global warming have been rejected by peer review.

Who modded this insightful?

Re:Global warming isn't necessarily our fault

[Karhgath]

So, deforestation, land use and land coverage aren't our fault? I wonder whose fault it is.

Local to regional land surface processes related to land cover/land use change represent an important first-order forcing of climate variability. Changes in land cover due to urbanization, agriculture, and engineering projects have important consequences for vegetation, soil moisture, sensible and latent heat fluxes, air temperature, precipitation, atmospheric circulation, the distribution of frozen ground (in high latitude/altitude regions), etc. In areas where rapid and extensive alterations to the land surface have occurred, such as China, parts of North America and Europe, high-latitude areas, as well as many other regions, the analogous land surface processes can have
widespread climatic and environmental consequences.

Hell, he's posting articles that are attributing the problems much more directly to humans than on http://www.realclimate.org/ , which, contrary to your comment, I find to be pretty good as it tries to stay away from politics and economics, focusing on the science itself. Hardly alarmist IMHO. All in all, I find both sources complementary.

However, YMMV.

The fact remains: Global Warming is happening. There are very strong indications that we are responsible, but in what capacity and what are the political/economical consequences of such a thing? That's something else. The core problem still remains: there is global warming. That has direct consequences on the fauna and flora of Earth. Whether we are responsible or not, there is still a problem and it's not by still dumping tons of CO2 that it's going to go away.

Re:Global warming isn't necessarily our fault

[ifwm]

Wait, wait, wait, you post a link to a BLOG to discredit him?

Uh huh, you sure convinced me.

Re:Global warming isn't necessarily our fault

[FhnuZoag]

Well, William Connolley works for the British Antarctic Survey as a climate modeller. He has plenty of peer reviewed papers published after peer review.

e.g. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=auth or%3A%22Connolley%22&btnG=Search

Secondly, the link you gave was to a blog, as well.

Thirdly, you can easily disprove my attack (or validate it) by finding an article criticising GW by Pielke published in a reputable paper. For my part, I can source Connolley's quotes back to Pielke's own site:

http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/P ielke_reviews.pdf

Where we can find even more damning criticism like:

"This is a serious accusation that does not appear to have any basis in fact."

Which Pielke cites as evidence of a conspiracy against him.

Re:Global warming isn't necessarily our fault

[Anonymous Coward]

All I need to read are words American and Bush and I already know what we are talking about

So open minded it must be a liberal...

Re:Global warming isn't necessarily our fault

[Anonymous Coward]

This highlights one of the problems I have with the entire Global Warming movement (if you can call it that). Supposedly, the movement's goal is to stop and reduce this phenomenon but that goal is unrealistic for really two reasons.

One, it will require a unprecedented consensus amongst consumers of fossil products to curtain or eliminate their consumption. This will not be in their short-term interests and they will undoubtedly argue that it is not a long-term impact at all until they are blue in the face. The very nature of human beings will result in a failure of this approach.

Two, we have no conclusive proof that human activity is the cause of this phenonomon. Evidence is suggestive but correlation is not cause. Plenty of resource could be devoted to stopping fossil fuel use and if, by some miracle, this is effective. We still have global warming marching on it's merry way.

Really, efforts should be devoted to dealing and adapting to the problems that global warming will create. What is needed is a long-term plan to ensure the prosperity of our descendants. This has got to be done in small steps - since a massive effort will not be well received. What does that mean? Encourage peopleo to move away from costal cities. Diversify the mono-culture of energy production. We can't eliminate the pain that will occur in the future - human nature will ignore the advice given out and many will concentrate on short-term enjoyment. The *best* we can accomplish is to give our descendants enough tools and options to have a better chance to adapt and weather these disasters.

Re:Global warming isn't necessarily our fault

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue with this line of discussion is that it quickly degrades into a blaming discussion. Because it is such a complex topic (too many factors to precisely predict the future global climate), there is room for different interpretations from data gleaned from an isolated model.

Unfortunately, as a result, it is difficult to have objective and useful discussions that can lead towards government policy reviews. People have agendas (which is natural) and try to frame new data and analyses in such a way that supports their previously held ideas.

This would be ok in and of itself if said persons recognized this and other individuals were to recognize this. Instead, what we see is that groups cherry-pick results that bolster their arguments and exclude those that do not.

This is true on both sides of the coin: conservative/right-wing types cherry-pick scientific studies that cast any doubt on the impact that man has on the environment. Academic types seem, for the most part, to ignore and denigrate those same studies going against the "accepted" body of work on the topic.

--> For those of us that would like to have some useful analysis/summary done to allow us to help our understanding and thinking on the area, it would be helpful to have a study done to collect, analyze and provide synopsis (sp?) for the body of work that has been done to date. It may also be useful to depict some information about the source of the study (where the funding came from).

Re:Global warming isn't necessarily our fault

[ikewillis]

Well as long as we're having a battle of the blogs... I really enjoyed this comment in Pielke's blog posting on his rejected comment: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/?p=22#commen ts

I must say I am rather shocked by the Science Referees responses to your comment. The first seemed like a relatively balanced technical critique, but the second was a completely non-technical, vitriolic response by someone who writes as if they have a personal vendetta. Ive heard this paper referred to as the smoking gun of anthropogenically forced climate change, and to discover that such a title was awarded to a paper whose criticisms were dismissed without fair review, especially in a publication such as Science, is frankly rather disturbing.

I wish the best of luck to you in getting your voice heard, as it seems nowadays that taking a cautionary approach to climate change is becoming an increasingly unpopular standpoint, and I find it rather sad that legitimate scientific inquiry is being reduced to little more than a popularity contest.

But the most telling of all is that the author of the paper itself wrote in to Dr. Pielke's blog and noted that the second reviewer who you quoted is a total twit: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/?p=26

The authoritative (sounding) 2nd referee doesnt realize how small the fluctuations of the global mean energy balance with space are, even in the presence of realistic ENSO and large scale ocean dynamics variability, in the absence of external forcings. The measured/inferred imbalance, as a decadal-mean global-mean, is huge. It implies a correspondingly large external forcing that has yet to be responded to. Any doubts about this interpretation should be erased by a few more years of data. Accurate measurements are continuing and the number of profiling floats is increasing. This planetary metric will become more precise and has the potential to become very useful as the record gets longer. However, to be most useful, its significance needs to be widely recognized. Hopefully any doubting oceanographers have an open mind I dont think that we have a decade to convince them.

So the guy you're using to argue that Dr. Pielke, director of the American Association of State Climatologists, is an "idiot", seems to be pretty damn clueless.

But hey, you duped all of /., I'm modded +4 and you're modded +5. Well done! Bullshit plays well here, I guess.

Re:Global warming isn't necessarily our fault

[FhnuZoag]

Well, the first comment is by a non-entity. I can't find a single paper under his name about climatology, so I don't think he is fit to judge whether the criticism by the first referer was appropiate. In any case, the issue is more that of tone than anything else. Yes?

The AASC has a rotating presidency.

Hansen has a good reason to attack the second reviewer - it is noted in comments in Pielke's blog that the issues raised not only attack Pielke's comments, but also the paper itself. He isn't defending Pielke here, but his own paper. He also wants more comments to his paper published, because a debate would raise more interest to his conclusions. And he doesn't comment on the first referer, who was still saying things like:

"This is a serious accusation that does not appear to have any basis in fact."

Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[StefanJ]

The useful idiots who repeat the spin and F.U.D. from the Global Climate Coalition, Club for Growth, Cato Institute and other tools of the fossil fuel industry have a huge variety of talking points at their disposal.

Many of these have been disproven, but they keep coming up. New ones occasionally replace them. But they all amount to the same basic concepts:

• It's not happening!
• It's happening, but it is not our fault!
• It's happening, and it's our fault, but it's a good thing!
• OK, It's happening, we're to blame, we're royally screwed, but the invisible hand of the market wanted it to be this way and just think of the investment opportunities!

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[e1618978]

No matter how much oil you personally burn, the total global human population will use a fixed amount of oil (we use as much oil as you can pump out of the ground, and we have reached the point where it is very hard to use more oil). So conservation does not help global warming, it just lowers the price so that the Chineese can burn more, and it discourages alternative fuel research. For the good of humanity, it is important that you burn as much oil as you can afford to, in order to bump up prices and encourage alternatives to oil. If consumption is really high, we will switch to other sources while there is still a lot of oil in the ground. Worst case is conservation that keeps the price of oil low enough so that we pump and burn all the oil available to us over the next 50 years.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to toe the line of the environmentalists.

No one will dispute the earth is going through a cycle of warming. It's just the silly though to think we have enough data to know WHY it's happening.

But hell lets blame everything but the SUN. Which by the way has been getting hotter lately. Not to mention have been in a hugely active solar flare cycle.

But hell why would we take our main source of life and energy on the earth into account? Because maybe you would have to deal with the facts... maybe we don't have all the anwsers. Maybe science can be twisted and used as a tool for the environmentalisst.

Butch up.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[1u3hr]

(we use as much oil as you can pump out of the ground,

Not true, Saudi Arabia could pump rather more (a big percentage, but I can't recall) more than it usually does, but it limits its output to stabilise prices.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Decaff]

But hell lets blame everything but the SUN. Which by the way has been getting hotter lately.

No it hasn't.

Not to mention have been in a hugely active solar flare cycle.

Which has absolutely no effect whatsoever, other than to cause intense aurorae - thanks to the Earth's magnetic fields.

But hell why would we take our main source of life and energy on the earth into account?

we have.

Because maybe you would have to deal with the facts...

Like all that human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere?

Maybe science can be twisted and used as a tool for the environmentalisst.

Or ignored by those who don't want to face the truth.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Anonymous Coward]

just who is this "invisible hand of the market", anyway...

is he a Yale alumni?

-ac

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Mashiki]

Increased solar output doesn't effect other celestial bodies? Better go back and start whitewashing ASAP!

Or that after every peak CO2, you've had a boom in green growth around the world according to fossil records. Strange that...

Yes science has started to become twisted by enviromentalists, and politicians. The ones that haven't figured out that it's "theory" yet. Rather then the word of law written on paper which they are trying to enact like so many other things. *cough* EU *cough*

Leave the policy making to the politicians and get your fingers out of my lab notes!

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[tabdelgawad]

Please take a look at the first three graphs on this page from a NASA website:

http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/cli mchng.html

Can you really look at this information, then confidently declare that human actions are the main determinant of climate change?

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[stlhawkeye]

The useful idiots who repeat the spin and F.U.D. from the Global Climate Coalition, Club for Growth, Cato Institute and other tools of the fossil fuel industry have a huge variety of talking points at their disposal.

What really sucks is when people who are sensible skeptical about controversial research also have data. Because then you have to actually put up some of your own instead of firing off snide comments about people whose views are inconvenient.

It doesn't take much effort to look at historical temperature readings and notice that there is a cycle of warming and cooling that the planet undergoes, and the modern industrial age happens to coincidence with one rather closely. In fact, the current warming trend started about 10,000 years ago. While I can't say with complete authority that auto emissions and industrial pollutants weren't present at the time, I feel comfortable in hazarding a guess that the small population of humans were contributing negligably to the planet's greenhouse gases.

What IS interesting is that this warming cycle, ramps up over about 10,000 years and then gradually cools. Repeated melting and refreezing of the ice caps appears to be normal and we do not currently know whether climate change causes greenhouse gases to increase or the other way around. Or if they both occur in synchrony and are caused by something else entirely.

The danger here is that the cooling mechanism has failed to kick in, and it normally would have begun LONG before American capitalism and human greed stepped in to fuck up the planet.

Doubtless that our own contributions to global GTG content is not helping any, but I do not believe that there is conclusive evidence that our planet's temparture is primarily or even partially influenced to any significant degree by the behavior of its inhabitants at the current time. Something is different right now, that's for sure. We may or may not be the cause of it. There's at least a few components at work here, however, that we are not responsible for and cannot do anything about.

Sadly, there's a vacuum of intellectual integrity in the global warming debate precisely because of smug shitheads like you.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[myside]

Right, I guess that's why oil prices are pretty stable of late.

Saudi Arabia is pumping as much as they can, however they are planning to increase their capacity over the next ten years.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[ShaggusMacHaggis]

Last Modified Friday 28 March 1997

thanks for linking to some current research

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[tabdelgawad]

Thanks for linking to newer research that contradicts it.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Traa]

No matter how much oil you personally burn, the total global human population will use a fixed amount of oil
Ahh, the art of blatently stating an obvious lie and claiming it as the truth to drive down your opinion. Probably not a great idea to start an argument with such an obvious one though.

we use as much oil as you can pump out of the ground, and we have reached the point where it is very hard to use more oil.
We use as much oil as the OPEC wants to pump out of the ground. They can pump more but that would lower the prices and make them less profit. Notice any lack of enviromental concern in the decision process about the amount of oil that should be pumped out of the ground.

So conservation does not help global warming
Why would you want conservation to help global warming. You have confused even yourself. We are trying to make an argument wether conservation would help global warming.

it just lowers the price so that the Chineese can burn more
Surprisingly you have hit a half-trueth, but I can't give you any points since you reached it without any proper evidence.

For the good of humanity, it is important that you burn as much oil as you can afford to
For the good of humanity, it is important that you read more then one opinion about oil production and the environment. Look up the word "propaganda" too. Form an actual opinion for a change.

Sorry this turned into a flame. It will most likely make you upset. That is not all bad though, since you might feel you have to spend just a teensy bit more time writing down your opinion next time.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Lars T.]

Actually, they pump less than they could to get more out of the fields.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Fastball]

While your post is compelling, you have it backwards. The higher the price of oil, the more oil drilling companies like Apache, Valero, Remington, Oceaneering and others go after. Why, you ask?

They wait until the price for a barrel of their product rises before they begin operations to explore and drill. Truly, it's the missing link in the 1. 2. 3. Profit! scheme. Just wait. Wait until you get a better price before you go get your product. They don't just go to oil and starting pumping away. No, those boys are pretty fucking smart when it comes to maxing their profits (and in some cases ruthless, right OII CEO John R. Huff?).

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[rxmd]

we use as much oil as you can pump out of the ground

Not true, Saudi Arabia could pump rather more (a big percentage, but I can't recall) more than it usually does, but it limits its output to stabilise prices.

Yes, but at present Saudi Arabia the only oil-producing country that can actually do this. The others are at their limit, and any disruption to Saudi oil production (for example, through terrorist attacks) could have a significant impact on the oil price. The article I quoted expects oil prices around $100 - it's always bad to have a single point of failure. In addition, the Saudis can only produce more crude oil, not refined gasoline and heating oil, so even their production increases won't help all that much in the short run.

Also, it's doubted whether the Saudis can actually keep their promises.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Karhgath]

But how about using less oil globally? I means, if we start using less and less, 3 things could happen:

1) If the oil is non-renewable, instead of exhausting all the oil in X years, we do it over CX years. In the end we'll have poluted as much. However, this can lead to 2 things:

1.1) Maybe the Earth can cope with Y% less polutionper years much more efficiently. For example, if you can filter 10 gallons of water per hours, and dump 11 every hours, it's going to clog. However, if you dump 9-10 gallons each hours, all of it will be filtered and there will be no leftovers.

1.2) It won't be significant to make a change.

2) If oil is renewable and we can't run out of it, reducing the consumption can have very high repercussions in the long run.

3) We stop using oil eventually and replace it all with alternatives. Overall, this is very good pollution-wise.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Decaff]

Increased solar output doesn't effect other celestial bodies? Better go back and start whitewashing ASAP!

What increased solar output? A few flares during one solar cycle does not amount to a long-term increase in solar output.

Or that after every peak CO2, you've had a boom in green growth around the world according to fossil records. Strange that...

Not strange at all. The problem is how long that growth boom takes to start absorbing CO2. This will not happen on a timescale of only decades, which is what we need in order to prevent problems.

Yes science has started to become twisted by enviromentalists, and politicians.

You mean those who wish to deny there is a problem.

The ones that haven't figured out that it's "theory" yet.

Theory = idea backed by facts.

You need to have a better understanding of solar physics and plant biology.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Lars T.]

The good old "There have always been natural changes in climate, so this has to be one too" argument. Time to look at some graphs were "today" isn't 1950. Or maybe to actually read that page instead of just looking at the purty picshures.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[TheSync]

This is a very good point.

If you really want to reduce CO2 emissions, you have to use military force to keep oil from being pumped from the ground at its source (without burining it in the process, so just bombing it won't help).

Also we need to rememeber that CO2 is just one part of global warming. Methane is the other, and more potent per mole. You'd have to drain rice paddies around the world to stop those emissions.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[reedsr]

In terms of the plots being 8 years old how does that change the relevance of plots that have data that range 1 million years, 11 thousand years and 1 thousand years respectively? 8 years is a miniscule portion of any of them with the most being .8% of the total time in the graph.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[centipetalforce]

Nobody is DECLARING anything. What people (sicentists) ARE saying is this: "Humans are putting the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the air by burning fossil fuel or wood. We also add CFC (that is chlorofluorocarbons) compounds like Freon, used in refrigeration systems. CFC's are greenhouse gases as well as destroyers of ozone. We measure that carbon dioxide is currently increasing, and it seems to be getting warmer the last few decades. Although this suggests that increased greenhouse gases are causing the warming, it is not certain." Nobody is saying it is 100% certain man is causing it. The question that should be in every one's mind is "is it better to be safe or sorry?"

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[oliverthered]

We stop using oil eventually and replace it all with alternatives.

Like Coal, Gas etc..., Oil happens to be one of the most used fossil fuels, but it doesn't mean the others are any better.

It may be one of the reasons that the UK stopped subsidizing coal mining, was so that we have some kind of reserve for the future. (Though I don't think Thatcher was known for that kind of thinking!)

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Cally]

So conservation does not help global warming, it just lowers the price so that the Chineese can burn more, and it discourages alternative fuel research. For the good of humanity, it is important that you burn as much oil as you can afford to, in order to bump up prices and encourage alternatives to oil.

Y'know, I've been following the global warming debate, and keeping up with the science, for about twenty years now; and I think that's the first new thing on it I've heard, ooh, this century at least... probably since the gas hydrates were seriously noticed and thouught about. (Incidentally, if any treehuggers out there want to really wreck their sleep patterns, check out these stories (and the actual research that they're reporting.)

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[jafac]

So conservation does not help global warming, it just lowers the price so that the Chineese can burn more, and it discourages alternative fuel research.

so, you're telling me that the Bush Administration's policies of:
1. Encouraging more consumption - and
2. Spreading chaos and war to disrupt oil production

Are really stealth environmentalist policies driven by a desire to push development of alternatives into the marketplace?

BRILLIANT! Best President Evar!

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Pentagram]

Can you really look at this information, then confidently declare that human actions are the main determinant of climate change?

Well, no, because that graph is over such a large timescale that it doesn't show the human effect on climate! Have a look at one that does and then confidently declare that human actions aren't making a huge difference.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Anonymous Coward]

It's happening, and it's our fault, but it's a good thing!

Few things are black and white. When something is lost, something is often gained.

For example, I live in Canada. Most of my county is under is under a huge freakin' sheet of ICE for half the year! Explain to me why having my country become WARM is such a bad thing? Global warming is only bad if the place you live in is already hot.

I'm talking about the world's second largest country, but the same thing applies to the world's largest country, Russia. In both cases, if the temperature rises enough, a whole bunch of good land is going to open up and become habitable, just waiting to be settled.

Sure, there will be problems, but there will also be opportunities. I, for one, choose to focus on the positive. :-)

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[AaronGTurner]

Methane is the other, and more potent per mole

It has a shorter lifetime in the atmosphere, though.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Ihlosi]

Explain to me why having my country become WARM is such a bad thing?

Mosquitos. Global warming is only bad if the place you live in is already hot.

... or if the place you live is near the coast.
... or if the weather patterns of the place where you live are altered unfavorably (too little/too much rain, tornados where there haven't been any before, etc) ... or, or, or ...

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[killjoe]

On the other hand conservation saves you money, and is easier on the atmosphere of your community.

When you think of it the only people that conservation hurts are the oil companies. Why wouldn't you conserve, carpool, walk more, bike more, drive a smaller car, turn off your lights, watch less TV etc, wear a sweater indoors etc.

What is harm in any of that?

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Anonymous Coward]

A long time ago Al Gore, after leading efforts to provide govt. funding for what was then known as "The Information Superhighway", wrote a best-selling book called "Earth In the Balance".

A lot of people read the book but ignored the message.

In 2000 people laughed at him as he ran for President. Laughed and laughed and laughed.

Still, more Americans voted for him than voted for Bush (including Florida).

He won. But lost when the Republicans used their Supreme Court control to steal the election.

Our president-in-exile discussed global warming in this recent speech:

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/gorespeech/

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Mashiki]

You are either daft or you don't understand what I've written. Solar output works in cycles, not on solar flares. Either you are pushing the bounds of ignorance in pretending that solar output doesn't increase and decrease, or you don't understand how thermonuclear reaction works and how little we understand what goes on at the heart of our solar system.

Actually you might want to look up microbiotic CO2 absorbtion.

And those that want to use it for their own ends in order to make a problem where none exists and don't understand what's going on.

Theory does not = an idea backed by facts. Theory is the belief that an event may happen based upon predictions relative to current data available to the scientist, or scientific group doing the research.

I think you'd better just go back and understand science.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Anonymous Coward]

"Explain to me why having my country become WARM is such a bad thing?"
Mosquitos.

Fair trade. Mosquitos can't live without a host to feed from. They can't kill off everything in an area without dying off themselves. And most mosquitos are harmless; very few carry lethal diseases. Winter is a constant, unforgiving threat to survival, and a huge permanent barrier to settlement. A few bug bites just can't compare to the threat of freezing to death.

"Global warming is only bad if the place you live in is already hot. " ... or if the place you live is near the coast. ... or if the weather patterns of the place where you live are altered unfavorably (too little/too much rain, tornados where there haven't been any before, etc) ... or, or, or ...


What if the weather patterns are altered favourably? What if my land is the land that becomes the new beachfront property? What if my heating costs are suddenly zero, saving me tonnes of precious fossil fuels? Or, or, or....

Don't focus on the negatives. There are positives, too.
--
AC

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Darby]

"We gave peace a chance, we got 9/11"

Delusional, yet believable to somebody who has no ability to empathise with another viewpoint or to even bother to use their brain.

A more sane statement would be "We tried to stamp a boot on a human face and came to the already obvious conclusion that 9/11 is what occurs as a result as evidenced by things like the American revolution."

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Mashiki]

I tried using logic, however their egotism got in the way.

In otherwords, you really don't grasp what the statement means beyond your own view of reality.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[shutdown -p now]

No matter how much oil you personally burn, the total global human population will use a fixed amount of oil

The assumption you make is that all oil we pump out will have to be burnt anyway, which is clearly wrong. It is true that if a single person or even a single country started to conserve oil, the rest would simply make up for it. But if we all do that, it would have an effect. And you can't all of a sudden go from noone doing it to everyone doing it, it's got to begin somewhere.

we use as much oil as you can pump out of the ground, and we have reached the point where it is very hard to use more oil

I agree, it's rather hard to burn more oil than you have... though I'm rather surprised that only recently that was discovered.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Metex]

Apparently in your case it does take more effort then you put forth.

You say there is a pattern but sadly there isnt. This is the main problem for any scientist studying global warming since there is essentially no data that can tell us if this is a natural trend or a human induced trend.

The graph on that website was laughable at best. To draw any conclusions you need a graph of paleoclimates of progressively shorter time periods to draw any hard conclusions. What conclusion will you draw? Well if you look back about 200 years we have had a steep incline recently and are .6-1 degree warmer on average. If you look back on the last 8Ka years we are on average a tad cooler. Look back by 100Ka we are EXTREAMLY warmer by 8 degrees. Look back into the Cretaceous and we are extremely cooler in comparison and if you go farther then that we are at a temperature that is at the lowest point on the graph. So where do you draw the line at relevant or non relevant data.

But sadly this data is ALL USELESS. Sure there is a correlation but there are 400,000 factors that go into our earth's temperature. Personally my bet is on the fact that we are destroying marine life hampering the effectiveness of the Ocean as a CO2 sink (the best one we have btw... due to sea shells) and the fact that we have more water vapor present in our atmosphere currently (H20 is BY FAR the best greenhouse gas that we have up there in the atmosphere).

so sadly, you cant call someone a smug shithead since there is no real usable data on the global warming debate. Since everyone on this debate is a smug shihead using your words.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how much oil you personally burn, the total global human population will use a fixed amount

I'm sorry to say but that's a total, utter bullshit. It's like saying, we don't need cops, the murders will still happen.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Anonymous Coward]

And most mosquitos are harmless; very few carry lethal diseases.

Depends on what part of the world you're talking about (Central/South America, Africa, large parts of Asia), and on how much poison you're willing to spray.
Winter is a constant, unforgiving threat to survival, and a huge permanent barrier to settlement.

... or it can be the only thing that makes a piece of land actually habitable. Parts of Siberia, if thawed, would be one huge, uninhabitable swamp. As long as it is still frozen, people can actually live there.
What if the weather patterns are altered favourably?

Slim chance. You might as well play the lottery and hope you're the winner. And even if you win, hundreds of thousands of people lost.
What if my land is the land that becomes the new beachfront property?

Do you like sharing it with the people whose land becomes the new sea ?
What if my heating costs are suddenly zero, saving me tonnes of precious fossil fuels?

Sure. And guess how much fossil fuels you're going to burn to keep your house cool (and dry) in the summer ?
Don't focus on the negatives. There are positives, too.

As I said: lottery. There might be one winner, but there are certainly going to be millions of losers.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[e1618978]

In order to get "we all do" to happen, you need a world government that is incredibly oppressive, otherwise it is just like squeezing a balloon. We have passed peak oil in every country except Canada and Saudi Arabia. Any effort to add new wells will have limited effect, so we really can't pump much more oil than we currently are. Even if there are new wells that could be added, that slack will be pulled tight soon, and then my argument comes into effect.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[e1618978]

google "peak oil" - we can't get much more oil that we already do out of the earth. Adding new wells will not help us, oil production is going to start declining by 3% each year soon.

So - we have a fixed supply of oil each year, and the price of oil adjusts until the demand matches the supply. We only get to decide who burns the oil, not how much is burned. It is like an eBay auction, and if you have too few bidders the price will be low (and we want to stop global warming, we need the price to be high enough to encourage alternative fuel research).

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Decaff]

You are either daft or you don't understand what I've written.

Nice way to back an argument :)

Solar output works in cycles, not on solar flares. Either you are pushing the bounds of ignorance in pretending that solar output doesn't increase and decrease, or you don't understand how thermonuclear reaction works and how little we understand what goes on at the heart of our solar system.

Solar cycles last typically 11 years. A variation over that time is insufficient to explain decades of warming. Although there are longer term variations in solar output, these have (obviously!) been included in climate models in order to understand what is happening.

There are other ideas about how the Sun may be affecting climate, for example the Stott theory that variations in cosmic rays may be changing the amount of cloud cover. However, these ideas don't work in terms of explaining the level of global warming.

Actually you might want to look up microbiotic CO2 absorbtion.

There are many ways that CO2 can be absorbed - plant growth, planktonic uptake (with subsequent deposition on ocean floors). However, the nature of the uptakes is irrelevant, as the current build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere is clear evidence that absorption rates are unable to deal with our level of output.

Theory does not = an idea backed by facts.

Yes it is. That is exactly what it is.

Theory is the belief that an event may happen based upon predictions relative to current data available to the scientist, or scientific group doing the research.

No - that is called a 'hypothesis'.

I think you'd better just go back and understand science.

See my first statement :)

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[danila]

Why was that modded up? It doesn't make sense. If you want alternative energy sources, it would really help if you a) conserved oil and spent money on energy efficient products (better insulation, solar heating, wind generators, etc.), b) you invested in alternative-energy companies or c) donated money to funds doing research in this field.

If you honestly think burning more oil benefits humanity in some weird and perverse way, you are stupid and delusional.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[e1618978]

You are looking at things as if a single person held all the strings, which is not the case. A group of people (or a group of countries) acts a whole lot different than a single person. Alternative energy research jumped significantly during the 70s because of high oil prices. It will do the same again, and any effort at conservation fights that trend by lowering prices.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[e1618978]

"The IEA figures put the total spare capacity of all 11 countries in OPEC at just 330,000 bpd (down from 6 million bpd in 2002). Conventional Saudi spare capacity is zero." http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0234CBB3-16 9D-42DF-8B33-6BEFF80FA478.htm Saudi Arabian fields probably past peak production: http://www.thestreet.com/_tsccom/funds/supermodels /10174679.html

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[e1618978]

Saudi arabia is tapped out, see my other posts in this sub-thread. Also, you need some evidence on your side, and a course in logical argument - there was absolutely no substance in your post. But it didn't upset me...

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Mashiki]

Try reading. You are still thinking in a limited space.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[Decaff]

Try reading. You are still thinking in a limited space.

Not a convincing argument :)

My thought space may be limited, but it is the space produced by being a scientist (and keeping up with current scientific ideas in a range of area) for 25 years.

Much of the criticism of global warming theories do come from limited thinking, as understanding how it works requires a good understanding of physics (solar and atmospheric), chemistry, biochemistry and statistics. Skepticism about global warming is usually (with a few honourable exceptions, such as Stott's work) based in ignorance of one or more of these aspects.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[danila]

But conservation is almost the same as alternative energy! I can argue that the more you develop solar and wind power, the cheaper the oil will become (compared to not developing alternative tech) and the more people will be inclined to burn it. That is certainly true, but we shouldn't ignore the obvious fact that the overall situation will still be better because alternative energy is better developed.

You, however, ignored that relation.

Re:Climate Change Objections, Simplified

[e1618978]

Good point, but there will be a delay. High oil prices -> loads of alternative energy research -> several year delay -> alternative energy hits the market -> lower oil prices The most important thing is that we develop alternative while oil is plentiful. Global warming can kill a billion people, but it won't knock us permainantly back to the stone age like we could potentially do if we run out of oil with no alternatives. And by the way, wind power is very bad for the environment - by slowing the wind down, it causes all kinds of environmental havoc (local heating, heating at poles, etc) accoring to recent computer models. Solar towers, Nuclear, Geothermal (unless it causes problems by cooling the earth), and hydro electric are the ways to go.

The Earth does not care

[cerelib]

When will people learn that this kind of crap will happen with or without human intervention? The Earth has been changing constantly for millions of years and will continue to change past our existence. Holy crap, a climate shift!! I am sure it was the Neanderthals who brought on the ice age by causing nuclear winter. How else could that have happened?

Re:The Earth does not care

[Eradicator2k3]

The Earth has been changing constantly for millions of years and will continue to change past our existence.

Thank you. I'll paraphrase what George Carlin had to say about this: "We don't need to save the Earth. The Earth doesn't need saving. The Earth isn't going anywhere. WE are."

Re:The Earth does not care

[iendedi]

I am sure it was the Neanderthals who brought on the ice age by causing nuclear winter. How else could that have happened?

Funny that you ask: Past nuclear wars reference 1, reference 2.

Do a search, you'll find a lot more... Earth may have a more interesting history than we think ;-)

Sick and tired of the volcano comparison

[vlad_petric]

Volcanos also spit SO2 in addition to CO2, which basically has the opposite effect (it increases albedo). Furthermore, when they erupt, the ash they throw into the atmosphere reflects sunlight to the extent that major eruptions effectively cool down the Earth. When Pinatubo erupted, it lowered the global temperature by a fraction of a degree. When Thera/Santorini erupted about 3600 years ago, the sempervirens trees from California recorded a sharp drop in temperature.

Re:Sick and tired of the volcano comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly we need to erupt more volcanos.

Re:Sick and tired of the volcano comparison

[lgw]

Volcanoes are probably the biggest driver of global temperature regulation (unless it's the Sun). However, they're part of a very slow cycle (~ 300 My), and aren't very relevant to events that will happen in the lifetime of our species.

The biggest driver of global temperature is, of course, the Sun. We know very little about how variation in solar activity levels affect global temperture - that may dominate all other factors, or may be trivial. There's no easy geological record of solar activity levels, so we dont have much evidence to prove or disprove a link to global temperature over a non-trivial timescale.

The biggest driver of the greenhouse effect, and therefore of global temperature if we ignore variation in solar activity, is water vapor, which accounts for ~95% of internally reflected heat. IIRC the atmosphere is effectively saturated, however, so this factor can't change much (short of the kind of geological events that would kill us all anyway).

The next 2 big factors in the global temperature are CO2 levels and dust levels. Volcanoes do spit out both, in variable proportion, and so in the very short term may send temperatures down as easily as up. The dust settles *much* faster than the CO2 is removed, however, and Volcanoes are the CO2 producers in the largest and most powerful cycle of temperature and CO2 levels. Nothing mankind could do will matter to this cycle.

By the time you get down to global cycles in the 100,000 year range, you're stuck looking at data that's insignificant compared to the big engines of global temperature regulation, which makes it a lot harder to study! But since we care about temperature changes in the next 10,000 years, that's what's actually important to us.

Re:Sick and tired of the volcano comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the trees went through a change typically associated with a drop in temperature. Unless they have little thermometers and log books with them.

Re:Sick and tired of the volcano comparison

[slashname3]

You have identified how we can reverse global warming! We need to induce the major volcanoes of the world to erupt and throw massive amounts of ash and gases into the air. The result will be an overall cooling of the earth.

The trick is to get them to create the volcanoes in someone elses backyards. :)

No Problem

[earthforce_1]

We just need to groundburst a few hundred large nukes somewhere and voila! Instant nuclear winter to counteract the global warming. Too bad about the fallout....

Actually, here in Canada we might be one of the few countries in the world to benefit from global warming. Just think, orange and bannana groves in Ontario, wheat farms in Nunavit, and we can put Panama out of business when the north west passage becomes ice free. We won't need to fly south anymore for warm weather, although the skiing would positively suck.

Re:No Problem

[Jeff Hornby]

Not really.

Orange and banana groves in Ontario, well, maybe. But then that doesn't really increase the amount of food since there are already orchards all over Ontario (I have four fruit trees and six grape vines in my backyard in Toronto).

But there isn't going to be any wheat in Nunavut any time soon. Soil profiles in the tudra are very poor. You need somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years (depending on your source) of grasses growing, dying, rotting into the ground, fixing nitrogen and building up a proper soil profile before you can grow wheat or any other major crop.

So if you're thinking that we'll be OK because agriculture can just shift northward away from the desertification, think again. The limit for agriculture for the foreseeable future is the tree line where the tundra starts.

Re:No Problem

[Guysmiley777]

Actually not really, cause the American Midwest got all your topsoil. Thanks glaciers! :)

Re:No Problem

[joebok]

Yeah, well, he's totally right about the skiing!

Re:No Problem

[Pxtl]

Just steal it from the dehabitated American Midwest.

Re:No Problem

[A beautiful mind]

The radiation wouldn't be a problem for republicans. Cockroaches have radiation-resistance.

Re:No Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea how far north the tundra starts? Even if we could only grow crops to that point, it would be a huge increase over the current arable area in Canada - at a rough guess (from travelling done from south to north in Manitoba and Saskatchewan), at least 10 times as much - at least.

Re:No Problem

[HiThere]

Then you'll just LOVE the glaciation that follows the big melt. With the land masses in their current configuration, you don't really get good growing weather far North (or South, but that hardly matters, as there isn't much land there). And when the oceans start shedding their excess heat, you can get really FAST glaciation. Nobody knows just what to expect here, but it could happen within decades, or within millinea. It probably WON'T take millions of years.

Also, a 5 degree (Farenheith-- 2.5 degree Celsius) shift in temperature wouldn't translate into 5 degrees warmer the year round. It means 5 degrees warmer on the average. You can get that with hotter summers and colder winters (though that seems unlikely). More likely you just wouldn't get as cold in winter, but summer wouldn't be much, if any, hotter. Which means that the only annuals that you could grow would be the one's that you can already grow. You might well see the tree-line moving North, however. But Vancover and Ontario would probably both be under water.

I don't think that any locale has much to gain by this...especially not the way people defend borders, and the way desperate people ignore conventions. UGH!

Re:No Problem

[Damek]

Not really. Just because the temperature rises doesn't automatically mean you have good soil.

Re:No Problem

[Bent Mind]

But I keep hearing that people can't change the global climate. So this nuclear winter stuff must be a myth.

Re:No Problem

[Darby]

But there isn't going to be any wheat in Nunavut any time soon. Soil profiles in the tudra are very poor. You need somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years (depending on your source) of grasses growing, dying, rotting into the ground, fixing nitrogen and building up a proper soil profile before you can grow wheat or any other major crop.

But it wasn't always tundra. There were many years of all of that growing business through all the ice ages and interrims. Does the permafrost kill all the nutrients and such, or is there something strange afoot in Canada?

Besides, a little MiracleGrow and it's all good, right?

"You'll pay for this Captain Planet"

[Luke Psywalker]

It looks like Lutin Plunder has finally held true to his word.

Re:"You'll pay for this Captain Planet"

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the +1, Moderately Obscure Humor mod when you need it?

Kyoto

[stlhawkeye]

If only President Clinton had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, this would never have happened.

Re:Kyoto

[ScentCone]

If only President Clinton had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, this would never have happened.

That isn't flamebait. It's subtle (or, not so subtle) semi-satire. There's nothing like the getting the Stick Of Truth stuck in your eye. Kyoto wouldn't have done doodly along these lines. It would have been the first step towards bankrupting and throwing into long-term chaos the very economies (with the slowest-growing populations) that are in the best position to develop less impactful energy sources and uses. To the extent that it even matters, apparently. When those same treaty-urges include China, India, etc., we'll talk.

Re:Kyoto

[Kymermosst]

If only President Clinton had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, this would never have happened.

If only you'd paid attention in government class and knew that the President doesn't ratify treaties, the Senate does.

The President makes the treaty, and 2/3 of the Senate concurs ('ratifies').

US Constitution: Article II, section 2, clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

P.S.: Yes I get your satire, and you probably belted your post out rather quickly, but lots of people have never read the Constitution and don't have a clue about what it actually says.

Re:Kyoto

[stlhawkeye]

If only you'd paid attention in government class and knew that the President doesn't ratify treaties, the Senate does.

Yes, yes, I know that, but it hasn't stopped the cadre of howlers from bitching that George Bush is responsible for Katrina because HE made the temperature in the Gulf of Mexico go up by NOT SIGNING KYOTO. (This is not a defense of the president, this is a comment about the one-sided blindness of some of his detractors).

The President makes the treaty, and 2/3 of the Senate concurs ('ratifies').

Right, and President Clinton knew the Senate would never ratify since they voted, in a rare 95-0 display of bipartisan solidarity, to never sign such a piece of crap treaty. Bush hasn't submitted it either, although perhaps for ideologically different reasons.

P.S.: Yes I get your satire, and you probably belted your post out rather quickly, but lots of people have never read the Constitution and don't have a clue about what it actually says.

Quite true, quite true.

Re:Kyoto

[Anonymous Coward]

LoL

I don't think so.

The Sky Is Falling

[JustASlashDotGuy]

I miss the days when we were going thru our ice age. I blame Bush and his policies for causing global warming and bringing us out of the ice age!

What do you mean that the earth has been warming for millions of years? Malarky

OMG we have to do something about this

[FreakerSFX]

As soon as I get back from driving my gas-guzzling SUV over to the drive-through at McDonalds to shlorp down some good ol' eco-unfriendly mcfood with all of the extra packaging, I'll sit down and think about what we can do to make the planet a happier place for all of us.

Mmmm...mcfood.

Re:OMG we have to do something about this

[SithLordOfLanc]

"You know what I'm going do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertable - hot pink with whaleskin hubcaps and all-leather interior and big brown baby seal eyes for the headlights. I'm gonna drive around in that baby at 115mph, getting one mile per gallon, sucking down Quarter Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonald's in the old-fashioned nonbiodegradable containers. When I'm done suckin' down those greaseball burgers, I'm gonna toss the Styrofoam container right out the side and there ain't a goddamned thing anybody can do about it. "

With apologies to Denis Leary.

Past the Point of No Return

[Griim]

Does that mean we have to get the Earth up to 88mph with a locomotive or it will fall into Eastwood Valley?

Greenland Ice Sheet

[molo]

According to wikipedia, the greenland ice sheet, if fully melted, will raise global sea level by 7.2 meters (23.6 feet). This would put large portions of many coastal cities underwater.

Fortunately, there are other factors that should mitigate this, such as increased mass of the antarctic ice sheet due to increased moisture levels. See sea level rise.

-molo

Re:Greenland Ice Sheet

[idobi]

But we can always build levees to keep the city dry, right?

Re:Greenland Ice Sheet

[WillAffleckUW]

According to wikipedia, the greenland ice sheet [wikipedia.org], if fully melted, will raise global sea level by 7.2 meters (23.6 feet). This would put large portions of many coastal cities underwater.

One of the reasons we know about temperatures back during glacial ages is that the Greenland Ice Sheet has never melted. Ever.

Parts of it on the coastal areas and southern reaches have melted in part, but most of it has always had snowfall, even during the warmest periods.

So I wouldn't worry about all of it melting, even though I would be concerned of the Arctic and Antartic ice sheets melting rapidly, which is already happening at a rate never before experienced.

Re:Greenland Ice Sheet

[Anonymous Coward]

New Orleans: "Oh shit... not again."

Re:Greenland Ice Sheet

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I don't trust scientists to interpret data. This little stat of yours about Greenland's melting causing a 7.2 m sea level gain fails a simple calculation you were capable of doing being firing off on Wikipedia.

Radius of earth is about 6400 km. By 4piR^2, that gives a surface area of 515 million km^2; with ocean being 70%, that means 360 km^2 is covered with water. Multiply that by the sea level gain of 0.0072 km, and you're claiming that the volume of Greenland's ice is 2.6 million cubic km.

However, the ice covers an area of 1.8 million km^2 and ascends to a peak of 3.2 km, so model it as a cone and use (1/3) base times height, which gives only 1.9 million cubic km, not 2.6 million cubic km. Yes, that's still a substantial rise in sea level, but making up facts - or quoting people who have - just costs you credibility.

Re:Greenland Ice Sheet

[Anonymous Coward]

So your argument is that Greenland will not melt because it never has,

One of the reasons we know about temperatures back during glacial ages is that the Greenland Ice Sheet has never melted. Ever.

and you follow it up by pointing out another event that has never happened before and is happening now.

So I wouldn't worry about all of it melting, even though I would be concerned of the Arctic and Antartic ice sheets melting rapidly, which is already happening at a rate never before experienced.

Can you say cognitive dissonance? Can't you see that the latter event dismisses your earlier "proof by induction".

Re:Greenland Ice Sheet

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm...

7.2 meters over roughly 18.1 E + 23 m^2 (approx. surface are of the oceans) is 13.0 E + 24 cubic meters of water... And Greenland's about 4.7 E + 18 m^2, so the greenland ice-sheet is... (carry the 2...) 380,000 some meters high?

Re:Greenland Ice Sheet

[molo]

Calculations here:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/412.htm#t ab113

-molo

Solution: Nucular Winter

[mkcmkc]

So what's the problem? Bush can just fire off a few dozen (hundred, thousand, whatever) nukes at Iran, and the resulting nucular winter should just about balance things out...

Mike

Real Doom: Overpopulation

[Anonymous Coward]

The single biggest catalyst for global warming is excessive human population. People, their cars, and their factories are generating the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. When China becomes fully modernized, the current rate of greenhouse-gas generation will double. If you add India into the picture, then the rate triples.

What is unbelievable is that we had a full 40 years to reckon with this problem. Back in the 60s, an American wrote a seminal book warning of environmental damage. Unfortunately, a sequence of pro-business parties (i.e. both the Democrats and Republicans) took control of the government and took money from Big Oil. With their ears plugged with oil, none of the pro-business parties could hear the cries of dying seal lions, whales, etc. So the government effectively did nothing more than to raise the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) of the automobile companies and to funnel money into ethanol to grease the votes from the Midwest corn-producing states.

What should have happened was enacting legislation to fund development of 100% clean fuels like hydrogen fuel cells, not ethanol to please Midwest farmers.

Well, now, the whole matter is moot. We really are doomed.

Here is the "logic" I object to

[SengirV]

If it's too hot = Global Warming
If It's too cold = Global Warming
If It's a Monsoon = Global Warming
If It's a drought = Global Warming
If a part of a glacier breaks away from Antartica = Global Warming
If the rest of Antartica is getting colder = Global Warming

If you replace "Global Warming" up there with "It's Bush's fault" then you have the left's political platform as well.

Come up with some REAL science that is not funded by politically oriented "science" organizations, then MAYBE there would be more support for change.

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[Anonymous Coward]

"real science"? "logic" And what is your rant based on?

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[Anonymous Coward]

is it just me or are there *almost* as many straw man arguments on slashdot as posts?

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[CheddarHead]

A Bush supporter calling for "some REAL science"? Boy, there's some irony for you!

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[miasmic]

Typical right wing persecution complex. Everything is about bashing Bush or The Republican Party.

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[Anonymous Coward]

In the meantime, people like you continue to blindly pump more and more shit into the air, wipe out forrests that give us air, increase asthma rates due to ever increasing pollution, more dead fish in the rivers due to said pollution, more crud in the drinking water, more health problems, higher health insurance if your in a retarted health country like here in the US. Does it really take much to turn the lights off, power the computer off, have the a/c a couple of degrees to the lesser usage temperature?

I'm trying. It isn't easy, but I'd like my kids to not have to face all this shit when they have their own. Each small amount of energy saved is a step in the right direction for everybody. Heck, we may even be able to get fuel prices down and break our dependence on the middle east!

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[m50d]

The politically oriented ones are by and large on the far right. Notice there is no-one denying global warming outside america? That's because the US is the only place you get that kind of ultra-right-wing every-man-for-himself politics.

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[patomuerto]

People have done a great job confusing the issue. It is a complicated, dynamic system. It takes a first grader to find something that is inconsistent.

If you are someone who disagrees with the outcome it is very easy to cloud the issue and mire the reputations by shouting from the mountain top that there is no exact answer.

Democrats do this by saying "it's bush's fault."

Republicans do this by saying "They dont know what they are doing."

In reality if it is anyones fault it is all of ours (global population, even the director of the Sierra Club owned and drove large, gas guzzling SUVs). And, there have been many real science programs, including Bush's request to the NAS to research global warming, that have come up with global warming predictions.

Just because you dont understand it does not mean it is not REAL science.

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[The Walking Dude]

Even if the majority of people were to accept global warming as a reality, they will continue to consume fossil fuels, rationalizing it as the governments fault for not supplying alternative fuel sources.

If we are going to use fear as way to curb consumption, we might be better off by showing how much we have become dependant on fossil fuels as a way of life (i.e. how screwed we will be if anything disrupts it) and by showing how much conflict this is creating between nations.

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[Karhgath]

I agree with you with the intention of your post, but you wrong about Global Warning. It's not because people are using GW as propaganda(on both sides of the political spectrum) that it is not happening. The fact is, Global Warming is happening. We have countless REAL scientific evidence of that and there is very little doubt in the climatology community that GW is happening. For a non-political source, check out http://www.realclimate.org/.

Now, all the political activists that tries to spin it to their advantage, that's what you should worry about. The alarmists are not the scientists, the alarmists or naysayers are the political activists.

The scientists are there to make the observations and care about the science. They tell us that yeah, GW is happening. That's pretty much it. Anything that follows is mostly political or policy based.

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[16K Ram Pack]

good post.

It's important to deal with real facts. There's plenty of evidence for global warming, but I'll ignore all the "Katrina/Tsunami was because of global warming".

There are too many people with an agenda, either the left-wing "let's return to a glorious simpler time" or the right-wing "la la la it's not happening".

What I'd like is a book written for the layman about climate science that explains why global warning would cause an ice age, including a full description of the models and the assumptions made.

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[Sax Maniac]

It used to be El Niño a few years ago, better known as El Excúso. At least it's not getting stale. I wonder what it will be in another 10 years?

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[BeanThere]

So your argument then is, "the left uses global warming as a political issue, therefore global warming does not exist". That's real smart. Please keep politics out of it and stick to the science and facts, thanks. You appear to be unable to separate the two.

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[SengirV]

I never said that. But you seems to imply I did. Why don't you attack ALL the posts that want to lay the blame on Katrina itself at the feet of Bush? Oh that's right, you are a hypocrite.

Re:Here is the "logic" I object to

[SengirV]

So you claim to know me? I was raised by a depression era father. If there was a light left on, you got whacked. If you wasted food, you got whacked. If you wasted anythin, you got whacked.

It drives my wife nuts when I am so anal about the lights being left on, wasted food, eetc...

I also work from home and filled up my gas tank two weeks ago and still have 3/4 a tank left.

So before you presume to know who I am and what I do, you might want to ask 1st.

BTW - would you rather a health care system like Canada where you have to wait 18 months to see a doctor?

This country isn't perfect, but it's the closest this planet has ever seen. And I'm trying my best to make it better as well.

James Lovelock, Gaia and nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

James Lovelock came out a couple of years ago and said, "We need massive adoption of nuclear energy now because it's an emergency situation. We don't have time to wait for better fuel efficiency or alternative fuels." I think we should have listened to him. If we spent as much focus building nuclear power plants as we do on our Mad Max-style hunt for fuel, the situation would be quite different right now.

Remember the rule of scientific reports

[pcgamez]

One report is almost meaningless. Take a look at ALL the reports and see which way things are looking.

Re:Remember the rule of scientific reports

[goldspider]

The second rule of scientific reports:

"Everything is A-OK" doesn't get the funding.

Re:Remember the rule of scientific reports

[Ihlosi]

"Everything is A-OK" doesn't get the funding.

... unless it comes from the White House.

Point of No Return

[linguae]

Past the point of no return, no backwards glances
Our days of global warming have now begun
Past all thoughts of right or wrong, no going back now
Abandon thoughts, and let the warmth begin
When will the fires shall burn the forest, when will the flood hit my costal mansion
When will the warming at last consume us?

Past the point of no return, the final threshold
The iceberg is crossed, so stand and watch it melt
We're past the point of no return.

(with apologies to the Phantom of the Opera musical).

Global Warming?

[lowrydr310]

When it's 5 degrees this January, I'll say the same thing I did last Winter. Global warming my ass!

Re:Global Warming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to Science class 101.

Global Warming can in fact cause the winter temperatures to be *LOWER* than average.

Re:the power puff girls will save the day again !

[Anonymous Coward]

bubbles has ice breath

Blossom has ice breath. Bubbles can converse with animals.

Property Values?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what my home will be valued at once it's a seaside property.

Oh please.....

[sabre307]

I've always had a few problems with this global warming concepts. The first is, yes the earth is getting hotter, it's getting closer to the sun. Each year we move just a bit closer to the sun due to it's gravitational pull. Does anyone not realize that we aren't orbiting on a perfect path???
The second problem is with this concept of the polar ice caps melting and the oceans rising. When I was in elementary school we did an experiment. Fill a glass with ice, then fill it with water right up to the edge. Leave it on the counter and let the ice melt. The water level will actually drop. Ice takes up more space than water. If the ice caps melted, the water in the ocean should theoretically go down.
The biggest problem by far is, who cares!!! It'll be thousands of years before it happens, and by then we'll all have our brains digitized and installed into servers. The smartest into Linux servers, the most artistic into Macs, and the dumbest into windows!!!!!

Re:Oh please.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Put your ice cube on a flat rock above the water, like Greenland is, and let the melt water run into your glass like when the Greenland ice cap melts.

Describe what you see.

Re:Oh please.....

[Anonymous Coward]

... except that the ice that is melting isn't immersed in the ocean, it's perched on land.

Re:Oh please.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Re your second problem, that only applies if the ice is currently _in_ the water. However, a lot of it is not afloat. E.g. some is on land and will melt and flow into the water, raising the level.

Re:Oh please.....

[Anonymous Coward]

In that elementary school experiment, how much of the ice was above the water before it melted? If the answer is "none," don't count on the ocean level going down rather than up.

Re:Oh please.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oy. So much wrong, it's hard to know where to start...

1. The earth is not moving closer to the sun, except on a seasonal basis -- the orbit is elliptical, so in January at perihelion the earth is a smidgen closer to the sun than in July.

2. The only reason for the water level in the glass of ice to drop is if there is too much ice, so that it can't all float. If you have enough space for the ice to float, as it wants to do, then as it melts the overall water level will stay the same.

3. However... the reason to worry about the ice caps melting is that they are not in fact (completely) floating; large portions of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps are sitting on dry land (or grounded on land that would be under the sea if all the ice melted). Thus, when that stuff melts, it runs downhill, into the ocean, thereby raising the level of the ocean.

4. When (not if) the earth gets warmer, the oceans get warmer too; water expands as it heats up, and this expansion will raise sea levels.

Sheesh. Get a clue.

Re:Oh please.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't anyone else think of comparing the Earth's oceans to a glass of water with ice in it...?!! That analogy makes me feel warm and safe inside...

Ummm, yeah...

Re:Oh please.....

[m50d]

The first is, yes the earth is getting hotter, it's getting closer to the sun. Each year we move just a bit closer to the sun due to it's gravitational pull. Does anyone not realize that we aren't orbiting on a perfect path???

Looks like someone needs to brush up on their basic calculus. Even if you were right, why are you so sure we're spiraling in rather than spiraling away from the sun like the Moon is from us?

The biggest problem by far is, who cares!!! It'll be thousands of years before it happens, and by then we'll all have our brains digitized and installed into servers. The smartest into Linux servers, the most artistic into Macs, and the dumbest into windows!!!!!

It's happening right now, just ask anyone outside the US. Most predictions are for about a 2 degree temperature rise throughout the world. That's going to be enough to make a huge difference. Do you know how many people live less than 10m above sea level? And do you know how big an ice cap is?

Re:Oh please.....

[spitzak]

Most of the polar ice is NOT FLOATING! DUH!

Even worse, you are wrong that floating ice will melt and lower the water. In fact the water level will not change, as the ice displaces exactly it's own weight of water. (actually the floating ice also displaces a small amount of air which lifts it, so I think this means the water will go up a microscopic amount, but I am not sure of this)

Re:Oh please.....

[stevelinton]

OK, let's take this a step at a time.

The Earth is not, on average getting closer to the Sun. The mean distance from Earth to the Sun has been essentially unchanged for 4 billion years or more. The sun is, on a timescale of BILLIONS of years, getting hotter, but we are dealing with much faster changes.

Melting of floating icecaps does, indeed, not raise sea level (although it may have other troubling consequences). Melting of the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps, on the other hand does raise sea level.

Finally, we could be talking about sea level rises of quite a few feet this century. Servers do not run well underwater.

the "some" of its parts

[moviepig.com]

On the off-chance that the article could be biased, I looked at each occurrence of the word "scientists". The only instance where it was preceded by the word "some" was in identifying those scientists who were even gloomier than all the other scientists (in the world, apparently).

Hey this is a good thing...

[3seas]

More Bikini's

Re:Hey this is a good thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean "more Bikinis" (as in more people wearing bikinis), or "more bikini's" (as in, more nukes over Bikini Atoll)?

Re:Hey this is a good thing...

[Guysmiley777]

Obviously you haven't seen the studies predicting higher percentages of overweight and obese adults.

Re:Hey this is a good thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly certain that nobody wants to see an average /. reader in a bikini.......

Suing the world

[JanneM]

We of course do know who to sue for the most of the damage, whether based on the most pollutants or by the most per output economic activity.

And no, China just doesn't have the funds. We'll get to her later.

I think you misspelled "three weeks later"

[wsanders]

"If only President Clinton had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, this would have happened three weeks later."

Rationalization

[Bastian]

I call crass rationalization!

Next you'll be saying that I shouldn't take steps to avoid accidentally my house down because nature and arsonists have also been burning houses down since time immemorial.

I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[uberjoe]

it's a FEMA training film now

Training implies that there are competent people at FEMA. An assertation I'm not sure a certain region of the US would agree with.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[xero314]

Then again why should we take the opinion of a bunch of people foolish enough to live below sea level, and right on the cost.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[FauxPasIII]

> Then again why should we take the opinion of a bunch of people foolish enough to live below sea level, and right on the cost.

Absolutely! Since housing and transportation are free and there are more jobs than we can possibly ever fill
in spots all over the country, they have only themselves to blame for not getting out sooner!

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[AndersOSU]

It kind of bothers me when people blame NO for being below sea level, the people that live there now didn't build the city, and most live there because that is where they were born.

Furthermore, if you were in a position to relocate, and were offered a better job in NO, would you really turn it down because it's below sea level? What about California, Florida, or Tornado ally?

Most people aren't fortunate enough to be able to choose what city they live in, and those with a choice will rarely consider natural disasters as a factor in that decision.

That said if you build a mansion on a cliff that is eroding at the rate of feet/year, and your house is destroyed I have no sympathy for you.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again why should we take the opinion of a bunch of people foolish enough to live below sea level, and right on the coast.

In your FACE you foolish Dutchmen!

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[xero314]

It kind of bothers me when people blame NO for being below sea level, the people that live there now didn't build the city, and most live there because that is where they were born.

You going to have the same comments next time when everone who lives there already got pushed out by floods once and then moved back?

Furthermore, if you were in a position to relocate, and were offered a better job in NO, would you really turn it down because it's below sea level? What about California, Florida, or Tornado ally?

If the job was significantly better (3 to 4 times what I make now) I would consider it. But I would then use that money to invest in property in a safer area, and be prepaired to move when the next hurrican was heading that way.

Most people aren't fortunate enough to be able to choose what city they live in, and those with a choice will rarely consider natural disasters as a factor in that decision.

WTF, who is so unfortunate they can't move? seriouslly it cost $25 to get on a bus to move to higher land. You could probably hitch it for free. And finding a job paying minimum wage is pretty easy to do anywhere in this country.

That said if you build a mansion on a cliff that is eroding at the rate of feet/year, and your house is destroyed I have no sympathy for you.

I would have no sympathy either, I find people that waste money by building in/on on safe land to be pretty worthless. I should point out I live in an area that has not been struck by significant natural disaster in my life time (there were floods previously but with very little damage).

In the end, until the US is a socialist country, or the government mandates where you live, you have the choice to move and the government should not be responsible if you chose to live in a high risk area (like some where that you look up too see ships!).

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[killjoe]

"WTF, who is so unfortunate they can't move? seriouslly it cost $25 to get on a bus to move to higher land. You could probably hitch it for free. And finding a job paying minimum wage is pretty easy to do anywhere in this country."

Most of the people who died were destitute, old, or sick.

You need more then $25.00 (although that's hard to come by for a lot of people), you also need to be able move and to you need to be able to risk losing everything you have. It's not like these people were insured or anything.

"In the end, until the US is a socialist country, or the government mandates where you live, you have the choice to move and the government should not be responsible if you chose to live in a high risk area (like some where that you look up too see ships!)."

Many people agree with you. I think that's the number one reason the govt waited so long to react, they simply didn't think it was the job of the govt to help dying people. After all this is one of the core values of the republican party. The idea that people should be left to fend for themselves.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[xero314]

Most of the people who died were destitute, old, or sick.

I thought we were talking about the survivors. I mean it would be hard for the dead to make any "assertion" (See the post that started this thread).

You need more then $25.00 (although that's hard to come by for a lot of people), you also need to be able move and to you need to be able to risk losing everything you have. It's not like these people were insured or anything.

Wouldn't you know it, Greyhounds ticketing system is not working when I want to prove the fair to travel within the state of LA (I'm just saying move above sea level) is less the $25. Not only that if the people were afraid to risk losing everything than they would have even more reason to get out of New Orleans.

Many people agree with you. I think that's the number one reason the govt waited so long to react, they simply didn't think it was the job of the govt to help dying people. After all this is one of the core values of the republican party. The idea that people should be left to fend for themselves.

Hey lets not start name calling, I am NOT a republican. I'm actually a socialist, and even in a good socialist society you would not be so worried about balling people out from living in a dangerous area, because for one you would build houses in safer areas (just becuase of the cost) and two people wouldn't own property to need to be saved. But we are not a socialist societ. The US is a Constitutional, Capitalist, Republic, which measn what FEMA should be doing is not letting people back into New Orleans and spending some resources getting them set up in productive jobs in a place that isn't bound to flood by design.

I, and many others, was not born privilaged, nor where I live now. I was born on the other side of the country, about as far apart as you can get. But rather than deal with the threat of huriccans, earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters I moved to some place safe. I feel for the kids who's parents are too stupid to get there kids out of a bad area, but I don't feel for the adults. But sorry to say, I can't get my way, and so those poor kids will probably be sent back to live with their unfit parents in a dangerous land that no mater how you look at it was not intended for human life. But hey I can look on the bright side and be thankful that they are rebuild, so next years issue of "Girls Gone Wild" will have it's share of seens out of Mardi Gras.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[killjoe]

"Wouldn't you know it, Greyhounds ticketing system is not working when I want to prove the fair to travel within the state of LA (I'm just saying move above sea level) is less the $25. Not only that if the people were afraid to risk losing everything than they would have even more reason to get out of New Orleans."

Leaving takes much more then a bus ticket. Like I said most people can not afford to leave everything they own behind. The upper class can because they are insured, they live in neighborhoods that are less likely to suffer from looting and theft, and worst comes to worst they make enough money to get back all their belonging given enough time.

Poor people don't have any of those options.

'I, and many others, was not born privilaged, nor where I live now. I was born on the other side of the country, about as far apart as you can get. But rather than deal with the threat of huriccans, earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters I moved to some place safe. I feel for the kids who's parents are too stupid to get there kids out of a bad area, but I don't feel for the adults. But sorry to say, I can't get my way, and so those poor kids will probably be sent back to live with their unfit parents in a dangerous land that no mater how you look at it was not intended for human life. But hey I can look on the bright side and be thankful that they are rebuild, so next years issue of "Girls Gone Wild" will have it's share of seens out of Mardi Gras."

Again many republicans agree with you. Since the govt is being run by republicans it just makes sense that they simply looked at the problem as being self inflicted and one not worthy of govt intervention. Only when the rest of the country was outraged did the govt act to actually help those people.

Most likely in a more socialist country (all of the first world are socialist contries some more then others) people would not be allowed to live in those areas. More socialist countries tend to have the govt taking a more active role in environmental protection and designation of liveable areas. A less socialist country like the US let's people live wherever they want.

By the way congratulations. If you are a socialist they you must be proud that it is the only succesful form of govt. Every single country in the first world and vast majority of the second world countries are socialist. Only the most dismal and rotten third world countries have no socialist policies in place and as a result are a festering breeding grounds of crime, disease and terrorism.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[xero314]

Leaving takes much more then a bus ticket. Like I said most people can not afford to leave everything they own behind. The upper class can because they are insured, they live in neighborhoods that are less likely to suffer from looting and theft, and worst comes to worst they make enough money to get back all their belonging given enough time.

I'm trying to figure out how you own anything, yet can't afford anything. Sell half of what you own and use the proceeds to move to a better location. I also beleive there is no reason for being poor beyond personal choice. I'm not saying getting out of destitution is easy, it's not, and neither are most of the better things in life. So rather than spend billions of US tax dollars of rebuilding a poor city, we should (if we are going to spend it) educate the peope so that they do not need to live in such poor conditions.

By the way congratulations. If you are a socialist they you must be proud that it is the only succesful form of govt. Every single country in the first world and vast majority of the second world countries are socialist. Only the most dismal and rotten third world countries have no socialist policies in place and as a result are a festering breeding grounds of crime, disease and terrorism.

I can't say about the rest of the world, but the US is not socialist, though there are a few psuedo socialist programs. Socalism is commonly seen as Economic control in exchange for Social/Moral freedom. The US is very much to opposite where where economic freedom has lead to the differences in classes, and where social controls has caused even intimate acts between consenting adults to be scrutized and in some cases outlawed. Other socialist ideals are equality, and inability for ownership of personal property, two things we do not have in the US. I'd like to get further into this but this is not the place. Look around you'll see more of my socialist ideals in other posts.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[killjoe]

"I'm trying to figure out how you own anything, yet can't afford anything. "

Have you even been to a poor person's house? They have things in them. Things like clothes, furniture, toys for the kids, etc. Of course these things are old, cheap, and undesirable. You can't just put them up on ebay and make yourself a few hundred dollars. The idea that they could sell all of their stuff to buy a bus ticket is kind of a joke.

"I also beleive there is no reason for being poor beyond personal choice."

As I said, most republicans agree with you. That's why the govt took no action when the poor were dying in NO.

"So rather than spend billions of US tax dollars of rebuilding a poor city, we should (if we are going to spend it) educate the peope so that they do not need to live in such poor conditions."

I think it's a wonderful idea to educate people. Alas that's seen as a socialist idea and this govt is not in favor of it so much.

"I can't say about the rest of the world, but the US is not socialist, though there are a few psuedo socialist programs. "

Nonsense. The largest portion of the US budget is "discretionary spending" meaning social security, medicare, medicaid etc. A country which spends more money on social welfare programs then any other program is a socialist country by any definition of the word. Add to that the fact that US builds and maintains roads, railways and other infrastucture, provides free education for kids, provides subsidies for farming, ranching, mining, and virtually every other industry known to man, after school programs, parks and recreation, etc and you will see that more then 75% of the us budget is spend on socialist programs.

If you judge by the amount spent the US is the largest socialist state in the world, if you measure by percentage then we are not the largest but we are in the top 50.

"Other socialist ideals are equality, and inability for ownership of personal property, two things we do not have in the US. I'd like to get further into this but this is not the place."

Yes US is less socialist then other countries but it's still a very socialist country. SOcialism is the most succesful form of govt and indeed the only form of govt that really works. Countries which have shied away from socialism have all ended up are cespools.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[xero314]

"Have you even been to a poor person's house?..."

Things are either sold or given/thrown away. If all the person owns are things that no one will buy then they have nothing to lose because they can aquire those items for free elsewhere. Plus in this country the government will pay you if you don't have any money (and no, wellfare is not socialist)

Alas that's seen as a socialist idea and this govt is not in favor of it so much.
[The US] which spends more money on social welfare programs then any other program is a socialist country by any definition of the word.

First you say the US does not support socialist ideas, then you say that we are socialist by definition. Um, either we are or we are not socialist, you can't have it both ways. There is no such thing as socialist enough.

Social security, Medicare, wellfare and other so called social programs are not socialist. They are discriminatory, and based on income and personal property which are capitalist ideas. Subsides are not socialist and our schools are not free, and those so called free schools do not compare to the quality of schools that are only available to the privilaged rich. I am an upper middle class professional, I work hard for a living. I have received NO governmental spending (I was even denied Unemployment Insurance payments because I "didn't file in a timely manner"). I have more than the poor and less than the rich. I own personal property. I believe in socialist (actually fascist because I beleive in the good of a government and not that it is just a necessary evil) Ideals, but I do not live in a socialist country. It's not how much is spent that makes a government socialist but how that money is spent. Giving money to a select few IS NOT socialist, even if the select few are the underprivillage (which you can't have in a productive socialist society).

Socialism is not the only way to have a succesful government. Any form of governing can work if it governs the right people and is run without corruption (meaning the document practises are upheld through the life of the government). Pure Capitalsm (which there are no examples of) "works", but it would be those not able to be deemed productive members of society would not survive. I personally prefer Socialism, but would be a fool to believe it is the ONLY way to govern a country succesfully (the longest lasting nations in history where not socialist).

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[killjoe]

"First you say the US does not support socialist ideas, then you say that we are socialist by definition. "

The US is a socialist country. It's less socialist then europe but a socialist country nevertheless. Four the last few years the country is being run republicans. REpublicans agree with you that poverty is a self inflicted condition so when the storm hit they did not fulfill their socialist reponsibility to send aid and rescue people until there was an outrage. I hope that makes what I am saying more clear. We are a socialist country, we have laws on the books that dictate that the federal govt help dying poor people. This administration ignored those laws and went against the socialist principles of this country because they (like you) believe that it is the fault of the poor people that they are dying.

"Social security, Medicare, wellfare and other so called social programs are not socialist."

They are indeed socialist. They are at the core of income redistribution. THey take from those that have and give to those that need.

"They are discriminatory, and based on income and personal property which are capitalist ideas."

Nope, social security is not based on income and neither is medicaid. Neither is the prescription drug benefit. Welfare is though.

"Subsides are not socialist and our schools are not free, and those so called free schools do not compare to the quality of schools that are only available to the privilaged rich."

Subsidies are indeed socialist. They too are income redistribution. K-12 education is indeed free (or paid by the state) so it's a very socialist program. Sure there are private shcools that are better but those exist in more socialist countries too.

"Pure Capitalsm (which there are no examples of) "works", but it would be those not able to be deemed productive members of society would not survive."

Pure capitalism has been tried numerous times in the past. The wild west was pure capitalism, so was the thousands of years of history before modern societies were formed. They all morphed into socialism sooner or later because the people opressed under capitalism kept revolting and beheading the rich who had amassed all the wealth. Turns out socialism is good for the rich because it keeps the poor fed just enough to prevent them from revolting.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[xero314]

We are a socialist country, we have laws on the books that dictate that the federal govt help dying poor people.
They are indeed socialist. They are at the core of income redistribution. THey take from those that have and give to those that need.

Giving to the poor or the needy is not socialist. As a matter of fact that is a very "republican" view of socialism. Socialism is not actually about giving at all, it is the idea of no personaly wealth, therefor there is nothing to give or take. Without personal wealth all people are in the same economic standing. All services are provided free of any charge and no incomes are provided because all resources are that of the nation (or people depending) and not of the individual. Countries such as the US use redistribution of wealth as a way to placate the underprivilaged masses so as to avoid any possible workers revolution. In reality the US takes from the Have Somes and gives to the Have Nots who in turn give the Have Lots! We steal from the middle class to give to the poor to spend on services that benifit rich.

One can not be denied benifits is a socialist system (expect with the possible excpetion of not being a productive member of society, but that is really a seperate ideal than socialism). Nope, social security is not based income... Intersting then that my yearly SS statement shows me being eligeable for more benifit than those that make less than me.

...and neither is medicaid

This is just a flat out lie. Medicade is Income based, just to a quick comparison of Medicade vs Medicare. Medicade is income based while medicare is not, but medicare is taken from your SS which is income based. They are both also based on other descriminatory elements such as age and health.

...more socialist countries too.

Either you allow for personal property or you do not. There is no such thing as "more socialist." Even if you don't use personal property as your basis for socialism (some do not, I take a more utopian view) you will see that socialism is not a thing that hase levels there of. Socialism either is or is not.

Somehow you have bought into the american propaganda that "we" somehow treat people equally or make attempts at equality. I repeat the united states is a Constitutional, Republican, Capitialist state. We have a selecct few who are supposed to act in the best intrest of ALL citizens, not just the rich or the poor, and in turn maintaining the possibility of a society based on free trade and personal property.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[killjoe]

"Giving to the poor or the needy is not socialist."

Of course not. It's moral, good, and saintly but it's not socialist. It becomes socialist when the state does it by taxing you and then giving your money to the poor. State enforced giving to the poor is socialist.

"One can not be denied benifits is a socialist system"

One can not be denied social security, k-12 education or medicare. Of course there is age discrimination of sorts going on but that's all.

"Either you allow for personal property or you do not."

I don't see the world as being black and white. I see that most succesful countries (and all of the first world ones) are practising socialism to some degree or another.

"I repeat the united states is a Constitutional, Republican, Capitialist state."

I disagree with the capitalist part. We are more socialist then capitalist simply by the virtue of our spending patterns.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[xero314]

It becomes socialist when the state does it by taxing you and then giving your money to the poor. State enforced giving to the poor is socialist.

Upon starting this thread I have recently review all the writings I can find that make easy summation of socialism possible, and in doing so I have not come upon anything say that stealing is socialistic, no matter who reaps the benifit. In socialism there are no rich to take from, and in the US we take from the middle class not the rich. Most of the ultra rich avoid 90% of their tax debt through misdirection of funds or other more insidious tactics. Most socialist doctrines avoid the topic of taxation all togther.

One can not be denied social security, k-12 education or medicare.

Wrong again on 3 points. I can not personally partake of any of those benifits. Once I do meet the requirments for these programs I will not receive the same benifits as everyone else (I may receive more or less). Many children are expelled from K-12 education (myself included). Our system even does a wonderful job of hiding the few pseudo social programs we do have, making it difficult for un or under educated people to benifit from these benifits.

Take a quick look around the federal governments web sites for the Eligibility for these services. You will quickly realize they are not given equally to all people, and therefore not socialist.

I see that most succesful countries (and all of the first world ones) are practising socialism to some degree or another.

Most first world countries also send citizens to die to maintain the success of the country yet I would doubt you would say they practice human sacrifice. To quote Fight Club "sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken"

We are more socialist then capitalist simply by the virtue of our spending patterns.

Well now I know why this conversation is not going anywhere. I have never met anyone who thought that the US was not capitalist. Our Constitution protects free trade and capitalism, it does not grant and social benifit. Read your constitution (you should really carry a copy with you at all times) and it's ammendments, you will see economic freedom is well protected. Luckily so are many social freedoms, but there is nothing about economic equality. The forth ammendment specifically restricts the government from being able to seize personal assets.

Oh, and Socialist Spending is an Oxymoron.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[killjoe]

YOu have a totally different (and weird in my opinion) definition of socialism. To me and to most people income redistribution is the heard of socialims. I certainly don't know how you can possibly build a socialist state without income redistribution.

The US is a socialist state by the virtue of the fact that the vast majority of it's budget is used for income redistributing.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[xero314]

My defenition comes from the original writings on socialism and socialistic ideals. Examples of my bases of socialism a Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia, Karl Marx's Commuist Manifesto and The Rerum Novarum. Socialism uses income redistribution as a means to an end not as the core of the idiology. Income only has to redistributed at the begining of a socialist society because the income is not distributed equally, once a society is socialist there is not need for income distribution, because there is after all no income. Income is a capitalist idea. Oh and by the way what you are refering to is Redistribution of Wealth not income. In a socialist society even stock holds of wealth would be used to equally supply all citizens.

In the US the majority of the Wealth is held by a small minority. The top 5% (bassed on monitary value) of the populous maintains nearly 60% of the wealth in the United States. The bottom 40% of the populous maintain less than .2% of the wealth. This means that for every dollar in the US The top 5% share 60 cents and the bottom 40% share 1/20th of a cent. If you can some how argue that this is a redistribution of wealth I would be amazed.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[killjoe]

You seem to take absolutists views while I take a more graduated view.

Yes the US is not a pure socialist state. It is also not a pure capitalist state. No state is purely one or the other they are all combining elements of socialism and capitalism.

The question is whether the US is more socialist then capitalist and the answer to that is yes if you look at the taxing and spending record of the state. The vast majority of the taxes collected go towards income redistribution (the means to a pure socialist state). Other countries may spend more or less on income redistrubution but there is no arguing that the US is more socialist then capitalist.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[AndersOSU]

After reading through this thread (and wondering what I started) I've come to conclude that xero is not a socialist by any contemporary definition, but rather a would be communist. It is true that Marx et al. referred to that particular system of government as socialist, but the definitions have evolved to communism on the far left, socialism to the right of communism, capitalism to the right of socialism, and fascism at the extreme right.

I'm with you killjoe that the US is in fact a socialist nation, and has been since the New Deal, although we are less socialist than Europe (Scandinavia in particular.)

What boggles my mind is that xero seems to have very inconsistent socialist views. First there is this

I believe in socialist (actually fascist because I believe in the good of a government and not that it is just a necessary evil) Ideals

I'm no expert, but I could have sworn that fascist and socialist ideals are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Fundamentally in socialism property is owned "by the people," and in fascism property is owned "by the state." In practice there may not be a whole lot of difference, but philosophically nothing could be further apart.

The US is a Constitutional, Capitalist, Republic, which measn what FEMA should be doing is not letting people back into New Orleans and spending some resources getting them set up in productive jobs in a place that isn't bound to flood by design.

It is clear that Xero misunderstands capitalist almost to the degree he misunderstands socialist. If we were do follow strict capitalist doctrine not only would there not be a FEMA, but the government would never had mandated an evacuation, and would impose no limits on access to any personal property.

Then he dismisses the US's socialist policies because he isn't eligible. In a fully established Marxist socialism it may be true that everyone is eligible for all government programs, but as a society is transforming to more socialist the way you eliminate the class conflict is by spending money on projects that the lower classes are eligible for.

We steal from the middle class to give to the poor to spend on services that benefit rich

Xero needs to read the Communist manifesto more carefully. Marx takes issue not with the upper class (royalty), but rather with the bourgeoisie (middle class). In fact Marx sees the bourgeoisie as the source of all class conflict and his system proposes to eliminate them in favor of the proletariat (blue collar workers.)

Given this I think it's ludicrous that a socialist would see poverty as a self imposed condition, and a socialist living in a prosperous economy should be more outraged about lack of emergency measures more so than a capitalist.

There is no such thing as "more socialist."

Here it is then... Xero's own twisted socio-economic theory (I can't call it socialism with a straight face) is the only proper one. Every other system either is or is not Xeroism. There aren't degrees of Xeroism.

Meanwhile here in the real world there is no such thing as a pure system. Every system borrows the things that work from the other systems. This is why the US isn't laissez faire capitalism, this is why China has free trade zones. To deny that something can be more or less socialist is the most absurd statement I have heard in some time.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[xero314]

I wish AndersOSU had chimed in a few messages ago, since I am sure the previous comment will be the begining of the end of this thread. The way in which Anders articulated his view of socialism shows he is atleast knowledgeable on the subject and even if I do disagree to some extent I can atleas respect it.

I conceed the idea of socalled socialist programs and that some countries can be socialistic without the need for there to be pure socialism. The medical system in Canada comes to mind, being close to home and a fairly pure socialistic program. Even though I conceed my black and white view may be extreem I would like to address just a couple points.

Since it is often the Communist Manifesto and Marxism that is considered the origin of Socialistic thought I feel a couple things need to be pointed out. In the CM and Marxism as a whole there is no concern with classes but instead with the struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. In Marxism ALL people to be considered fit into one of these two groups. The upper class of america is Bourgeoisie not royalty. Marx's issue with the bourgeoisie are many fold, but the most obvious is that the ideas of th bourgeoisie cause a state in which the proletariat will not be driven to rise up against more obvious fuedal leaders. Part of Marx's issue was that the working class was not revolting as was done by prior underprivilaged classes of the past. Today in the US at least, determining where the working class begins and ends is some what difficult to decern. I qualify as middle class based upon income, but I am of the working class because my means of income is based upon the sale of my services.

The intersting thing you get out of the Marxist class struggle is that the lowest class is the working class. Notice carefully that in the term working class (taking directly from the Communist Manifesto, though admittedly translated) contians the word working. Many of the social programs of the US are actually targeted at the non-working, which does not, in my interpretation seem to be part of socialist ideal (not just Marxist). Marx himself believed and wrote that poverty is a self imposed condition and only through revolution will the working class bring themselves out of poverty. I chose to "revolt" at a personal level and bring myself to a state of equlity rather than accepting that society as a whole has some how worked to keep me down.

The one thing I don't understand is how a person who obviously has a decent understanding and respect for socialism, such as Anders, can somehow think that a country where in 60% of the wealth is held by less than 5% of the people and that the overwhelming majority share in less than 5% of the wealth (with 40% of the population sharing less than 2/10ths%, which I think I miss quoted earlier).

After reading threw all of this I now think that while the US is not pure capitalist it does have more capilistic ideals than socialist and most of the social programs are aimed, though not necessarily intentionaly, to maintain the status quo so as to not cause a proletariate revolution.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[AndersOSU]

In the CM and Marxism as a whole there is no concern with classes but instead with the struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat

The first line of the CM (after the prologue):

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles

The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are classes. The entire purpose of the CM is to entice the proletariat to rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie in class conflict.

Further proletariat doesn't contain the word working in any translation. Proletariat is the latin designation for the lowest citizen class. True it is typically taken to mean working class, but lowest class is both more correct, and more descriptive.

This goes directly against your next point that socialist programs should not be designed for people who aren't actually working. Marx's whole idea is that the capitalist system sets up the unjust imbalance which prevents the lower classes from excelling. Marx's ideas do not judge people based on their role in society; in fact they explicitly ignore them. The fact that some of the proletariat don't work isn't the problem, it's that they have to work, and for whatever reason that they can't. Marx would be very angry that you are attributing the belief that poverty is a self-imposed condition to him.

Ok, I definitely over-stated my point in saying that the US is socialist, I meant to indicate that the US is not truly a capitalistic society, and I chose the word socialist in contrast to both capitalist and communist. The US is much closer to Adam Smith's ideas than Karl Marx's.

It is my opinion that Marx did not really believe that his system was a solution. The all to obvious flaws in Marxism, such as failure to motivation, and diffusion of responsibility are too large to have gone unnoticed by someone as intelligent as Marx.

Marx was greatly influenced by Kant, especially his dialectic process. It is my opinion that Marx set up socialism as a philosophical Kantian antithesis to laissez fiare system that was in place at the time. Marx set forth his socialism deliberately opposed to capitalism so that in the future a more desirable synthesis could result.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[xero314]

hitherto - Until this time
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

"The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones."
- Samuel Moore's 1888 english translation.
This is only one reference where Marx implies that the bourgeois is not a class but something else. Classes exist, but it has been changed, so that the struggle between classes is not as clear as one would expect. Instead of relying on class revolt Marx had to seperate people in a new way. How else can you bring to people to revolution when even among the "proletariate" there are large class difference. As I have tried to explain in the past, many of the people in the world today are Middle Class and Working Class.


"it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons -- the modern working class -- the proletarians."
- Samuel Moore's 1888 english translation.
There are also 16 other references to the "working class" in the Communist Manifesto. I only wish I had a german version handy to see what words are being translated into "working class" because the translation seems to leave other references to "proletatiat" intact.

We are in agreement that the US follows much closer the Smith's philosophy than Marx's. Smith's "Wealth of Nations" did after all quantify the concept that Self-Intrest was some how service to society. It is this kind of thought that has lead to the "Culture of Narcissim" (See the writtings of Christopher Lasch) and what certainly makes the US more Capitalist than socialist to say the least.

Marxist taught (I can't say I know what he did or did not believe) that a person can not sit idealy by and expect that those more privillage than themselves will some how take care of them, and that it is the responsibility of the "working class" (see my quote above) to change their own lot in life. "The Communist Manifesto" and other writings attributed to Marx and his contemporaries are target at the lower class, not the bourgeoisie. This makes it clear to me that the idea's of socialism and communism.

I don't know that Marx was as much of a pesimist as you make him out to be. There are some of us that beleive that people as a whole are capable of working and creating on the bassis of accomplishment and the betterment of society and human life as a whole.

I am not an expert on Marxist Communism, I know a little about all forms of socialism (and yes I include anarchism and fascism under the larger concept of socialism). I'm always glad to hear apposing points of view from articulate intelligent people. I guess that is the problem with concepts as old as socialism, as different people get ahold of them they change and grow into larger concepts.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[AndersOSU]

Marx may have taught that the proletariat cannot expect to be taken care of by anyone, but he would hardly fault them for being poor and being unable to escape. That is the foundation on which his theory lies.

The proletariat is expected to change their own lot in life, but Marx also taught that the only way this will happen is through bloody revolution, not by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. You correctly assert that the working class is many times part of the middle class, but you extend this thought to mean that the revolution will not be between lower and middle class, but rather between laborers and everyone else. I would interpret the elevation of the working class differently.

The problem is that the industrial revolution has moved beyond the horizon that Marx saw and he could not have predicted the state of affairs today. The reason that the proletariat need to be the force of change is that they have the nothing to loose. Now when laborers have pensions, own property, and have health insurance they are closer to bourgeois than proletariat.

One of the defining characteristics of a proletariat in Rome was that he didn't own property. Marx's revolution can only be carried out by the poorest. Today the proletariat is largely unskilled workers in the service industry, not the factory labor class Marx was writing about.

Of course there is nothing wrong with modifying the theory to fit today's social landscape, but you are more likely to be one of the overthrown rather than an over-thrower. I contend that the proletariat (poorest class not owning property) is the revolutionary force. When Marx was writing working class was a subset of proletariat, but this is no longer the case.

Re:I don't believe I'm familiar with that term

[xero314]

My interpretation, since recent rereading, has been that Marx, in the Communist Manifesto atleast, did not so much beleive that the Bourgeois were not so much oppressor as much as they were taking advantage of a situation allowed them by the working class. I admit this comes from my personal view, which is typical self centered American, that people are responsible for their own actions and own lot in life. I know this from personal experience having chosen the harder path on many occasions.

The idea of lumping me specificaly in with the bourgeois is pretty humorous, if you new a few things. I do not work for a company that supplies pensions, which is typical reserved for union controlled labor now days, and I do not own property, I would find it hypocritical to speaking of the benifits of socialsim and not atleast try and live the life. I have no employees that work under me, though I have in the past, and I work hard for my living. Most importantly, and this is, in my opinion, what makes most of us proletariat rather than bourgeois (which are after all outdated and mostly inapplicable terms), is that I am in a percentage of the US population that maintains less than 1% of the countries wealth, therefor putting us below where we should be if things where equal (as best I can descern my particular percentage maintains a mere .34% and this is probably a high estimate).

The working class (which I equate to proletariate and you see as a sub set) as referenced in the CM and other socialist writings were not the most down trodden people in history. They where not slaves, they actually earned livings which they could survive on. This is why there was a need for socialist revolt, rather than typical revolution of prior societies. Marx explains this fairly clearly, that people have to look past the survival they have and realize that they are deserving of a larger peice of the pie.

You, I and the rest of us are shit upon by the upper class, but not enough that we will stop giving them our money, or forcefully take their wealth away from them. But in the end it is still our own fault if with chose to live in poverty and do not make ends meet. I realize it may be hard for the average american to own a BMW but, to bring it back to my original original point, Getting a bus ticket cost 5 hours of work at McDonalds, and they will higher pretty much anyone. And if you are one of the significant number of poor who, rather than changing their lot, spends even a minor portion of their income on Drug or Alcohol, then I have no sympathy for you.

I think the moderator likes rossy pictures

[ferespo]

The parent post was moderated as 5-insightful the first time, then 4, and for now, 3. Ops, now returning from preview is 2!! It should have been moderated as OPTIMISTIC. It gives no reasons or arguments proving or disproving the claim. That's not insightful.

Thanks For All The Fish

[Doc Ruby]

No, global warming is a myth, humans are too puny to affect the environment [glug glug glug]

(New Orleans jazz funeral has never been so appropriate)

It may or may not be past the 'tipping point'

[e1618978]

The title of the article states it like it is a fact, while the text of the article says "scientists fear that it is past the tipping point". There is no evidence in the article that we have reached a runaway state of global warming that would reach total ice melt without further human intervention.

It is stuff like this that makes me lose all respect for newspaper journalism.

Ice caps

[nuggz]

You are missing 2 points that make your comparison less applicable.

The ice caps are
1. Partially above sea level because ice floats.
2. Partially/fully above sea level because they rest on land.

Re:Ice caps

[sholden]

1 is irrelevant, Archimedes worked this out a bloody long time ago, and I'm amazed people still manage to get it wrong. Though fresh water is less dense than salt water and hence floating ice melting will cause sea levels to rise a little...

2 of course if perfectly true, and what everyone is talking about when they talk about "the ice melting and sea levels rising".

Re:Ice caps

[donutz]

So do we know how much those land masses will raise up, since they won't have the weight of all that ice pushing them down?

Re:Ice caps

[Ihlosi]

1 is irrelevant, Archimedes worked this out a bloody long time ago, and I'm amazed people still manage to get it wrong.

1 becomes extremely relevant as soon as the water is not completely still anymore. And, guess what, the oceans aren't still at all, they have tides. So even if the _average_ water level stays the same, the amplitude of the tides is going to increase. And, guess what again, a city that's flooded for 12 hours a day is pretty much as bad as one that's flooded all the time.

Re:Ice caps

[nuggz]

Original post
If the ice caps melted, the water in the ocean should theoretically go down

My point that his experiment did not account for the fact that ice floats (causing the decrease in water volume) is most certainly relevant to his experiment.

I do agree that floating ice has nothing to do with sea level rising as the floating ice will melt cause no net change in water level.

Motive for making this stuff up?

[TheBrakShow]

Could someone explain to me why scientists would want to exaggerate the threat of global warming? What self-serving purpose could it possibly serve to be concerned about the global environment? So what if they're wrong about global warming. Even if they are incorrect, are they really such crackpots for advocating cleaner air?

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

As Rush Limbaugh has told us, everyone who believes in global warming is part of an environmentalist conspiracy that has communist ideology that wants to end the great success of the United States.

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[WhiteWolf666]

I'm not sure I agree with it, but the theory is that there is big money in global warming research, both for and against.

If you want to cash-out with the oil companies, you have to be saying that there ISN'T any global warming, and you have to spend a lot of time/money criticizing the environmentalists. If there wasn't anybody making noises about global warming, than you, as an anti-global warming researching wouldn't get millions in grants.

If you are an environmentalist, you have to be saying that there IS global warming, and you have to spend a lot of time/money criticizing the people I just described above. If there wasn't anybody disputing your facts, than you, as a global warming research, wouldn't get millions in grants.

Both sides have an incentive to say that both sides should get more funding. As both sides get more funding, they make *yet more noise*.

There hasn't been a single article from either side saying 'cut off funding for the other'. All the scientists agree that 'more research, more funding, more computer models, etc. . .' are needed.

Never forget, big science research ITSELF is fairly big research. The largest computing clusters in the world have been built for the purpose of analyzing global warming. Literally fleets of ships, along with mounds and mounds of atmospheric measuring equipment, and dozens of satellites have been constructed for the purpose of studying warming. Not to say that they don't find a bunch of intresting conclusions/data. But don't expect ANYONE tied up in the debate to ever say, "We're done researching, time to act, no more money for science, lets just spend it on lobbying, etc. . ."

Want to fund your ancient petrifyied tree research project? Link it to global warming, say that you are looking to see past temperature data. Shop it out to both sides, the IPCC people, the sierra club, and the oil companies, and make sure you release *very* high quality, but moderately ambiguous data.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[alen]

Funding. Why was one of those supercollider things cancelled? Because no one cares about spending $15 billion for general research that may not prove useful economically for decades. If scientists ask for $20 billion to study the climate or the weather or something similar than no one is going to listen to them.

Now if you predict the end of the world unless you get funding, than it's another story. You will get a lot of funding since the weather and climate is so close to home.

Ask yourself, there are a lot more cancer patients than AIDS patients. Which gets more funding? Why is that?

Lobbying and predicting the end of the world.

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[WhiteWolf666]

Lots of typos, sorry.

A couple correctons:
big science research ITSELF is fairly big research
means
big science research ITSELF is fairly big business

you, as a global warming research
means
you, as a global warming researcher

I'm sure there are more, but it is more or less (probably less) readable for english speakers.

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grant money. How else do you get paid as a scientist.

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[rewt66]

I think it goes like this. "If we're right, we really need to stop this process. If we're wrong, well, pollution is still a big issue that needs to be addressed, so no harm done. So lets act like we're really sure even though we're not."

Note well that it isn't necessarily the scientists who are doing this. Some of it may be, but it is likely that more of it is the media.

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[Ihlosi]

Ask yourself, there are a lot more cancer patients than AIDS patients. Which gets more funding? Why is that?

Ask yourself, which is more contagious ? And ask yourself, which is deadlier ? Which of the two can already be treated (cured) to some extent ?

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[TheBrakShow]

I hadn't really considered that there was much money on the side of those that actually believe in global warming. That makes a little more sense now. Still, it seems that if you are to consider this as a fight between good and evil, the people people concerned about global warming would be on the side of the environment. I usually consider this to be an altruistic position. That is, the tree hugging granolas that are concerned about deforestation, etc. tend to be very different than the oil and auto companies out to make a profit.

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[Anonymous Coward]

B.
Depends on how pedantic you are. AIDS doesn't kill people. Most AIDS infected individuals that die, die of pneumonia.
All of the Above.

w00t! Can I have another?

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 16 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked th...yadda, yadda, yadda... Bite me.

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[TeknoHog]

The largest computing clusters in the world have been built for the purpose of analyzing global warming.

How ironic :) but true.

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[NatteringNabob]

Anybody that thinks you can 'get rich' on basic science grants that doesn't advance the agenda of some corporate sponser is on crack. It would be nice, but it just doesn't work that way. Basic science researchers compete with each other for the crumbs that fall of the table.

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[Ihlosi]

AIDS doesn't kill people.

Yeah, right. Bullets don't kill people, either. Most people who get shot die from hypovolemic shock or organ failure.

Re:Motive for making this stuff up?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I agree with it, but the theory is that there is big money in global warming research, both for and against... The largest computing clusters in the world have been built for the purpose of analyzing global warming...

Cue HHTG reference to Deep Thought, Majikthijs and Vroomfondel in 3... 2... 1...

yes doom and gloom, still time to try something ..

[dangermen]

Yes doom and gloom, still time to try something else. We have been doing it the SUV, output crap into the environment as we want/need to. That's worked SOO well. We've been doing roughly that since the industrial revolution.

So given that the non-environmental side has had their way for a long time, I think it is time for them to let environmentalists recommend some changes that should actually go through. You might be surprised because SUVs -have not- caused global warming to go -away-.

Waterworld?

[joel2600]

Does anyone remember the movie waterworld? I remember that a lot of people thought it was a horrible movie, and I don't think it ever did that well.

Guess people weren't ready to face the real possibilty of an entire planet covered in water.

all your kevin costner are belong to us.

Re:Waterworld?

[Intron]

I think people weren't ready to face a movie where the only good acting was by a 10-year old girl. Tina Majorino was excellent. Kevin Costner and Dennis Hopper and the script writers should all have drowned.

Re:Waterworld?

[spitzak]

I assumme you are joking, but in case you are not, there is not enough water to cover all the land, or even the majority of it. This would require raising the level by several miles.

Re:Waterworld?

[The Lynxpro]

"Does anyone remember the movie waterworld? I remember that a lot of people thought it was a horrible movie, and I don't think it ever did that well. Guess people weren't ready to face the real possibilty of an entire planet covered in water."

No, it wasn't that. Its just most people who went and saw the film did not have a secret fetish to drink their own urine and thus the word-of-mouth was bad and had a negative consequence on the box office take.

I only admire the flick for the fact that it was a "mad bomber" type scenario to get Matsushita paranoid about MCA/Universal and force the Japanese firm to panic into selling the company off to a more media saavy outfit who would not reject future media acquisitions. That's why the budget was allowed to blow up on "Waterworld." To get Matsushita to flinch and sell the studio. The plan worked.

Clod!

[QMO]

"Even a moderate (few metres) rise in sea level will start to inundate the homes of millions in every country."

What about Bolivia and Nepal, you insensitive clod!

Hyperbole is much easier than reasonable discussion.

Re:Clod!

[Decaff]

"Even a moderate (few metres) rise in sea level will start to inundate the homes of millions in every country."

What about Bolivia and Nepal, you insensitive clod!

Floods don't just happen in countries at sea level. Global warming will change rainfall patterns and melt glaciers. For example, Nepal is likely to have serious water problems - periods of excess and drought.

Hyperbole is much easier than reasonable discussion.

Flippant denial that there is a problem is worse.

200 billion well spent

[Anonymous Coward]

Will this be before or after US$200 billion is "pumped" into a city that is already below the water table ?

Re:200 billion well spent

[rumblin'rabbit]

What a superb question! I verbally mod you up.

This is particularly pertinent given that just yesterday W committed U.S. taxpayers to rebuilding New Orleans. A cynic (not me, of course) might suggest he did this primarily to resuscitate his presidency.

On the plus side, it might be good practise if the warmings predictions are correct.

Just stop.

[bigtallmofo]

...to have come out of the New Orleans disaster, it is this... Perhaps the US Government will stop ignoring the threat of Global Warming as somebody else's problem.

Your obvious implication being that you have some scientific evidence that global warming caused Katrina.

You must be one heck of a climatologist! Could you please share your data as to what proves that Katrina was caused by global warming? Does your data also show why the hundreds of other massive storms that have been recorded over the last several hundred years existed in the absence of global warming?

People like you do the environmental cause much more harm than good. Next time someone mentions global warming, your inane comment with no evidence will come to mind and they'll dismiss it.

Re:Just stop.

[kisak]

ABC news has an interesting article.

Re:Just stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, I do. I work in the field of climatology, and find it quite entertaining, how many "slash-dotters" think human kind has no effect on the environment.

Think about it this way... aerosols have a cooling effect, carbon, methane have a warming a effect. Aerosols act like clouds and cool the ocean waters. Carbon, methane TRAP warm air in the atmosphere and create a feedback loop.

Also think about all the "heat" we pump into the environment on top of all the gases, and ask yourself how we aren't affecting the environment. We're not talking pounds of carbon from vehicles, we're talking MEGATONS, EVERY YEAR. On top of the noxious effect on the local environment like acid rain, etc. it creates a net warming effect.

Hence the Gulf of Mexico was at 90 degrees F when Katrina rolled over.

The real question is what will happen first.

Global Warming flooding all the coastal cities.

or,

Peak oil.

Re:Just stop.

[HugePedlar]

As my two co-posters pointed out, Global Warming has indeed been implicated in exacerbating Katrina.

Regardless, I myself didn't explicitly blame Katrina on Global Warming. My point was that the US Government is now aware that catastrophic weather systems (that CAN be exacerbated by Global Warming) CAN result in disasters on their own soil. Too often the US seems to deny the possibility that bad things can happen to them.

They can. And this is a wake-up call, however you want to look at it.

Re:Just stop.

[mmdog]

Personally I hope Peak Oil and Costal Flooding happen simultaneously and soon. The status quo is just way to boring.

Doc-should I stop smoking? Too late; don't bother

[karlandtanya]

You're going to die in 6 months, no matter what.

Global Warming Past The Point of No Return

[Spackler]

Woo hooo! Tonight I'm gonna party like it's 1999!

Global warming is easy to stop ...

[Skapare]

... with a big widespread nuclear winter.

Also...

[Anonymous Coward]

In regards to the "water" powered cars...you forgot to mention a couple other things.

Where is all this hydrogen supposed to come from? The ocean? Well, it takes energy to extract the hydrogen...solar power isn't efficient enough to produce as much hydrogen as we'd need.

The best source for hydrogen is hydrocarbons -- fossil fuels, like oil or natural gas. But then we're burning some fuel to power the process of extracting the hydrogen, and all the leftovers have to be dealt with still....

Oh well. So much for the false vision of a hydrogen-powered society.

Re:Also...

[Trepalium]

Where is all this hydrogen supposed to come from? The ocean? Well, it takes energy to extract the hydrogen...solar power isn't efficient enough to produce as much hydrogen as we'd need. The best source for hydrogen is hydrocarbons

Uhm... What's wrong with hydroelectric generation? You have both the water you'd need for electrolysis and the electricity you'd need to do it. I guess the big problem is the U.S. just doesn't have the hydroelectric infrastructure to do it. With a measly 7% of your power coming from hydroelectric sources, it hardly even registers.

Nuclear reactors are the other option. They require water for cooling anyway, so producing hydrogen should be simple. Aside from a small amount of radioactive waste, the environmental impact is fairly small. This would be the most likely avenue for U.S. companies that wish to get into the hydrogen business.

Unfortunately, regardless of all of this, hydrogen is still an immature technology, and I don't expect it to matter a whole lot for a minimum of another 10 to 20 years.

Insurance

[kpwoodr]

Don't forget your volcano insurance!

Peter: I dont need volcano insurance, I never used that rain cloud insurance
Salesman: It never rains in rhode island!
Peter: There's no vocanos either
Salesman: Don't you think we're overdue for one?
Peter: Touché salesman

No return?

[hunterx11]

I beg to differ. In fact I predict that temperatures will return to their present levels within mere tens of thousands of years.

Such short-sighted people.

Duh!

[grumpyman]

Didn't we talk about it for the last 10-15 years? *Yawn* Until it is so significant that water permanently encroached dry grounds, who/government will notice or care? In where I live, this summer is frigging cold compare to last few years!!

Rising sea levels?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not since 1841 at least.

http://www.john-daly.com/

The scientists that cried wolf

[Anonymous Coward]

Is incredible the amount of bullshit you have to take form the so called "scientific" community these days, based on "facts" people can't corroborate and yielding "consequenses" nobody could measure, what? are they gonna show the pictures of the glaciers melting during summer?, well, that is upposed to happen, is summer for crying out loud!!!!. Their only goal is to scare the shit of regular joes, c'mon, ask the people from northern states and ask them if their winters are getting warmer by any chance, short answer no way.

People should take matters in own hands and stop funding these bozos that only want a paycheck every end of the month, the same scientists that have no clue avoiding disasters like the tsunami in Sri Lanka, fight cancer for once and all, stop "investigating" issues that are natural in the process of life of planet earth.

"Experts believe"...

[CptNerd]

Nice that we have people of faith providing these "scientific" reports. "Experts believe" this is the trend, "experts believe" this is the smallest ice coverage, "experts believe" this is the tipping point, etc. etc. etc.

I believe I'll have another drink...

Re:"Experts believe"...

[Prophet of Nixon]

Perhaps I need to become a Prophet of Global Warming...

5, 4, 3, 2 and now is 4 again.

[ferespo]

The moderator doesn't have firm opinions about the parent post.

Re:5, 4, 3, 2 and now is 4 again.

[m50d]

I suspect it's that some of the moderators are Americans while others come from the rest of the world. For some reason the US seems to have a huge blind spot where they just rabidly insist global warming is not happening. It's like telling a mac zealot that you can build an equal performance PC cheaper, they'll just deny it without even bothering to look at your numbers.

Re:5, 4, 3, 2 and now is 4 again.

[LnxAddct]

I suspect its because the Europeans have just as much of a bias in the opposing direction. Most Europeans I know just love to eat up whatever the media decides to feed them that day. Global warming is not happening, the Earth has been severely hotter than this and if you know anything about its history then you'd know we are still coming out of an ice age and dramatic weather changes are going to happen. The earth is unusually cold, so much so that both poles have ice which is rare. Stop insisting that global warming is happening until you stop arguing it based on the fact that the earth is getting warmer. And before anyone mentions the ozone hole... it has nothing to do with global warming, even if it did, it has already stopped growing larger. Stop being so damn pessimistic, we aren't changing the climate.
Regards,
Steve

Re:5, 4, 3, 2 and now is 4 again.

[mrchaotica]

For some reason the US seems to have a huge blind spot where they just rabidly insist global warming is not happening.

No, we don't. It's only our idiots who do. Unfortunately, the people who know the least are the ones who speak the loudest, so it just seems like we're all morons.

Re:5, 4, 3, 2 and now is 4 again.

[nmos]

Stop insisting that global warming is happening until you stop arguing it based on the fact that the earth is getting warmer.

??????

Re:5, 4, 3, 2 and now is 4 again.

[m50d]

I suspect its because the Europeans have just as much of a bias in the opposing direction. Most Europeans I know just love to eat up whatever the media decides to feed them

This statement should be preserved somewhere. Anyway, it's not just Europeans, it's anywhere outside the US.

if you know anything about its history then you'd know we are still coming out of an ice age and dramatic weather changes are going to happen.

"We know we're in a thunderstorm, lightning strikes will happen, so we might as well all wander around holding long metal poles above our heads"

The earth is unusually cold, so much so that both poles have ice which is rare.

For the earth it's unusual. For humanity as a species it's the way it's always been.

And before anyone mentions the ozone hole... it has nothing to do with global warming, even if it did, it has already stopped growing larger.

No, but it's proof that humanity impacts things on a global scale. It appears and grows when we use CFCs for everything and starts shrinking once we've finally eliminated them.

Stop being so damn pessimistic, we aren't changing the climate.

I'm sure there were pacific islanders saying that as they cut down the last of their trees.

Equilibrium mechanisms

[Reality Master 101]

What always makes me think "this is crapola" about stories like this is the assumption that the earth is fragile, and all it takes is a bit too much of [whatever behavior] to knock it out of balance into some cataclysm. The earth is NOT fragile.

I think the thing we most don't understand about the environment are the incredibly powerful equilibrium mechanisms that hold the earth's environment in check. The evidence for these is that life on earth has survived for BILLIONS of years. It's as though a lot of climatologist chicken littles think that environmental changes have never occurred on earth. HUGE changes have occurred, yet the earth has always pulled back to an equilibrium point that has provided life.

I predict that someday we'll find out that for everything we're doing, there will be some incredibly powerful mechanism that will balance it out, like how more carbon dioxide causes more plants to grow, which balances with creating more oxygen.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[The Ape With No Name]

Three words: Mass Extinction Events. Just because there is life left behind afterward doesn't mean that life will be anything approaching what you may consider 'normal.'

Another thing: How do you derive equilibrium in such a complex system? The term is meaningless.

Fact: anthropogenic global climate change is occuring and is characterized by higher temperatures during a period when the Earth should be cooling into another Ice Age as indicated by long-term climate data collected from ice coring.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[the eric conspiracy]

. HUGE changes have occurred, yet the earth has always pulled back to an equilibrium point that has provided life.

Right, but what makes you think that life will continue to include homo sapiens as a species?

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Anonymous Coward]

"HUGE changes have occurred, yet the earth has always pulled back to an equilibrium point that has provided life."

That will be a comfort after we have gone ahead and made the Earth uninhabitable for ourselves even if temporarily...maybe this is the equilibrium you speak of?

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Guysmiley777]

The EARTH is not fragile, true enough. WE are. What drives me nuts about typical tree huggers is they play the "we're destroying the planet" crap. The planet isn't going anywhere. "We're killing ourselves" is a much more accurate description.,

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[mikey_boy]

surely the point is not that the earth is fragile, but that our (human) existence on the earth is fragile.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Kupek]

The evidence for these is that life on earth has survived for BILLIONS of years.

Sure, but not necessarily us. The Earth itself will be fine and life will survive. However, the Earth might be in a condition that we won't survive. You're assuming that the Earth's environment will stabilize back to where it is now (or was pre-Industrial Revolution). There is no reason for this to happen.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[belg4mit]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=unstable+ equilibrium&btnG=Search

Increased concentrations of promotes growth in some plants CO2, higher temperatures have been shown to offset this and in some cases the combination is highly detrimental.

Another common hype is that the ocean will consume it all and save us, however recent evidence indicates that surface waters (there's relatively little mixing in the oceans, and CO2 solubility is diminished in the deeper colder waters anyhow) are approaching saturation i.e; the pH is changing.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Anonymous Coward]

The earth will likely never be "uninhabitable" for mankind. Barring Globalthermonuclear destruction, of course.

There have always been vast inhabitable climate swaths in past incidents of drastic global climate change, and they have always progressed in such a fashion as to allow for mass migration.

I'm not saying something couldn't go terribly wrong, but history has proven the earth to be quite stable, even when out-of-balance.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[rtaylor]

The earth is NOT fragile.
Humans are fragile though. Nobody really cares about what the earth will become outside of how it impacts us.

Whether human created or not, we're going to have to make a serious investment in relocation soon. The price tag tied to Katrina was high, but just wait until we get to move New York, Miami and other coastal cities.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Anonymous Coward]

"...what makes you think that life will continue to include homo sapiens as a species?"

You know, I've heard this argument from enough dittoheads that I'm convinced they don't actually care whether it does or not. The neocon motto should be "Lower your Expectations":

"At least we're not as bad as North Korea."
"So, the aid was a little late and some poor old black people died. It's not like anyone important was killed."
"Look, as long as somewhere, somehow, a cockroach survives, the Earth isn't technically destroyed."

Compassionate Conservatives: consistently lowering the bar since Barry Goldwater ran for president.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[aaronl]

While there is nothing that guarantees that humanity will persevere, it is most likely that we will. As a species, humans are more adaptable than any plant or animal species in history.

The biggest threat to our species is our species doing something like nuking itself out of existence. That's not something that you have any way to fix before everyone dies from it.

If the climate keeps heating, we will alter the environment to be suitable for ourselves. That will mean cooling and shielding indoor areas while altering the atmosphere to reduce temperatures. When that's overdone and it becomes too cold, we'll do the opposite. Eventually we'll be decent enough at it to keep it roughly where it is now. If food becomes a problem, then we'll create places to grow/raise food, and control the environments there, though on a much smaller scale.

Now, I'm not saying we won't royally screw up the environment in the process. Honestly, we're going to worry about people before plants and animals. We'll do what is necessary to insure the survival of our species.

That's why *I* think life will continue to include homo sapiens (unless we blow ourselves up).

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Reality Master 101]

Right, but what makes you think that life will continue to include homo sapiens as a species?

Because large mammals have been around for a billion years -- even without our technological advantages. What makes YOU think that the environment can be changed so radically that it's impossible for anything to survive? There is zero evidence for that, even from the craziest climatologist.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Reality Master 101]

There is no reason for this to happen.

But that's the point. There is every reason for this to happen. The earth has gone through massive change before, and will go through it again, yet has always kept to a relatively narrow band of livable conditions. What keeps the earth in equilibrium?

However, the Earth might be in a condition that we won't survive.

A single human is fragile, the human race is not.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[ch-chuck]

because homo-sapiens are the most adaptable creatures to evolve - we just change firmware (culture) and live on. Look at homo-sapiens living in the artic and in the deseart, near the sea and at high altitudes. There's a good probability that some humans would survive just about any change, and become the new remnant that goes on to populate the new world with a new species, and we will all just be areheological remains and vague story in their bibles.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Anonymous Coward]

consistently lowering the bar since Barry Goldwater ran for president

Yeah because Lyndon Johnson as the alternative was such a sensational compassionate Democrat that he got 45,000+ people killed in SE Asia... but not to split hairs or anything.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[gentlemen_loser]

The FIRST mammals only appeared (at the EARLIEST) 228 MYA during the Carnian period of the Upper Triassic.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[the eric conspiracy]

As a species, humans are more adaptable than any plant or animal species in history.

How the hell do you draw a conclusion like that? Human beings have only existed on the planet for 1-2 million years, and have come damn close to extinction many times if you believe the DNA evidence. Compare people with say the cockroach or blue-geern algae and you will realize our long term existence is very much an open question.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[the eric conspiracy]

What makes YOU think that the environment can be changed so radically that it's impossible for anything to survive?

There have already been 5 mass extinction events as determined by the fossil record. Most biologists feel that we are in the middle of the sixth right now. 4 out of the 5 known mass extinctions are believed to be due to climate change.

The Permian extinction caused of 96% of all existing species to die out. This Permian extinction was the cataclysm which stimulated the development of mammals.

It is absolutely ridiculous to say that climate changes can't lead to mass extinctions, or that mammals have been around for a billion years.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[aaronl]

First, algae is not plant or animal.

Second, I didn't say humans were the most likely to survive, just that they are the most adaptable. Cockroaches don't need to adapt, they are simply versatile. No other species can adapt the environment to themselves, and that makes humans something special.

Can you think of any event, that isn't likely to wipe out life on earth, that would wipe out humanity? Sure, a comet impact would kill off humans, but would global warming, an ice age, a supervolcano, etc? We'd probably manage to survive even if the atmosphere took on a poisonous gas mixture.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Reality Master 101]

It is absolutely ridiculous to say that climate changes can't lead to mass extinctions

And yet, life survived. I don't argue that climate changes don't cause, well, changes, but it's equally ridiculous to say that climate changes will sterilize the earth and make it unliveable for any life, particularly humans. Considering we currently live in every kind of climate (with a low-high temperature differential of 200 degrees F).

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Anonymous Coward]

A single human is fragile, the human race is not.

Yeah, that's what the dinosaurs said (not that they went through the same thing, but anyway..)

Two words for you: crop failure

The human race may indeed survive, but there may not be 6 billion of us anymore. Humans are ingenious and have built a vast technological society, but it's still heavily dependent on agricultural input, mostly from heavily specialized plants that might not grow too well in a suddenly different climate.

Without agriculture, you can hunt, but climate change hits the big, juicy animals hardest. We mammals all came from something the size of a shrew after the last big extinction event. So, have fun eating the rats and cockroaches.

Sometimes, I just like to think of how bad things can get and have us still survive. We're pretty smart and hardy, after all. Sadly, I think a lot of animals are basically pretty competent about scrounging around for food, and most are probably better than your average human around today. But not much made it through the last mass extinction, so that's not very encouraging, and probably places an upper bound on things. Fortunately, global warming would probably be significantly gentler than a massive impact.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Kupek]

A single human is fragile, the human race is not.

A great comment on evolution, the age of the earth, and the variety of species is that to many significant figures, all species are dead. That is, if you sum up all of the species that have ever existed on this planet, only a tiny minority of those are currently alive. We've been around as a species for some 200,000 years. That's nothing on a geological/evolutionary time scale. We haven't been around long enough to declare our resiliency. All species will one day become extinct, including us. We may indeed be fragile compared to other species; it's too soon to tell.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Reality Master 101]

That is, if you sum up all of the species that have ever existed on this planet, only a tiny minority of those are currently alive. [...] We haven't been around long enough to declare our resiliency.

The difference between us and "all species that have ever existed" is our adaptability. Short of the atmosphere being stripped away, there's nothing natural environmentally speaking that would kill the ENTIRE human race. Hell, even if the atmosphere did get ripped away, we'd probably build a few bio-domes in time for someone to survive.

Now, whether we'll kill ourselves via war (nukes, bioweapons, that sort of thing) is another question. But slow environmental change will never kill us off. It's too slow and we're too quick to adapt.

Re:Equilibrium mechanisms

[Kupek]

The difference between us and "all species that have ever existed" is our adaptability. Short of the atmosphere being stripped away, there's nothing natural environmentally speaking that would kill the ENTIRE human race. Hell, even if the atmosphere did get ripped away, we'd probably build a few bio-domes in time for someone to survive.

Our ability to build and innovate depends on the considerable infrastructure that we've built up over several centuries. If we lose some of the fundamental aspects of this infrastructure - the ability to mass produce food, for example - then our ability to adapt is considerabley hampered.

Huge ice cubes

[ndogg]

Time to start dropping huge ice cubes into the ocean. That will solve global warming once and for all.

Little Girl: But...

I SAID ONCE AND FOR ALL!

I can stop global warming

[ribblem]

Two words: Nuclear Winter

Black roofs and roads have done their jobs well

[denis-The-menace]

Black roofs and roads have done their jobs well.
They absorb heat instead of reflecting it.
The stones in them also store the heat.

If little twigs sticking out of the snow speed up melting by 70% (http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050 915.wtundra0915/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/)
imagine wet roads.

Elev: 300ft, 100 miles inland....

[warpSpeed]

Ahhh, I always wanted beach front property.

Thanks a lot yanks

[m50d]

Believe it or not the rest of the world doesn't just pretend to believe in global warming to try and destroy america's economic prosperity or something, as you all seem to assume

overplaying one's hand

[technoCon]

i recall reading Environmentalists in the '70s who would point to the Jimmy Carter gasoline lines and overpopulation, and claim that if we didn't Do Something Now (that generally included sending them money), the acid rain would kill us all by 1990. But I was busy with work and didn't notice the end of everything. How was it?

The Global Warming Problem was presented as a problem that was SO BAD we had to Do Something before we fully understood the problem. Then Kyoto came along and told us to sacrifice trillions on the altar of C02 emissions. NO, we must understand the problem before we can effect a solution thereto, otherwise we're no smarter than savages before a stone idol manipulated by its priests.

Environmentalism is not a new response to natural phenomena: "Behold! Moon goddess is eating the sun god. We'll all die unless you give me a sacrifice to appease her wrath." False prophets always run the risk of overplaying their hand. They get modest returns from modest promises and threats. Then they get greedy and escalate the promises/threats. But they feel control slipping from their grasp and then the threats become even more dire and their cries more shrill. All right, enviro-prophets, you've said the world shall surely end. Here's your haiku:

Rachel Carlson's
Jeremiad predicts doom.
Where are the Persians?

Re:overplaying one's hand

[JustNiz]

>> "Behold! Moon goddess is eating the sun god....

The difference is we now have empirical measurements that prove beyond a doubt that humans (mostly N.American humans) are directly responsible for global waming.

The real problem is that most Americans won't listen to the facts because it means they'll have to change their lifestyles.

Re:overplaying one's hand

[fred fleenblat]

>> the acid rain would kill us all by 1990. But I
>> was busy with work and didn't notice the end of
>> everything. How was it?

They actually *did* something about it and mandated pollution controls on coal-fired plants. You were probably too busy with work to notice that too.

Space lens, Then we control the 'thermostat'

[Fox_1]

It was proposed by Gregory Beneford story and talked about here too (I think but couldn't find the story). These crazy sci-fi solutions may eventually be the way past this kind of mess. At some point as a society and civilization we got to the point where we were a major influence on the enviroment, generally negative, and generally accidental - chaos is always easier to create then order - now we have to develop the technologies to allow us to have more concious control of our impact on the enviroment. Relying on mother nature only works when we are subjects of her, since we started making fires when it was cold we stopped being her subjects.

Time to Replace New Orleans Levees

[Anonymous Coward]

...by a waterproof dome.

Arctic ice is floating...

[geoff lane]

... so there is little change in sea level when it melts.

Of course all the fresh water may cause problems.

Re:Arctic ice is floating...

[Decaff]

... so there is little change in sea level when it melts.

Some of the ice within the Artic circle is NOT floating - the Greenland ice, for example.

Mod Parent Up!

[goldspider]

Somebody had to say it!

Seriously, all we're asking for is some consistency. And I'm not talking about consistently blaming every single meteorolgical event on global warming.

RTFA

[Srin Tuar]

They mention a very specific tipping point in the article: the melting of Greenland's glaciers.

That would cause a noticeable increase in sea level, as well as a decrease in the albedo of a large land mass- which will further increase the rate of warming.

Natural or not, it is very much a tipping point.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

It would also impact the salinity of the ocean in many locations possibly impacting many important ocean currents and ocean life.

Re:RTFA

[DrEldarion]

as well as a decrease in the albedo of a large land mass

Which means no more little land masses :(

Oh, you said albedo. Never mind.

Fire, no ice

[Anonymous Coward]

Thru the darkness of Future Past
the magician longs to see
one chants out between two worlds
Fire - walk with me.

Big Microwave Oven

[bluelip]

We may not be main cause of the warming, but we sure aren't helping out any.

More parts of our daily life are becoming wireless. It is in essence creating on big microwave oven on the surface of our planet. The'skin' of the earth is thin and only a fraction of the volume of the earth, but it's where we live.

Everytime we cool an area to make us more comfortable or to prevent food spoilage, we create a net gain in the temperature of the earth.

Re:Big Microwave Oven

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you actually have any scientific papers to back this info up or are you just pulling it out of your ass. I'd love to see some links.

Re:Big Microwave Oven

[lgw]

• Total average power consumption by humans: 4 TW. This all becomes waste heat.
  
• Total average solar power irradiating Earth: 170,000 TW. 39% is reflected, the remainder becomes heat.

What was your point again?

Re:Big Microwave Oven

[lgw]

Other cool (or warm) numbers.

• Total geothermal heat flow: 45 TW.
• Total body heat of all humans: 0.85 TW.

I hadn't thought about it before, but we only produce about 5 times as much power (all sources) as we eat.

Re:Big Microwave Oven

[gunnk]

I'll just second lgw's numbers (at least the second one). I ran the calculations myself and got 180,000TW for total solar power striking the Earth. The albedo number might be a bit high, though.

http://profhorn.aos.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/c hap2/Albedo.html

Re:Big Microwave Oven

[shmlco]

"More parts of our daily life are becoming wireless. It is in essence creating on big microwave oven on the surface of our planet."

Sheesh. That's got to be your own personal private pet theory.

Okay, let's put things into perspective. There's 96,000 TERAWATT/hours of solar energy hitting the surface of our planet each day. There's about 7 exajoules (1 EJ = 10^18 joules = 1000 PJ) of energy in the earth's magnetic field. An average of 700 nuclear particles per second hit each square metre of the Earth's surface.

And you're worried about a cell phone tower?

Re:Big Microwave Oven

[bluelip]

Where'd I say I was worried? I'll be dead before any of this matters.

Re:Big Microwave Oven

[bluelip]

>> (1 EJ = 10^18 joules = 1000 PJ)

I'm sorry though... I forgot to thank you for converting SI units for me.

So is this based on one of those flawed models

[ifwm]

That failed to account for how much CO2 is being released by the earth?

Or is it based on one of those other flawed model that failed to take something else into account, only we aren't sophisticated to detect it yet?

Seriously, wake me when you have some useful information.

Re:So is this based on one of those flawed models

[Karhgath]

Wake up =)

How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?

Re:So is this based on one of those flawed models

[ifwm]

You're a moron aren't you?

I was talking about the recent discovery that the models used to predict global warming didn't account for the earth releasing so much CO2, because we DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS HAPPENING.

By the way, that discovery occurred after the page you linked to was published.

So either do your fucking research, or stop involving yourself in a conversation that's way over your head.

Re:So is this based on one of those flawed models

[shutdown -p now]

Seriously, wake me when you have some useful information.

You mean, when your house will be flooded? Rest assured that you're not likely to sleep through that remarkable event.

Some real scientific things to ponder

[WillAffleckUW]

1. The energy stored in the Carribean has raised the sea temperature by one degree - and hurricane/storm strength is directly impacted by the heat storage in the sea/ocean.

2. Half of the damage - or more - is caused by the destruction of the surrounding wetlands around cities.

3. Much of the dollar cost of the damage is caused by the anti-environmental building policies that encourage the construction of expensive properties (like those of a certain senator) and their rebuilding after storms and hurricanes. As we provide economic incentives that override the normal economic disincentives, the wealthy move to the coast and build fancy developments that are more exposed, and sink more wealth into coastal areas.

4. The US population on the coast is growing faster than the rest of the country, while the empty areas that are in the middle are emptying out.

5. The quantity of hurricanes of significant level has not increased worldwide, but the strength of those major storms has increased dramatically (double).

6. The Carribean goes thru cycles of hurricanes - according to ship registries and historic records, we were in a lull for a while and now return to a long period of more hurricanes. Since the power of these is now double the usual amount (or more), and more property is exposed, and fewer barriers exist since many have been removed or the silt not permitted to dump on the land as used to happen in NOLA and coastal areas - well, basically we should expect a lot of massive hurricanes that we have never seen before.

Mountains shrinking

[Anonymous Coward]

Visit Mount Everest while it's still 8,850 metres high!!

If We Can't Stop It . . .

[SlothB77]

How Could We Have Caused It?

BTW, Tony Blair has disavowed Kyoto:

Blair, a longtime supporter of the Kyoto treaty, further prefaced his remarks by noting, "My thinking has changed in the past three or four years." So what does he think now? "No country, he declared, "is going to cut its growth." That is, no country is going to allow the Kyoto treaty, or any other such global-warming treaty, to crimp -- some say cripple -- its economy.

That's gotta hurt!

Re:If We Can't Stop It . . .

[spitzak]

The idea is that it is like you pushed a big rock over the edge of a cliff. Though you had enough power to push it up a few centimeters, it does not mean you have enough power to stop it falling.

Not that I necessarily agree with the article which I didn't read :-) But I'm pretty certain that is the argument. (My personal feeling is that eventually everybody on Earth will work on a unbelievably huge public works project to build some machine in the ocean or whatever is necessary to fix the environment, and thus we WILL stop it. However things will be REALLY BAD before this happens, so it does not mean we should not be concerned).

Re:If We Can't Stop It . . .

[SlothB77]

Let me put it this way: If we can cause climate change in terms of warming, then shouldn't we be able to cause climate change in terms of cooling?

If we can push a rock to the left, we can push it to the right.

Pushing a rock off a cliff is not the same as warming, because gravity is no longer neutral. Pushing the rock horizontally on a flat surfaces makes everything else neutral. Whether it is global cooling or global warming, in the hypothetical everything else is neutral.

Re:If We Can't Stop It . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

A more accurate analogy would be if we can throw a small monkey wrench into a large turbine generator and mess it up, can't we just remove the wrench from the turbine and undo the damage?

Just a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

If we don't survive then there will be no Christians left, and God will vanish in a puff of ilogic.

Isn't there

[CiXeL]

some Bible verse that talks about the seas boiling?

Pirates dammit

[thewils]

We need more pirates...

You've been meme'd by Ronald Reagan

[ApharmdB]

Damn it. Ronald Reagan makes up some BS about Mt. St. Helen's and people until eternity will think that it's true because a president said it.

"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." -- Ronald Reagan, 1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)

Quote from here.

You're right

[CiXeL]

We should PAVE antarctica!

baffled

[micromuncher]

Its odd that so many people think this isn't a big deal, siting issues like "we don't know enough" or "its happened before in our geological history"...

If you actually put some common sense into, that is the carbon cycle over millions of years has store sh1tloads of carbon away underground, and that in the next hundred years its very likely we will have put it all up in the atmosphere... and that carbon contributes to global warming, that has the side effects of unpredictable violent weather, and a general slowing of the earth on its axis (like Venus)... you would think that even the SUGGESTION that we should be conscious over what is in our control would be an action item.

An analogy is forest fires... forests have burned forever, contributing to the nitrogen cycle and carbon cycle. But now we're hell bent on putting them out. Sure, it means not-so-much carbon, but the result is a f4cked up nitrogen cycle and a build up of biomass just waiting to be a serious blaze. Why do we fight the fires then? Protect peoples homes? OR to protect the forestry industry?

So the ocean rises a few inches, and a bunch of well established species get extinct; just think of how many times we get to rebuild New Orleans, Miami, and such...

Re:baffled

[ednopantz]

you would think that even the SUGGESTION that we should be conscious over what is in our control would be an action item.

Unless focusing all our efforts on effecting a trivial dent in climate change prevents us from working on more important things like malaria or HIV, or malnutrition. All the politcally convenient sturm and drang (we get to blame America for something else!) ignores the more important problems.

The shrieking hysteria of the British press is amazing. The Independent needs to just get it over with and start running the same headline every day: "The Sky is Falling and it is all America's Fault!" It would save a whole lot of trouble.

Re:baffled

[CFTM]

Actually, it really isn't a big deal and here's why; regardless of what occurs there will still be life on this planet. Human beings are not the center of the Universe; we're not even the center of this planet though we act that way.

Human beings don't matter, so even if the oceans rise by sixty meters there will be a new paradigm of life that will survive. Personally, I'm not going to trip about something that is much bigger and more powerful than me. I'm going to go along getting the most out life; translation interacting with other human beings and savouring just how amazing this little fluke called conciousness is.

Our time will come to an end here; maybe it'll be in my lifetime maybe it won't. Global Warming is happening; it's going to cause drastic changes to the ecosystem. We can't even begin to fathom the impact of these changes; the law of unintended consequence always holds. Life is dynamic, not static so why trip? Personally, I don't see the point in it.

Re:baffled

[the_2nd_coming]

hmm.. so, 400 years left for the human race? great. lets just not care about our species. I hope your Hindu.

Re:Real Doom: Overpopulation

[Anonymous Coward]

So then is the ideal human population 0?

Not the reason for good farm land....

[postbigbang]

Northern Indiana, while it survived the ice age, was once a huge marsh through the various river valleys that ran through the area. These marshes were drained, just ike Chicagoland was, in the 1800's and 1900's. The remaining silt made for good farm land. The withdrawal of glacial activity merely made it flat and sucseptable to contours that made the marshes and flow. It took several thousand years to make that dirt as black as it is, prarrie grasses, fowl, and trillions of shellfish lived up there. No more.

Now you can have corn chips.

We've put a SERIOUS dent into our plant's ecosystem. Look at all of the species gone, do to man. Look at all the ones on the endangered list(s).

There's overwhelming evidence. Just look at it. It's not disjointed, it's not anecdotal, it's scientific evidence.

Please go back to your job in the Bush administration and stop playing with your computer on the government's time.

Re:Not the reason for good farm land....

[deanj]

That last comment of yours... You're saying the Bush Administration is to blame for this? For something that's been going on for hundreds of years? What, pray tell, did Clinton do during his time to stop it?

Sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling.

Re:Not the reason for good farm land....

[postbigbang]

The Bush administration has blithely ignored the problem. Clinton didn't do very well. Bush the Elder did even more poorly. Carter tried. Ford didn't have the first brain in his body. Nixon plainly stank at it. Johnson tried. Eisenhower tried. The rest is before I was born.

Oh, let's look at Kyoto, as an example. Or, rather, let's not. I detect a distinct lack of willingness on your part to concede the possibility that you might be wrong. This planet has finite resources and we're polluting the place where my sons, daughters, grandsons/daughters, etc will have to live. I would have liked to have someone several generations downstream say, gosh at that point, we'd actually evolved to where we cared about what happened because we saw a clear and present danger to the earth caused by its human populace rather than natural events. But I digress.

Re:Not the reason for good farm land....

[jafac]

Look at all of the species gone, do to man.

Personally, I can't wait until the last elephant dies. An extinct species would be the ideal mascot for the Republican Party.

Re:Not the reason for good farm land....

[Anonymous Coward]

Please go back to your job in the Bush administration and stop playing with your computer on the government's time.

From that request, I conclude there is little reason to take you seriously (yes, you are being sarcastic but what is fucked in your head to think that that is funny, wicked, or even ap propos sarcasm?). Got evidence? Spit it out, link to it, but do not just say you got it (and lots). Your rhetoric is so slip-shod that maybe it is you working for that "Bush" administration in order to discredit that other side.

U.N. Says It's Healing

[Snap E Tom]

But just today, the U.N. says the ozone layer is healing.

Re:U.N. Says It's Healing

[Karhgath]

There is no correlation between the ozone layer and global warming and there never was any. Some people might have led you to believe that, but it's simply not the case, when you look at the science itself and what the scientists are saying.

Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't we have the responsibility to minimize our impact on other people and other species?"

If you believe in God, we probably do.
If you don't, there is no reason to think that I have responsibility to do anything I don't want to.

HAHAHA

[CiXeL]

You're AWESOME. I was thinking of the EXACT same thing.

The Truth is in the Middle

[MrClear]

I know far less about this topic than I should, but this strikes me as one of those cases where the loud people at either end of the spectrum have drowned out reasonable discussion.

Yes, the earth has seen a lot of sweeping climate changes in its history and it's not obvious that this one is that far out-of-line, statistically, with what's happened before. But can we agree that it's probably not smart to continue to pump stuff into the air that you personally wouldn't want to breath knowing that there's a finite amount of atmosphere we have to live in? That air containing foreign substances is going to chemically behave differently than the air that's been sustaining us for all this time? It's worth a serious look, particularly in light of all of the other problems that fossil fuels cause.

We shouldn't have to only think about this when an alarmist raises the issue, but we do. Let's not blame our laziness on our leaders. Just keep the issue in mind as you make decisions about transportation, products you buy, your use of energy, etc. Support those in government that will set goals for industry to reduce emmissions. My fear is that it's too easy to dismiss the guys that say we can't burn one more ounce of gasoline, and just decide to do nothing. It's not an all-or-nothing issue. Think it over and you'll probably find that you can make some incremental improvements.

Karl Rove + Lex Luthor

[bmajik]

Remember Lex Luthors plan to get rich ? Buy all the property on the east side of the san andreas fault, then set off nukes in the fault to sink the west half of the state. Lex would overnite own the majority of waterfront property in california.

According to the sinless triumverate of truth (moveon.org, indymedia, and dailykos), Karl Rove has almost completed his master plan of melting all global ice to raise the world sealevel by 23ft.. which in a single stroke would wipe out almost all democratic voters in the US, as well as place all socialist-european countries in state of total turmoil whilst they tried to rebuild their cities and save their tax base (their population).

The republicans would then RULE THE WORLD!

Re:Karl Rove + Lex Luthor

[Fastball]

Dude, give us Republicans a little credit. We've got the Supreme Court, House, Senate, and White House already. We don't need no stinking melted ice cap!

Re:Karl Rove + Lex Luthor

[The Lynxpro]

"Remember Lex Luthors plan to get rich ? Buy all the property on the east side of the san andreas fault, then set off nukes in the fault to sink the west half of the state. Lex would overnite own the majority of waterfront property in california."

Sounds like Zorin's plan to get rich by flooding Silicon Valley in the James Bond flick *A View to a Kill* if you ask me.

ps. Superman is lame. Bruce Wayne can kick Kal-El's Kryptonian keister.

Re:Karl Rove + Lex Luthor

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd still try to sleep with Mayday

Re:Karl Rove + Lex Luthor

[The Lynxpro]

"I'd still try to sleep with Mayday"

Dolph Lungren, is that you??? :)

Re:Karl Rove + Lex Luthor

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that makes about as much sense as the other one I heard today... Republicans blew up the levies in New Orleans so the African-American neighborhoods would get flooded!

Keem'em commin! these are funny. Ha Ha Ho Ho!

Who is falling for the media hype?

[patomuerto]

As someone who has done some work in this field I have to say I hate these articles. Chances are it is media hype. But it works because both sides dig in and either call them alarmists or prophets.

It would be nice if those who jump to say 'I told you so' would recongnize that this is the one of the first articles that claim to have evidence decided we are past a tipping point. The people involved are reutable but we need more research.

It would also be nice for those denying that there is a problem to get some of their facts straight. While the media only reports on catastrophic events like massive flooding and hurricanes those are the worst case predictions. Many of the scientist more realistic predictions made in the past are on tract. West Nile virus, Avian flu, malaria are showing up where it never has before. 20 years ago climate scientist had claimed that this would be an indirect result. There is also other indirect evidence like bird/fish/herd migration changes, species sensitivity and so on. As well as direct evidence as found in telecontection analysis, outgoing longwave radiation, etc (just google climate studies).

The biggest problem is everyone wants or expects a definetive answer right now. It is probably the most complex system that is currently intesivly studied. That is why they need massive supercomputers and incredible amounts of data. You are not going to get an easy answer for about 100 years.

In my opinion it should be more like a health problem. I personally would like to live a long health life. There are now the obvious things to avoid like smoking and drugs, but I also might at least listen when someone talks about chloesterol, heart disease, and bbq pork ribs (mmm, ribs).

Re:Who is falling for the media hype?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Welcome to the 20th century. Everything you need, delivered NOW! Every fix delivered as a quick ingestable pill. Every decision as easy as yes or no.

How long until folks grow up? I don't know. I would like to say I see signs of enlightenment dawning in our civilization, but I can't. I do take some comfort in knowing that, despite our stupidity, we have managed to survive this long.

Re:Who is falling for the media hype?

[patomuerto]

I really dont question our survival. In many ways I am impressed that we have survived as well.

Unfortunatly I think that the quick fix idea will never change. I am well educated, well read and just as gullible as the next guy when I hear something that is too good to be true. And, I self centeredly(if isreal(word)) feel I have made great sacrifice and question my survival when I feel the right thing to do drive my honda to work instead of my jeep cj. It is the only thing that makes me cool.

It is probably a human condition instead of a mater of reasoning it out.

Re:Who is falling for the media hype?

[RoboRay]

Welcome to the 20th century? You're living in the past, man. Move on!

"According to wikipedia..."

[ScentCone]

According to wikipedia...

Is it just me, or does anyone else get a small case of the hives when that's how a comment starts? Of course, people who say that hopefully mean, "According to a person who posted something on Wikipedia, and the persistent people who agree with him..." - but it's looking more and more as though people are treating that overgrown blog like a credibly peer-reviewed, scientific-method-powered, authoritative entity that has collected The Truth And Facts on... everything.

Of course, there's no reason not to trust a web site that also profiles porn stars, fishing lures, bad sitcoms, acne, beer brewing, and the history of toenail clippers as an indisputable source of climatalogical analysis. Oh wait, yes there is.

Re:"According to wikipedia..."

[Anonymous Coward]

but it's looking more and more as though people are treating that overgrown blog like a credibly peer-reviewed, scientific-method-powered, authoritative entity that has collected The Truth And Facts on... everything.

How many eyes cross a Britannica article before being published? I don't know either...

Re:"According to wikipedia..."

[16K Ram Pack]

No, I don't.

Are the facts they are quoting wrong? Do you have some corrections? Post them in the discussion or correct on Wikipedia, but don't just try and attack the source.

Re:"According to wikipedia..."

[myth24601]

For a few days last week, hurricane Katrina was caused by an erect Male Penis.

Re:"According to wikipedia..."

[ScentCone]

Are the facts they are quoting wrong?

Sometimes, or are questionable when the article is full highly politicized references or links to idealogical sites.

Do you have some corrections?

Sometimes.

don't just try and attack the source

You'll notice I didn't. I was expressing concern over how readily people are starting to, without any caveats, refer to Wikipedia as authoritative.

Re:"According to wikipedia..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"people are starting to, without any caveats, refer to Wikipedia as authoritative."

"According to Wikipedia" IS a caveat. (According to me)

Re:"According to wikipedia..."

[ScentCone]

How many eyes cross a Britannica article before being published? I don't know either...

Nope, me neither. But I wasn't thinking of them (though they are easy to point to, and somewhat accountable, and can tell you who their editors are). No, I was thinking more in terms of established journals with rigorous, transparent peer review practices and a history of refining the larger body of research as more is conducted. That's not to say that nothing of that caliber makes it onto Wikipedia - it's that it's hard to tell which is which. I could post a completely ridiculous entry there, and then make a somewhat intelligent-sounding post here, referencing that Wiki article... and many, many people would take what is thus argued as gospel (less so here on slashdot, but very much so in many other venues, like twit-blogs). That's what bothers me. Of course it's somewhat self-correcting over the long haul, but not before lots of FUD or sugarcoating gets passed around.

Re:"According to wikipedia..."

[molo]

If you read the article, you would see that a source was cited for that statement:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/412.htm#t ab113

-molo

Re:"According to wikipedia..."

[ScentCone]

If you read the article, you would see that a source was cited for that statement

I suppose my gripe, then, would be about citing Wikipedia, rather than citing the actual source. It just serves to bolster the point being discussed, rather than to bolster the notion of Wikipedia as an authoritative entity in and of itself.

Re:"According to wikipedia..."

[molo]

Yeah, wikipedia in this often-modified form is not authoritative on its own. See here for policy on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_source s

BTW, there are plans being talked about to have reviewed articles be snapshotted into a "stable" branch and releasing a subset of articles that way. I'm curious to see how well that works out.

-molo

Re:"According to wikipedia..."

[raoul666]

Of course, there's no reason not to trust a web site that also profiles porn stars, fishing lures, bad sitcoms, acne, beer brewing, and the history of toenail clippers as an indisputable source of climatalogical analysis. Oh wait, yes there is.

And what would that reason be, exactly? Not to say Wikipedia is perfect, but it's mission is to be an great big tome of knowledge about all kinds of crap, and if that means pages about fishing or beer, where's the harm in that? You do realize the guy who writes about his favourite porn star probably isn't the same guy who puts up his carefully collected research on climate change, right? Or if it, maybe he/she knows enough to do BOTH with a little pride.

No, it ain't perfect, but it ain't bad either. If you don't believe me, go look at the pages of stuff you already know about. Then judge it for yourself. Sound good?

Re:"According to wikipedia..."

[jsight]

That's not unique to Wikipedia, though. Echo chambers for incorrect data are everywhere on the web (and really everywhere in journalism, but in a slightly more commercial sense there).

Same old same old

[MrDRwin]

Allow me to quote from TFA...

Scientists fear that the Arctic...
They believe global warming...
The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached...
Experts believe that such a loss...
The feeling is we are reaching a tipping point...

Anybody see a pattern here? Seems to me like they don't know much of anything. They just have a lot of opinions. Opinions based on 26 years worth of data.

Arctic specialists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Colorado University, who have documented the gradual loss of polar sea ice since 1978, believe that a more dramatic melt began about four years ago.

Personally, I kinda hope they're right. If the damage is done and irreversible maybe people will stop bitching about it. (not likely)

Re:Same old same old

[patomuerto]

The only one who claims to know exactly what is going to happen are the pundits. The entire argument has left the scientific community and now it is distorted by the media and political parties (both).

There's a better way...

[oliverthered]

It seems that the best way to push up the price of oil would be for the UN to tax oil at the point of production and use the money to fund research into alternative sources of fuel.

The worst case is a few people have to start playing traditional games instead of watching the TV to keep themselves amused.

There's also the Third (easy) way: make sure you and your partner only have one child. With a lower population we will use less resources

Re:There's a better way...

[Fastball]

UN taxation of goods. Board games > television. One kid per nuclear family.

Why not throw in a link to a bunny with a pancake on its head while you're at it?

Re:There's a better way...

[aaronl]

OK now, when I take consider how ridiculous the GP post was, it was almost certainly tongue-in-cheek. I have an odd feeling that *your* post was serious. On with the show...

No, one of the worst things you could do is let the UN have control like this. It is even unconstitutional in the US, and probably something equivalent in many other places, for that to happen. I would never respect any form of tax the UN tried to impose, and would actually support withdrawing or the dissolving of the organization over it. It is not, should not, and hopefully will never be, the place of the UN to do something like that.

The best way to push up the price would be for OPEC/etc. to decide they want more profit. Second best way is for individual countries to place excises or tariffs on oil. The EU has found that that approach makes them quite a lot of money, and the US is just catching on to that revenue source now. You notice that it doesn't cut consumption too much; that's because it was only intended to get revenue for the governments.

Worst case is that your tax would start another world war. Best case is that people use less fossil fuels. Most likely is that countries withdraw from the UN and do as they were before. Those "points of production" would either ignore the UN, or withdraw.

Realistically, the vast majority of people don't want oil to be expensive. That would mean that they have to spend more to get their petroleum products. The right way is to have the alternate form in advance, and make it a better product than the petroleum based products. There are no other forms of portable energy product that are better than oil products, and that exist today.

You propose forcing people to give their money to some organization that they have no power over, and then using that money for fuel research. A better way is to convince them to conserve, convince them to donate their money, and convince businesses that it is a good area for investment.

Someday people will learn that you can't fix things with taxes and regulation. Most problems are social in nature, and *people* need to change to fix them. Making something illegal does not stop it, and neither does taxing it. This issue is no different. Conservation programs try to fix it in the social aspect, and occasionally offer incentives for that conservation.

At least your "third/easy way" makes sense. It probably wouldn't work, but might work is a decent reason. As long as there is no force to try to coerce people into only having one child. Logic would say that less people equals less resource consumption, but I think people would fill the gap. You have a lot of third world countries that are industrializing, so the effect of negative population growth would not likely be felt beside that.

Re:There's a better way...

[Anonymous Coward]

UN? Tax? on what authority can the UN tax anything?

Re:There's a better way...

[oliverthered]

My post was in a pipedream sense, not serious.

The GGP post used a capitalist hack to make fuel expensive.

The UN can and have done anything they want, but you've missed the point for the UN to impose a tax the UN would have had to have agreed on it, and the US would not have vetoed it. So for the UN to impose a tax most of the world must first agree with the tax.

This is a 'socialist hack'

The 'third way' reference should have given the post away as not being too serious, the 'third way' was a term used by Tony Blair for 'new socialism'.

Population control would help, the UK population is more or less stable at 65 Million, so in theory the UK's consumption should be stable.
Most countries have some form of population control mechanism in place, e.g. in the UK sex education foxuses a lot on Birth control, the pill is available for free, and abortions and the morning after pill are easy to come buy.

Re:There's a better way...

[cpeterso]

The birth rate in developed nations is already less than their replacement rate. Affluence = fewer babies.

Re:There's a better way...

[AaronGTurner]

True in some, but not all developed nations.

Re:There's a better way...

[oliverthered]

So, your counting the USA as a non-developed nation?

I suppose that's fair, depending on what you mean be developed, since the USA has only been around a few hundred years and most European nations are a lot older than that.

It's also fair to note that Catholic nations / groups have a higher birth rate because the pope denounces contraception.

It may also be that the people are more affluent because they had fewer children to split their money between, a family with one child has a lot more spaire cash than a family with ten children.

speaking of ice core samples

[frankie]

Although global climate might be within plausible variation, here's one undisputed fact of human effects. We have royally mucked up the atmosphere.

For at least the past 400000+ years, global CO2 concentrations fluctuated solidly in the 180-300ppm range. Methane flucutated 300-700ppb on a matching path, and both correlate strongly with temperature (r about .8) over that time.

Today, CO2 has shot up to 380ppm and methane above 1700ppb. Any rational observer should conclude this is A Bad Thing(tm).

BTW, we're currently towards the high end of average temperature, not low. What is the phrase "still coming out of an ice age" is being measured against?

Re:speaking of ice core samples

[lgw]

The current ice age began about 50,000,000 years ago, in the Eocene Epoch. The warm periods like we're in now are quite rare, and significant glaciation is the norm. There's no reason to think we're coming out of the current ice age (human activity can't touch events on that scale) but we might be in for some even warmer times in the near future - for a few piddling millinia or so at worst.

Re:speaking of ice core samples

[barawn]

It depends how you use ice age. If you use it to mean "a period where ice exists in any permanent form at the poles" then yes, we're in an ice age.

If you use it to mean "a period where ice covers a large portion of North/South America" then no, the most recent Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago. The public confusion of "glacial period" and "ice age" is understandable.

There's no reason to think we're coming out of the current ice age (human activity can't touch events on that scale)

Did you read the article? That's exactly what this article is saying - it's talking about loss of glaciers from Greenland. Greenland is one of the two ice sheets that make the current time period by definition an ice age.

If they're right, and Greenland's ice sheets are no longer stable, that's very bad - and we may have just pushed ourselves really out of the current ice age - where "ice age" means the first definition above. This, of course, depends on what happens in the Antarctic, but losing the Greenland ice sheet is not comforting.

Re:speaking of ice core samples

[Anonymous Coward]

How is losing an ice sheet that's only been around for about 100,000 years "very bad"? Ice sheets are not necessary for life on this planet, or even particularly conducive to it, so what exactly is so bad about having less of them?

OK, so the sea level rises, making some low-lying areas uninhabitable, while some currently uninhabitable areas become more pleasant, triggering one of the periodic climate-related mass migrations of animals (including humans). Some species disappear, others change, and new ones evolve -- pretty much par for the course for life on this planet, and rather benign compared with some natural disasters that living things (including early humans) have endured.

Re:speaking of ice core samples

[lgw]

The problem with your reaosning is that the Earth has many feedback mechanisms which control CO2 levels and temperatures. Sure, we might upset things for what seems like a long time because we only live 100 years, but those feedback mechanisms will correct the situation as they have many time in the past. The total amount of CO2 in all available fossil fuel is large compared to the amount currently in the atmosphere, but trivial compared to the total size of the geological carbon cycle. The undersea oil beds will all be subducted and that CO2 eventually outgassed regardless of mankind's actions.

"Ice Ages" in the geological sense last tens of millions of years, and are characterized by periods of glaciation. These alternate with warm spells in which there in no glaciation anywhere for tens of million of years. That cycle is driven by the weathering of exposed rock causing CO2 to be bound up with silicates and deposited on the ocean floor, subducted, and eventually outgassed again. The total amount of carbon moved though this cycle in even a few thousand years is more than mankind will likely ever burn (and it's a negative feedback cycle as glaciation reduces the amount of rock exposed to weathering). And that's just the big slow cycle - there are much faster biological cycles and feedback mechanisms at work that are less well understood.

Not to say we can't make a problem for ourselves in the next few centuries, but not on a scale that's more than a hiccough to a geological process.

Venus is an unsettling example...

[nobodyman]

But we are actually still coming out of the last ice age, so we may just be egotistical to think that we have an effect on the planet's climate.

Well, the trite response would be too say that we obiously have an effect on the climate, if only a minuscule effect, but I certainly would agree that we arrogantly put humanity on the wrong side of the equation -- we think of the climate as a function of humanity, when more accuratly it's the other way around. I mean it's not like the dinosaurs caused the climate shift that ultimately took them out, right?

Yeah, I know... gross oversimplification. But my point is that the # of living creatures has fluctuated with the climate (e.g.

I'd be willing to agree that we might have a minimal impact on the earths climate relative to all of the other factors. But that said, it's not like it takes that much of an impact in the first place to tip the scales, which is what the article talks about.

I have virtually nill astronomy education so please correct me, but my understanding is that Venus' closer proximity to the sun would only account for a 5-10% higher temperature than Earth, when just considering the increased amount of energy from the sun. However we know that Venus' temperature is 1000x hotter than earth (the biggest problems with venus probes was that they usually melted, right?). So why is it venus so damn hot? Because that 5% led to more cloud cover on venus than earth, which trapped more heat, causing more evaporation, more clouds, more greenhouse effects, wash, rinse, repeat until you wind up with a planet that can't support any form of life.

I'll spare the fruity "delicate balance" lecture but suffice to say as little effect that we may have, who is to say that it isn't enough to screw things up( or make it better)?

Warmskions

[A beautiful mind]

I follow the diver
Down to Central Park
Swimming in the stream of change
A January summer night
Divers swimming by
Listening to the stream of change

The world closing in
Did you ever think
That we could be so close, like brothers
The future's in the air
I can feel it everywhere
Flowing with the stream of change

Chorus:
Take me to the magic of the moment
On a gory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away
In the stream of change

Swimming down the street
Distant memories
Are buried in the water forever

I follow the diver
Down to Central Park
Listening to the stream of change

Take me to the magic of the moment
On a gory night
Where the children of tomorrow share their dreams
With you and me

Take me to the magic of the moment
On a gory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away
In the stream of change

The stream of change flows straight
Into the face of the Statue of Liberty
Like a stormwind that will ring
The freedom bell for peace of mind
Let your sonar ping
What my guitar wants to say
Take me to the magic of the moment
On a gory night
Where the children of tomorrow share their dreams
With you and me

Take me to the magic of the moment
On a gory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away
In the stream of change

Re:Global warming flooding insurance policy

[djdavetrouble]

I don't know, but we in the insurance industry are coming up with some pretty radical ideas to make sure this "global warming" doesn't affect our bottom line. Our lobbyists are hard at work getting some of these ideas to important governement people. A sneak peek (if you promise not to tell):

1. We're pretty sure that we can avert a total disaster if everyone would just DRINK MORE WATER. We will make sure this happens through a sort of "anti ration" where it is required by law that you drink x amount of water every day.

2. We will build a nuclear power plant used to power a gigantic ice making slash catapult machine that re freezes ocean water and then sends it back to the poles as nice ice cubes.

3. Build a space elevator which will take buckets of water way way up high and then just leave the water up there somewhere. We think a "space lake" would be good for the up and coming space tourism industry.

4. Water powered car. Hey, why not? Pretty soon you will just be able to use your "cold fusion match" and make a nice campfire from a bucket of water. This technology is not far away. You heard it first here. Fasten your seatbelts and get ready to roll.

5. Speaking of cars, we figure that with all of the oil that we have been using up, we can just fill up alot of these empty wells with all of our "extra water". Plus we could save it for later when we really need it in another million years.

You can see these need a bit of fleshing out, but with a few scientists and your insurance premiums, I am pretty sure we can make something happen.

Re:Who Cares!!!

[Chosen Reject]

As long as Bush co. can make a buck or two

Thank you for your insight. I was unaware that this global warming started on January 20, 2000. My, look at what can happen in only 5 1/2 years.

Global Cooling

[RacerZero]

In 1975 Newsweek printed an article listing scientist's concerns over global cooling. One of the proposed actions was to cover the Arctic ice sheet with black soot to promote melting. I wonder what would have happened if world leaders had actually taken action to stop "Global Cooling".

New Immingration policy

[FreeUser]

But there isn't going to be any wheat in Nunavut any time soon. Soil profiles in the tudra are very poor. You need somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years (depending on your source) of grasses growing, dying, rotting into the ground, fixing nitrogen and building up a proper soil profile before you can grow wheat or any other major crop.

A new immigration policy for us Americans trying to flee North to escape the Jesus Freaks and their post-Nazi masters in the White House: You can come on in, but you have to bring all the topsoil out of your yard/farm in the process. Sorry city dwellers, a minimum of 50 cubic/feet per person, no exceptions (that rules me out).

Think of it as a poor-man's Terraforming of the erstwhile tundra.

Re:New Immingration policy

[Darby]

Sorry city dwellers, a minimum of 50 cubic/feet per person, no exceptions (that rules me out).

<cartman> God dammit!!! </cartman> So are you saying that asphault doesn't count?!?

Re:Doom and Gloom NO, Just one of 5 CO2 Peaks

[BoRegardless]

People think "the ice age" is a defining moment. There was a mini-ice age in the 17th century. There was one that ended maybe 14,000 years ago. Those are NOT the LONG TERM cycles that repeat on earth.

Those 5 CO2 peaks over the last 400,000 years came from the
Vostok Antarctica ice cores (about every 100,000 years). Our actual CO2 might be expected to go a bit higher based on the prior peaks, but then something repeatedly changes in the world's ecosphere in the past cycles and there is an ABRUPT drop in CO2 in the past history.

Why did it go up?
Why did it turn?
What long term sun cycles or sun spots only exist, which we have not detected yet?
Does a direct hit by a large coronal mass ejection/s offer a drastic change to the earth's enviroment?
Why did it go down precipitously?
Once you know what caused it, does it have so much power behind it that man can or can NOT change it?

If you look at facts instead of blathering, it becomes apparent that scientists and interested laymen yet today have no proof of what moves the momentum of the truely long term ecosystem's atmosphere.

I personally believe we will find that man is incapable of altering the long term climatic cycles, and at some point Canada & Northern Europe and Asia will again go under kilometers of ice, and man (just like the Vikings in Greenland), will only be able to look on in horror as the ice relentlessly takes over the land they used to work and live on.

You can easily see the CO2 charts on the web, but I won't post any URLs.

Bo

Book about this

[lucifuge31337]

My daughter just got a book about this. It's an interesteing read.

I find your lack of faith disturbing

[Analogue Kid]

I think it is Hubris for humans to think that we can destroy the Earth. We certainly can make it uninhabitable for certain flora and fauna, including Humans, but we can't destroy it.

My friend, you sorely underestimate us. First off, do you have any idea of the power of our nuclear arsenal? The bombs that hit Japan at the end of WWI may have had yeilds of a dozen kilotons or so. Contrast that with the Soviet Tsar Bomba made less than 20 years later and capable of over 50 MEGAton yeilds. Do you really think that there hasn't been any further refinement in the 40 years since?

It is entirely possible that we could knock the earth out of it's orbit entirely from here. However, it that isn't possilbe, it's entirely possible to knock asteroids and comets out of their solar orbits. We have the math and technical ability to put them on a collison course with the earth. And then... KAPOW! That would be enough kinetic energy to send this little ball of water and sand into a decaying orbit. All it would take would be a little "team work".

R12 is back!

[cloudmaster]

So, I presume that, since we can't do shit to stop it, I can go back to buying R-12 for my old cars again real soon? The evaporator in my Caprice just doesn't work as efficiently with the R-134a conversion, and Freeze-12 isn't as effective. :)

Re:R12 is back!

[brian6string]

Interestingly, today the U.N. said that the Ozone hole is actually shrinking now, and should continue to do so.

Re:R12 is back!

[cloudmaster]

Probably because I stopped changing my refrigerant monthly, and instead fixed the leak. Sorry 'bout that. :)

Beach Front

[sycodon]

I, for one, am looking forward to purchasing some of the newest beach front property in the world.

Anyone know which Real Estate agent to contact?

Re:Beach Front

[mossmann]

Lex Luthor

Question about melting rates

[freality]

When they do ice core samples in the ant/arctic, do they look at all of the layers (top too) and see what the overall correspondence between freeze and melt is? I'm wondering if there's any evidence of fast thaws followed by fast freezes, how far the one goes before the other kicks in, and how often the cycles happen. Does anyone know where to find out more about this?

Tipping point is a technical reality

[musselm]

(1) Processes of change, especially those tied to other changing parameters, can be modeled quite accurately by systems of differential equations.

(2) In many systems, there is a point at which a seemingly gradual change takes an irrevocable turn for the worse.

(3) The Earth's climate involves many inter-connected processes of change.

(4) The Earth's climate could be modeled (with sufficient resources) by an enormous system of differential equations.

(5) Somewhere in there could be lurking at least one point of no return.

(6) Tipping point!

I agree, Clinton was a problem on this topic...

[slew]

According to this SFChronicle article

The (unratified) global-warming pact required the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Yet, according to the Energy Information Administration, greenhouse emissions grew by 3.1 percent in 2000 alone; when Clinton left office, emissions were 14 percent higher than 1990 levels.

The latest figures from the Energy Information Administration are for 2002; they show that under the Bush administration, greenhouse gas emissions are lower -- they're 11.5 percent higher than 1990 levels. I won't credit Bush for the reduction, because the post-Sept. 11 economy was the big factor here, as the Sierra Club's Dan Becker pointed out. But if Bush truly were Satan on the environment, pollution numbers should have gone up, not down.

Of course the president can't unilaterally ratify a treaty, so maybe not all the blame goes to him... ;^)

co2 emissions from volcanos

[falconwolf]

Human CO2 emissions far outpace volcanic emissions. We mine Earth's carbon resevoirs at a tremendous rate - burning about 6 gigatonnes (6e12 kg) (plus an additional GT from displaced carbon sinks) annually. To put that number in perspective, if the carbon sources that we burn annually averaged the density of water, they would fill a cube 1.8 kilometers on each side.

Mammoth Mountain is considered to be a dormant volcano with its last eruption some 200 years ago, but may produce as much carbon dioxide as the active volcano Kilauea in Hawaii. Because the daily variability of carbon dioxide degassing is large, it is currently impossible to know exactly how much carbon dioxide is being emitted from Mammoth Mountain, but it is thought to be in the range of 400 to 1,200 metric tons per day.

400 to 1,200 metric tonnes a day isn't much, especially for an inactive volcano? Last I heard the US emits 22 english tons a year per person.

Falcon

Re:co2 emissions from volcanos

[Rei]

400-1200 metric tons per day is absolutely nothing. Humans release 16 million metric tonnes per day (and displace additional absorption). As a long term average, volcanoes produce about 500 million tonnes of CO2 annually, compared to ~6 billion for humans. Furthermore, volcanoes are overall coolers because of the aerosols and sulfuric gasses they release, unlike humans.

Re:co2 emissions from volcanos

[Greatmoose]

Where are you getting your numbers from for human CO2? I've never seen any numbers remotely close to that.

Re:co2 emissions from volcanos

[Rei]

Actually, I realized that I should have said "3Gt", because only half of the CO2 goes into the atmosphere. Here's just an example - or, you can search for "CO2" and "Gt", and you'll get more pages than you could ever possibly read. :)

Re:co2 emissions from volcanos

[falconwolf]

Thanks for the link. But I'm courious as to where you got the "16 million metric tonnes per day". One site has U.S. emissions of 19.53 tons per capita per year. This site says Australia is the second greatest emitter of carbon dioxide per head in the world, surpassed only by the U.S. Australians averaged just over 18 tonnes of CO2 per head in year 2000, compared with 20.5 for the average American. Meanwhile this page lists Total anthropogenic CO2 as 8 billion tonnes for 2004, which is half of your daily number. With a world population of 6 billion that comes out to 1 1/3 tonnes per year.

Falcon

Re:co2 emissions from volcanos

[Rei]

Actually, it should be "8 million", because as I mentioned in the above post, only about half of the CO2 released ends up in the atmosphere (others are immediately sequestered in soil or water). About 6 Gt is released by human activities. An additional 1 1/2 Gt anthropogenic CO2 is not released, but is instead displaced absorption (for example, tropical land clearing), for a total of 7 1/2 Gt. However, as I mentioned, about half of the extra CO2 doesn't end up in the atmosphere. I can get you a link on the subject if you'd like.

Re:co2 emissions from volcanos

[mengel]

I'm not sure where the previous poster got his number, but according to the US DOE, in 2003 the US alone put out just over 6 Billion metric tons of CO2, which is 16 million metric tons/day, just from the USA and that was in 2003; the increase has been on the order of 13% per year...

Oh, I see, you're reading his saying "Humans produce ... " as "Each human produces", hence the per-capita....

Anyhow, his number is right for Humans (collectively) in the USA. it's probably off by a factor of 5 or 10 for the world as a whole...

But then he was comparing humans (collectively) to volcanos (collectively), as far as I could tell.

Re:co2 emissions from volcanos

[Anonymous Coward]

Read your own source; it says this vulcanic contribution of greenhouse gasses is only 3% of what humans annually blast into the atmosphere.

Re:co2 emissions from volcanos

[Farmer Tim]

Furthermore, volcanoes are overall coolers because of the aerosols and sulfuric gasses they release, unlike humans.

So everything would be fine if humans released more sulfuric gasses? That means we could save the world by eating boiled eggs!

So that settles it...

[mdvolm]

If we've really reached this "tipping point", then can we finally stop worrying about it and get on with our lives?

Interesting point...

In a ideal world...

[tinkerton]

the point where you have to admit you have a problem lies beyond the point of no return. Either way, no worries.

Re:Real Doom: Overpopulation

[ghukov]

Considering food production, the load that human activities are imposing on the biosphere, global warming, chemicals and pollution, labor and wages, issues of social equity, and the problems of crowding, disease, and misery, NPG believes that a world population size of two to three billion would be optimal.

Nobody really knows

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

As a kid discussing global warming in school, it was broght up time and again that we are entering a natural warming cycle, something like every 10,000 years the trend warms up between a cool climate and a warm climate and we are due for a warming period.

When the planet warms up, there is evidence that limestone? or come calcium rich rock breaks down and is released into the oceans which has the ultimate effect of reversing this warming trend and the earth goes into a cooling cycle.

While I am sure we are not innocent of effecting our earth's climate, I think most people don't realize how big our planet is and how we simply can't change weather patterns over a period of 5 - 10 years. Anyone believing Katrina was caused by global warming is sorely ignorant of how weather works and how we as humans can effect the weather.

We all are victims to the kind of mentality that a unusually warm winter or cold summer MUST be because we are ruining our climate, but scientist haven't even figured out a tiny fraction of everything that is involved in creating and affecting the world's climate.

Let's put it this way, when weather forecasts start nearing 100% accuracy then we can start to say for sure that we understand weather and our climate fully and can start taking stock in these doomsday predictions.

For now, I don't believe we should simply continue to pollute the environment, we should take more aggresive steps to easy our dependence on fossil fuels now rather then later. But I don't think we should start announcing that we are responsible for all the catastropic weather and we are at the point of no return.

Honestly, scientists are split as to whether an the Arctic melting would raise water levels that much. Its the Antartica ice shelf that is sitting on land and would have the most effect on water levels, not the Arctic ocean where most of the ice is already floating.

Also, Greenland is the size of Mexico, its glaciers would hardly have an impact on world water levels, but most people looking on a map see Greenland as being as large as Canada.

Re:Nobody really knows

[RoboRay]

You don't see a 6m increase in sea level from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet to be a significant impact?

Re:Nobody really knows

[IdntUnknwn]

The problem is that we're not talking about just 5-10 years. We've always been affecting the environment, its just that we're doing it at an ever increasingly rapid rate. I'd say we ought to consider the effects that we've had ever since the start of the Industrial Revolution, which extends 5-10 years to 100-200 years.

Also, most people don't realize that there over 6 billion of us on the planet. We may all be contributing only a small amount, but on the whole, we may be contributing more than we think. 6 billion is a number we can't reasonably reconstruct in our mental representation of the world. We may really be underestimating what is going on.

Re:Nobody really knows

[IdntUnknwn]

Sorry, in my previous post I misunderstood your point about Katrina. Katrina clearly wasn't caused by global warming, that's true. The argument is that it was particularly severe as a result of global warming, which isn't something I can really comment on.

Let's put it this way, when weather forecasts start nearing 100% accuracy then we can start to say for sure that we understand weather and our climate fully and can start taking stock in these doomsday predictions.

We will not reach that point for a very long time, if ever. Until then, doomsday predictions can serve their own purpose in that they help us to plan what to do next, help us make specific decisions. Without such doomsday predictions, we probably wouldn't care about such things as cutting back on emissions and power consumption. So even if one doesn't subscribe to such doomsday predictions, they can still serve as useful thinking exercises that can have very real implications in the way our society operates.

Beach Front Property

[RiddleofSteel]

To quote another reply: According to wikipedia, the greenland ice sheet [wikipedia.org], if fully melted, will raise global sea level by 7.2 meters (23.6 feet). This would put large portions of many coastal cities underwater. Has anyone figured out what the US coastline would look like after this? With a few clever land purchases I can be the next Donald Trump(without the bad tupee or ego). Looks like Lex Luthor should have just waited for global warming instead of bothering with those pesky Nukes.

Sea ice will not make any difference in sea levels

[Been on TV]

Ice floating in the ocean displaces exactly the volume it occupies as melted water, so that is not going to make any difference. However, if the same volume of water heats up, due to thermal expansion it will need more volume with increased sea-level as result.

In my opinion perhaps there is an increase in global temperature going on, but the model predictions of significant human contributions are flawed as I have never seen any explanation (by the current models) why there was a mini iceage in the beginning of the 17th century in this country where farms litterally were swept away by glaciers. The same models are also unable to predict why the Hardanger Plains at 1200 - 1700 meter altitude was covered with deciduous forest 3000 years ago (even oak), while now trees in the same area does not grow over 700 - 800 meters due to the colder climate.

Home Simpson says...

[quibbs0]

"I would like to live long enough to see the effects of global warming. I've got an inside tip that it's all a load of crap!"

- Homer Simpson

Correction

[ifwm]

"OPINION: we better damn well do something about it"

You made a small spelling error. I fixed it for you.

Re:Doom and Gloom NO, Just one of 5 CO2 Peaks

[Gulthek]

Exactly the point I was trying to get across. We have so many questions about the Earth's climate over the long term that it's not even funny.

Not our fault

[JK1150]

Global warming is a naturally occurring event, it's not our fault. 1 volcanic eruption will produce more greenhouse gases than mindkind has ever.

Woe is us!

[Krylez]

Hey, if we're past the point of no return, any actions we could possibly take are completely futile. Let's remove all vehicle and industrial emissions restrictions. Shred the Kyoto protocol! Let's burn the damn planet and do it in style dammit! Before you flame me, look up sarcasm in Wikipedia. Claiming we've wrecked the planet beyond any repair only damages your cause. Maybe you should leave room for hope if you want people rallying to your cause. Dire environmental predictions usually fail to materialize. In the 70's they claimed we were causing an Ice Age. During grade school, I was told that large portions of the planet would be covered with landfills by my adulthood if we didn't start recycling everything. Nowadays, everything is packaged in plastic which promptly gets thrown away. I'm beginning to think global warming is just a way of scaring people out of their money and votes.

Re:Woe is us!

[Anonymous Coward]

The "global cooling" thing was just largely a small fringe group of scientists coupled with a sensationalist article in a magazine. Many people in the environmental movement (political activists, not scientists) have said some pretty stupid things too.

However, just becuase a group of radical idiots say something rediculous does not represent the majority views of those in the particular field of research.

Should I judge all Christians or Muslims based on the actions of abortion clinic bombers or suicide bombers? Have the same respect towards people in the field of climatology and climate research.

I'll tell you why

[Anonymous Coward]

"or those in the developing world who are looking enviously at us and wondering why the hell they shouldn't get a piece of the pie as well"

Easy to answer. Its their lack of attractiveness.

Have you ever heard the phrase "3rd world ugly"? Do you understand what it means?

Re:Sea ice will not make any difference in sea lev

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes a difference because it is holding up the land-glaciers. With no sea-ice buttresses, the glaciers can rush into the sea faster.

Re:Global warming flooding insurance policy

[soft_guy]

1. We're pretty sure that we can avert a total disaster if everyone would just DRINK MORE WATER. We will make sure this happens through a sort of "anti ration" where it is required by law that you drink x amount of water every day.

That is an excellent idea. I suggest an initial target figure of 5 gallons per day with the quota increasing by 5% each quarter.

Of course, to really gain the maximum benefit, we will need to ration how much people can piss. I suggest we limit that to 20% of the water taken in on a daily basis with bonus system for people who piss less than that amount and stiff penalties for people who piss more.

Also, of course we will need to limit the amount people are allowed to sweat.

Re:Sea ice will not make any difference in sea lev

[Been on TV]

Agreed, but the ice in itself makes no difference.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Sensible Clod]

This has got to be one of the most insightful comments on the whole page. We need TONS more data, over a LONGER period of time, before doing Chicken Little impressions. Yeesh.

Futurama

[Anonymous Coward]

Fry: "This snow is beautiful! I'm glad global warming never happened."
Leela: "Actually, it did. But thank God nuclear winter canceled it out.

This Is Your Wallet, This Is Your Wallet Adapting

[cmholm]

Sure, you're right, we'll adapt to global warming. Rather, we'll react to it, rather than act on it. What's the difference?

When you act, you get to decide how you might deploy your resources to prevent (presumably) undesireable climate changes. When you react, you're performing triage while deciding when you're going to deploy resources to protect against the symptoms of climate change, and when you're going to tell it slide.

Ok, so here's where your wallet comes in: reacting is more expensive than acting, as a general rule.

Oops

[QMO]

If you re-read my post, you may notice that I never stated, suggested nor implied that there isn't a problem.
(And, I never said that there is, either.)

To re-explain: When you described the results of a rise in sea level you exaggerated. Not every country has millions of people, let alone millions near sea level. If you are interested in having reasonable discussions, stick to the facts without exaggerating/sensationalizing.

As much as the people and ecology in Nepal would probably suffer (at least temporarily) from a climate change, millions there would not be innundated from even a 50m change in sea level.

I had hoped that the (poor) humor in my first post would make it easier for you to not get all worked up about me pointing out your irrational arguing. I'm sorry it didn't help.

If you have real data on the percentage (or number) of people that live within 10m of sea level, I would be glad to know. I imagine it is significant.

I'm done.
--
End of Line

Re:Oops

[Decaff]

If you have real data on the percentage (or number) of people that live within 10m of sea level, I would be glad to know. I imagine it is significant.

It is! It is several hundred million - mostly in very low-lying countries such as Bangladesh.

Attention moderators...

[MosesJones]

For the good of humanity, it is important that you burn as much oil as you can afford to, in order to bump up prices and encourage alternatives to oil

This (I hope) is IRONY, its different to sarcasm and this is very well played....

FUNNY... not INTERESTING... FUNNY

Greenhouse Summer from spiral

[mistabob]

spinral calls it the "venus condition" read that book it's really good

easy solution to rising sea levels

[The Lynxpro]

Have Dasani (aka "Coca-Cola") and AquaFina (aka "Pepsi") bottle up the glacier derived waters. And thus people themselves in the Western world will pay to clean up the environmental damange that they were largely responsible for, and have it be trendy as well in the process.

I for one welcome the melting of Antartic ice. We'll finally be able to see the continent buried under all that ice and probably find the remnants of Atlantis if it hasn't eroded away... :)

I think he was talking about corn.

[Grendel Drago]

The fellow you replied to may have been talking about corn-based ethanol. What you may not know is that those folks at Archer Daniels Midland who make the ethanol in American gasoline 18.9 MJ of energy per kilogram of ethanol produced. See, it costs more (in energy) to farm and distill that ethanol than you get back out of it. It's a black hole. It's a stupid idea.

'Course, this is only because we subsidize corn so much in this country. The Brazilians use sugarcane, which can be farmed much more energy-efficiently, and which is why the Brazilians are now laughing their asses off at the Americans.

(See, Brazil has cut back enormously on the quantity of petroleum it imports. America hasn't. Yeah, this is what we should have had, if we'd responded to the 1970s oil crisis in a more sensible way. Now we're acting surprised and pretending no one could have seen this coming. Pfah.)

--grendel drago

Re:I think he was talking about corn.

[AKAImBatman]

FYI, even corn is energy positive. Though you are correct, sugarcane is WAY more efficient a plant to use for ethanol. Unfortunately, there are problems with growing it in areas like the frozen tundra (cute nickname for Wisconsin) where the weather is generally quite mild.

Minor correction

[FhnuZoag]

Sorry, confused you with the other guy.

The links the other guy gave were to blogs as well. Being blogs alone don't make much difference in terms of credibility of sources. The issue here is whether their arguments are well made or not, and whether their sources are reputable.

It's not the SIZE of your continent...

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

...It's how you project it.

The problem is that the Mercator projection got really popular way back in the 1500's because of sea navigation. The funny distortion is there because when distorted that way, you can draw a straight line from one place to another and it will represent a constant compass bearing - so navigating from one place to another using a Mercator projection map is as simple as drawing the straight line, measuring the angle, and sticking to that bearing for the entire trip.

Because it got so popular, these days lots of people think that's what maps are supposed to look like, despite the fact that different maps should really be projected differently, depending on what they're for. (There are projections designed to minimize shape distortion, projections designed to minimize area distortion [i.e. the shapes might be wrong, but the area covered by a particular feature relative to another will be fairly accurate], projections designed to minimize distance distortion, and projections that are just easy to program for...and at least one or two projections designed for political purposes (c.f. the "Peters" projection)

(O'Reilly's "Mapping Hacks" book has a pretty good discussion of the subject. Also check out Mark Monmier's "How to Lie with Maps".)

Re:It's not the SIZE of your continent...

[fishbowl]

What bothers me is that you have to explain a concept from third grade geography... to alleged nerds...

Global Warming Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

How global warming fear mongering works. Global warming advocates go to temperature stations all around the world and stick the thermometers up their butts briefly and leave. This shows the average temperature going up. To counter this Neocons are going to those same temperature stations and sticking the thermometers in their icy hearts, thus helping to lower the average temperature.

greenhouse gases and methane

[falconwolf]

global warming is more due to gasses like methane

Yeap, methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than co2 and cattle as well as sheep put out a lot of methane, Methane Emissions from Livestock

Falcon

Re:greenhouse gases and methane

[AndersOSU]

Yes methane is a more powerful greenhouse ga, but since there is so much less of it than CO2 it is a smaller contributer overall. What I'm worried about is the massive amount of water vapor in the air. That contributes several times more to global warming than methane and carbon dioxide combined. We need to find some way to get that pesky water out of the sky!

Re Global warming

[anand78]

A professor gave a presentation on Global warming in our company yesterday. One of the key points he raised was that we contribute 5.5 times carbon di-oxide as compared to the rest of the world. He also gave a statistics on what is the best fuel, turns out it is not Hydrogen but rather it is Natural gas. He painted a piture where by 2300 Toronto would be like A(Hot)tlanta. I hope Bush thinks twice before neglecting the Global warming. I hope he does not attribute it to some other Intelligent Design.

Poor argument

[Anonymous Coward]

You're using what I call "the insurance salesman's argument" which goes something like this:

    Life is full of uncertainty, and if you had an accident which seriously injured you, you couldn't work, which cause you to lose your house, car, you couldn't feed your children, you'd be an outcast in society

And you have to admit, this is a compelling argument. You then say "Well, 10% of my income is worth it if I'm protected".

Which is drawing a bad conclusion because you're thinking with your heart and not your head.

There is a risk involved with any decision, and there is a financial side to any risk. If we were to spend all our time and energy managing risks, we'd do nothing but that. Instead, we say "I can't protect against every risk, but I can protect against risk that is likely"

If you didn't do that, the money society might spend on sending people to Mars, or curing cancer, or coming up with a symphony is spent on making sure we reduce the risk for something that isn't likely to happen.

So please, its nice to live in a bubble in your parents basement and say "We must save the world", but in reality those of us in it don't want to pay with our livelihoods to assuage the fears of people who can't understand how to properly deal with risk.

No offense.

Bad taste

[Anonymous Coward]

- Hey guys, these levies aren't in such good shape. One good storm and we could be in trouble.
* Meh, we've been having storms forever. We've weathered storms before.
- Okay, but your whole city depends on these things holding up, and they haven't had the kind of support they need.
* Well, whose fault is that? Anyway, it's not like we can change the weather.
- Oh my! Looks like a storm coming. Could be a lot of water coming through here!
* Man, you and your doom and gloom! Chill already ya' big weenie.
-* Ohhh crap...!

....

- Hey guys, these ice caps are melting..

The Earth may not care, nor owe us a living

[WillAffleckUW]

When will people learn that this kind of crap will happen with or without human intervention? The Earth has been changing constantly for millions of years and will continue to change past our existence. Holy crap, a climate shift!! I am sure it was the Neanderthals who brought on the ice age by causing nuclear winter. How else could that have happened?

The earth doesn't owe humanity a living. We're just the latest infestation on the surface of it. Species have been eliminated during glaciations or killed off or adapted to other warming cycles, so if we choose to accelerate the speed of the warming cycle, we get the consequences.

And, actually, there were never that many Neanderthals in the first place. Ninety percent of all the people that have ever existed on the earth have existed since WW II.

George Bush: Global warming doesn't exist

[falconwolf]

Actually Bush has admitted global warming is happening, and supprise, humans may be partially responsible. Thus his push for nuclear power. But Iran can't have it.

Falcon

Re:George Bush: Global warming doesn't exist

[AndersOSU]

Actually I am behind Bush's nuclear policy. It's a good thing he's not pushing it too hard or I might find myself saying crazy things like "I agree with Bush"

We don't know...

[cr0sh]

I see many posts about how there is so much flip-flop over the years over global warming...or is it cooling...or warming again - you get the point. This is the truth - we don't know for certain. We don't know if this is all something caused or helped along by mankind, or whether it is a natural thing, or a mixture of both.

The fact is, we are talking about changes that are happening on a scale near geological time - possibly processes that take 10,000+ years to occur. Now, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that mankind hasn't done something. Considering everything that we do on an industrial and personal scale - the amount of stuff we use, the amount of garbage we produce, what happens to that garbage (some of it buried, some of it blows around, some of it is recycled), the stored carbon (from so-called "fossil fuels" and other such sources) we release into the atmosphere, the pavement we put down, the light at night we put out - on and on - we can't be having zero impact on the planet. We ultimately must be having some impact. How large that is, we don't know.

Ultimately, we are running a huge experiment here, for which we have no other precedent to compare to. It is akin to when they were planning on setting off the first nuclear bomb test - some thought (obviously erringly) that the entire atmosphere of the planet would ignite. Of course, there was more data prior to the blast that seemed to indicate this wouldn't occur, at least on a planet-wide scale - but it did worry some people. The same thing is happenning here, but we barely have any precursor knowledge and measurements, especially for the time scale we are looking at. Most of the data has to be studied from ice-core samples and other such means to go back in geological time to see what is possibly happenning. Even so, it isn't possible to compare the last 200 or so years on such a fast time scale - the period of the industrial and post-industrial revolution is but a blip on the radar. The output of this on-going period isn't a blip, but whether it matters or not - we don't know.

A wise man once said something akin to "The planet will be ok - it is the humans who are f*cked" (IIRC, George Carlin) - so, we should be looking out for ourselves, but ultimately if we screw this chance up, we only get it once. Personally, I would think that if given the choice between: a) letting the experiment run without changing things, and if we die because of it, meh? and b) lets fix a lot of our pollution and other impact issues, so that if we are wrong, the worst thing we have done is make the environment a better place to live in... - one would think b) would be the best choice a supposedly rational, thinking species should make (that, and figure out how to get off this rock and on towards others so that the next 100km asteroid doesn't wipe us out). Unfortunately, we are also selfish and greedy a-holes who would rather go for option a) as the short-term gains are greater (who cares about the future, right?).

Only time will tell what we should have done - let's hope we are correct, whatever it turns out to be our answer...

Great "Journalism"...

[RexRhino]

A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

How much ice is lost, and how much is normal amounts? "Scientists" claim something? ALL scientists are saying this? That is what the article seems to be saying. Who is funding their reasearch and could their be any incentive for them to come to certain conclusions? Aren't there any opposing viewpoints, or even a range of beliefs on the subject? They are "convinced" that is is a fact?... is "convinced" the word that the scientists used, because "convinced" is very different that "have strong evidence to suggest". And the "scientists" "fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming". Well, I fear Chupacabra, but it doesn't mean anything. "Fear" is not the basis of science.

This is Yellow Journalism, plain and simple. Pure sensationalist bullshit. I happen to believe in global warming, and there could very well be something to what "scientists" as the article describes it, are saying... but there is nothing in this article that in any way makes a reasoned case for it. Pure fear mongering crap. Fox-News style candy for your mind.

Re:Great "Journalism"...

[xmorg]

Global warming is junk science based on junk science, and propagated by sensationalism.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=851

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on _climate_change

I hope I get a cutie-pie to keep me warm when I fall in the water after the world ends :-p

He said gigatonnes

[Anonymous Coward]

10,000 years give or take a gigaton or two of carbon. Where is the 14 billion Han Solos when you need to freeze some carbon.

By the way in Americur we say Giga-tonee when we speak of our personal members...

No Worries

[VonSkippy]

We have a great and powerful leader who's a firm believer in Science and Logic.

Er...wait....never mind, we're completely screwed.

I Know What I'm Telling My Date Tonight

[aquatone282]

"C'mon baby, Global Warming is irreversible and we're all doomed. We should get it on now before the ice caps melt and we all drown."

"You don't want to drown without ever knowing the joys of physical love, do you baby?"

Hey - it worked for a lot of guys during the Cold War and MAD. . .

Irony, party of one

[argStyopa]

You call people doubting the shrill hyperbole of the ever-infallible Green movement "FUD"? The Cato Institute? Next you're going to say it's Karl Rove's Secret Newsletter(tm). How is denying the ChickenLittling spreading "fear, uncertainty, and doubt"?

No, I believe that's the currency of the environmental movement:

- Global Warming is happening! (OK, we're extrapolating from a teeny segment of history, and 20 years ago we were just as stridently CERTAIN that another Ice Age was coming but really, believe us: this time the sky really IS falling! Really!)

- It's happening and it's our fault! (Really, we have nothing to back this up but some hunches, since most of the data tables show that the warming was long before the industrial revolution hit, so we're going to blame CroMagnon cooking fires and just wave our hands a bit. Don't look too carefully at the data. Believe us: this time the sky really IS falling!)

- It's happening and it's a bad thing! (Well, we really are going out a limb on this one, because nobody has any data of the effects of global warming. You need to disregard that they used to grow oranges in England and Vikings plowed fields in Greenland, and that there's ample evidence of flora in Antarctica, and simply believe that 'warming' is bad. Also, you need to only look at the glass-is-half-empty evidence that we present, showing that (for example) coral are dying off in certain regions, while ignoring that logically, other regions where the water was formerly too cold are now AVAILABLE to coral growth...but no matter what, that sky is most CERTAINLY falling now!)

Eco-freaks: the most species-centric creatures on the planet, who apparently believe that the environment must be maintained in a static state at the current norms PURELY for the benefit of HUMANS.

Sorry, I'm not that selfish.

maybe England will completely flood

[peter303]

And stop this incessant whining aboout global warming.

Re:Sea ice will not make any difference in sea lev

[VENONA]

The volumes are not the same, due to density differences. See http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050801_floatingice.h tml

This URL has a couple of photos demonstrating it it--ice cube in a beaker.

Also from that URL: "In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise."

But it's okay.

[erroneus]

I mean, look at those profits we made by not spending money to keep our environment clean and our emmisions low? Not to mention all those oil people employed!! And then there's the defense workers we kept employed because of all the weapons of mass destruction WE build for no particular reason except to serve as threat against anyone who wants us to bend against our own collective wills.

A dead planet is a small price to pay for the great profits that some .01% of the population can enjoy.

(oh yeah... sarcasm)

Lex Luthor

[ppp]

... is offended by that comparison.

Agreed

[FoamingToad]

Plus ever heard of a little device, quite a fad really, that developed not too long back? The catalytic converter? Part of the logos, AFAIK, was to reduce the amount of airborne nitric acid caused by vehicle engines.

Re:Agreed

[fred fleenblat]

They don't have the article available online but it's worth tracking down the dead-tree version:

American Heritage of Invention and Technology
Winter 2004
"Doing the Impossible" by Tim Palucka
Reducing auto emissions by 90 percent in a few years looked easy to Congress. To engineers, it looked hopeless--until a few miraculous breakthroughs made the catalytic converter possible.

GET OVER IT

[jeisc]

our beloved earth is a molten rock with a cool crust hurling through space while rotating around a radioactive sun spewing out toxic gamma rays not to mention other kinds of rays coming from deep space and circling around in a galaxy that we know just about nothing of how it works or why it works and on and on and on in our ignorance...
But I've never heard some scientist say that the gloabl warming of the earth is coming from its molten center and that global heating could be because the core of the earth is getting hotter.

All scientists are kind gentle and caring

[Medievalist]

If you are a hard core scientist, then on an intellectual level you must want to help our Earth.

Just like Dr. Mengele and Dr. Oppenheimer!

Justification for more chemtrail spraying

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone whose finger in on the pulse of earth, would recognize that global weather is now controlled completely by computer. The air force claims that they will own the weather by 2025. Technologies include scalar eletromagnetics like HAARP and cloud seeding like chemtrails. Weather modification is here to stay because we have passed the tipping point. All NATO countries are participating in this bold effort. I hate to imagine the consequences should the effort fail. Unfortunately, this article proves that is is.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause I don't like it when people throw around figures like they're facts when they often are exaggerated.

Can't reverse it? Thats awefully convenient

[Kodack]

The earths temp goes through cycles. 1. Man does not have the power to drasticly alter the temperature of the earth. 2. We couldn't have stopped the ice melting anyway. Now they are trying to make it look like we are the reason this is happening. That is about as dumb as saying human beings cause volcanos or plate techtonics to change. Or sunspots for that matter. Even if we had a nuclear war and covered the earth in darkness it would recover within a few years. Carbon emissions from cars did NOT cause the climate to change. The fact is the climate changes all the time. It did it before man, it did it during man, and it will do it when man is gone.

Which corn?

[Medievalist]

Oh, we're all Americans, so you must mean maize.

Pay no attention to those British gits, what right have they to tell us what English words mean!

No Offense...

[Shihar]

No offense, but you are either stupid or a neocon. The second the UN tries to pass a tax law is the same second that the US and pile of other countries pull out of the UN and effectivly destroy it. There is not a sane president in the world that would give an orginization where fucking CHINA and RUSSIA have veto power the ability to tax the US. Who would advocate something so utterly foolish? Either a neocon trying to destroy the UN, or a complete and utter idiot. I have a feeling you are not the former.

Re:No Offense...

[oliverthered]

Has the US just given up it's veto in the UN?

nitpick

[jasongetsdown]

"regardless of whether we eject terawatts of thermal energy into the atmosphere or not"

I'm pretty sure that the only thing adding any heat to the equation is the sun. Its just a question of how much we're causing the Earth to retain.

Re:nitpick

[AKAImBatman]

I'm pretty sure that the only thing adding any heat to the equation is the sun.

'Fraid not. Remember thermodynaics? "Energy may not be created or destroyed?" All that heat we pump out of car engines, coal plants, trains, airplanes, nuclear plants, wire resistence, computers, etc. all has to go somewhere. So it goes into our atmosphere and causes gases to expand. I'll leave the rest of the effects to your imagination.

Some argue that the Earth would be able to radiate the excess heat without the extra CO2 we're adding to the environment. It's possible that's true, but the issue of CO2 distributions is very complex and is as difficult to change at the moment as the amount of waste heat we put out.

Don't rebuild New Orleans

[Animats]

New Orleans is the only major US city below the current sea level. The city should be rebuilt, but elsewhere, on higher ground.

Over time, much of the population of coastal Florida and the Keys will have to be relocated, too. It's time to start this now. Pay off the residents as each disaster happens, but don't fund rebuilding near sea level.

Re:Don't rebuild New Orleans

[Anonymous Coward]

Just put a big dome over them, like with the Gungans. Should work fine until dubya^h^h^h^h^h jar-jar breaks something.

That is still 5m

[aepervius]

I do not want to sound sarcastic, but that means a LOT of costal cities and estuaries city will need a bit more than a simple leve...

We can't even predict next months weather!!!

[Kodack]

Hey all we have are ideas about our climate. We are still learning about it. There is so much more to learn that we can't call any idea we have about things concrete. If we can't predict the weather a month from now how do you expect to predict it 30 years from now? The fact that we can only deal with averages and best guesses when predicting the weather proves that we don't understand our climate. Until the day we have weather prediction that includes all the holidays for the year and exactly what the temperatures and precipitation for those will be then we really can't say we can predict anything. The climate is a complex, chaotic system. There is no "tipping point" It's a dynamic system, not something static that can be measured in such a way a 5 yr old can understand it. It is INFINITEly complex and we don't understand anything about it's processes. We only have the slightest, most vague idea how it all comes together. Yeah, we can do weather forcasts, try to predict where a hurricane is going to make landfall, but they are all little better than guesses. Guesses don't equal fact.

Re:Sea ice will not make any difference in sea lev

[Been on TV]

I'd say a 4 cm increase due to salinity safely can be ignored in this context (particularly here where the land still is raising at about 1 cm a year from having been releaved of the pressure of the ice-cap from the last ice-age.)
Another thing is that the floating ice probably is slightly saline in the layers in immediate contact with the sea-water due to sub-zero water temperatures in high latitudes at wintertime -- something that allows for freezing of a slightly saline solution.

Would think the effect of thermal expansion will be much more pronounced than the 4 cm of sea-rise due to salinity?

Re:Doc-should I stop smoking? Too late; don't both

[soft_guy]

I remember my grandfather, diagnosed with lung cancer, coming back from a chemo treatment several weeks into it - which his physician had said would not do any good because he was too far gone - annoucing that he was going to quit smoking. It was one of the more ridiculous things I've ever heard.

"Global Warming" is just a measurement technique

[Medievalist]

Tracking the average rise in global temperature (or the percentage of carbon in the atmosphere for that matter) provides a useful measurement of how much we are modifying the Earth's albedo.

For at least a decade, reputable scientists have predicted that if the albedo is decreased, weather becomes more energetic; if the albedo is increased, weather becomes less energetic. More or less energy in weather systems results in changing weather patterns that do not necessarily warm or chill your immediate environment.

Blaming anything whatsoever on "global warming" is like blaming pollution on tons (because pollutants are measured in tons per year, get it?).

Hypermodification of the Earth's albedo will result in climate crash. Your particular microenvironment may get hotter, colder, erupt into magma, or sink underwater. But make a sufficent modification - regardless of whether it's a man or a planetary event that does it - and the human species will go extinct.

I prefer the phrase "climate crash" when talking about the possibility of catastrophic climate change due to albedo modification. "Global warming" is confusing, and it sounds too friendly - who doesn't want to be warm?

A/S/Elevation?

[Anonymous Coward]

New chatroom pickup line: Age/Sex/Elevation?

MOD parent DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why this is "insightful' when it is just more emotional blah and no science.

Re:Who Cares!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I was unaware that this global warming started on January 20, 2000"

Ah, the classical defensive reply. You KNOW that Bush has stalled and backed out of almost all agreements/proposals to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. You KNOW that his policies consistently favor the industrialists and other self serving lobbyists.

and this is the best you can come up with... (just go ahead and drive ur SUV's and vote murderers into office... and ofcourse, always haveg a good night's sleep afterwards)

Why is this "wrong?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people think that humans ought to stop "polluting" the earth's atmosphere. Why?

I mean, during the Archaean era, cyanobacteria were largely responsible for the most significant pollution event in the earth's history. The earth is still reeling from the effects of an oxygen rich atmosphere, thanks to those bacteria.

It seems that atmospheric changes due to the activities of earthly organisms are not abnormal at all. Earth has always been a dynamic system to which living entities have had some input.

I have no arguments for or against the human factor in global warming. I'd just like to see a moral case made for why humans should attempt to maintain the recent ecological "status-quo" or not.

So we might kill ourselves off. Why is that "wrong?" "Because we don't want to die?" That's an illogical argument. Tell me why humanity has any value. Why is it worth "saving" the earth so that future generations can be miserable, like most people are today?

I am aware of the cynical nature of this post, thank you. I'm not claiming that humanity isn't worth saving, should it ever fall into danger. I think it very much is worth saving, but I've discovered that all the reasons for that are very religious in nature. They have nothing at all to do with science.

If you want to argue about whether or not we are "doomed," then you better first put a value on humanity. Otherwise, we're just preparing the earth for its next natural stage. It doesn't care how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere.

Re:Doom and Gloom NO, Just one of 5 CO2 Peaks

[frankie]

Except that the current CO2 level is 25% higher than anything seen in the ice cores, and still rising. Human emissions have exceeded the parameters of the usual cycle.

Not overplayed, under-rated.

[postbigbang]

In the times of the ancient Greeks and Latins, and other cultures in the before (and after) Christ era, people tried to explain the phenomenon they saw in odd ways. Viz your comment "Behold! Moon goddess is eating the Sun God!"

Now we have referential scientific instrumentation to find out what's actually going on. You can ignore the evidence if you want to. In doing so, you'll be the same as the cardinals at the Inquisition.

These models aren't specious. They're derived from a lot of evidence. Like evidence? Like going into a hospital to have complicated surgery done that saves your life? No modern surgery exists today without a lot of the same scientific discipline that's gone into what you've read, if you RTFA.

Your haiku is as idiotic as your denial of the damage already done, and the likelihood that much of the ill effects will last through history.

Thank GOD

[halr9000]

Now we can stop talking about it!

But it will be noticed by us

[snowwrestler]

Nothing humanity can possibly do regarding CO2 levels will even be noticed by this vast slow cycle.

Just because an enormous cycle is not significantly affected by a minor perturbation, it does not follow that we will not be affected. Enough extra carbon released to affect a 1 or 2 degree change won't stop or even slow the carbon cycle, but it certainly would affect us.

insert back beat

[jkmartin]

Is this the point where we take off all our clothes, since it's getting hot in here?

Probably good for Earth

[filekutter]

Personally I believe that we HAVE changed the environment and the planet is changing in answer. Fortunately the planet has shown that it, and life, can survive thru evolutionary adaptation no matter how catastrophic the events it faces. But, I truly believe that if the predictions (the really dire ones) are correct then at last Earth will be rid of this cancer called "homo sapiens" and allowed to try again with a species evolving self-awareness. Don't let us outta the gravity well, the species has no concept of altruism.

More to the point...

[jd]

Any CO2 releases that occur from carbon actively in the carbon cycle does NOT add to that cycle, by definition. Burning hydrocarbons, or other locked carbon sources, releases carbon that was NOT free (duh!).

The next thing to consider is that volcanos are relatively instantaneous events, whereas industry is a continuous process. Because of this, we're talking two very different mechanisms. The two are not directly comparable.

Finally, volcanos blast CO2 to quite high altitudes, whereas (say) cars produce a very low altitude smog. (Especially when you get temperature inversions.) You don't get temperature inversions occuring during a volcanic eruption. Or, at least, not for very long. In consequence, we're not even talking about the same environment. Again, the two scenarios cannot be directly compared.

Anyone who tries to draw a direct analogy between two completely different systems as though they operated identically is guaranteed to produce the results they want, NOT the results that would actually occur. Those who model what is actually going on, on the other hand, are bound to see what IS.

Chritchton as viewed by real scientists

[David Rolfe]

1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

Do we really have to have this debate every SINGLE time global warming pops up? State of Fear is a fiction from which no real-world guidance can be drawn. The only time Critchton's words should be changing your opinion on anything is whether or not you think being chased by a hungry dinosaur (or gorilla or alien-technology induced... whatever) might be scary.

In short -- Critchton is a horrible scientist. His mea culpa at the end is refreshing though -- after he's spent the entirety of the book telling you that global warming is bullshit and we shouldn't do anything (and all those scientists and physicists are misleading alarmists) he concedes he doesn't know anything, and winks at you.

"I have more respect for people who change their views after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes, Ideologues and zealots don't."

Stroking the ego of your paying audience? Priceless.

Addendum: Spelling of Crichton

[David Rolfe]

Oh, and -- sorry for misspelling Crichton every single way. ;)

I suck.

Is it me or?

[ViperG]

Did we miss the idea that going into a ICE AGE would be a bad for humanity, and now because of our green house gases, we have delayed the ICE AGE, which is a good thing.

The business community doomsayers

[snowwrestler]

Then Kyoto came along and told us to sacrifice trillions on the altar of C02 emissions.

Conclusively prove that Kyoto would sacrifice trillions. If you think global climate science is complicated, try global economics.

I constantly hear the refrain that environmentalists are chicken littles who are foolishly predicting disaster. Yet the business community constantly expects us to believe that any regulatory concession to protecting our environment will horribly cripple our economy.

U.S. economic growth since the 1960s (approximate birth of the environmental movement) seems to indicate otherwise.

More than one way to destroy an earth

[CodeHog]

Strangely enough I found this link while cleaning out old email from 3 months ago >> http://ned.ucam.org/%7Esdh31/misc/destroy.html. Why wait for global warming when there are plenty of other ways destory earth...

Scientists are like lawyers?

[MOBE2001]

There hasn't been a single article from either side saying 'cut off funding for the other'. All the scientists agree that 'more research, more funding, more computer models, etc. . .' are needed.

Are you saying that scientists are human just like lawyers? I'm also reminded of doctors and mechanics. Who would benefit if nobody got sick and cars fixed themselves?

UN Study download

[CodeHog]

Here's an interesting atlas by the U.N. One Planet, Many People. Check out the urban areas chapter. Is it me or does it look like Moscow is shrinking?

a different pre-history

[nido]

Humans started messing with the climate significantly only in the past 200 years, but something unprecedented in the 400,000 years of good data we have happened 10,000 years ago - we should have been back to the norm for the Current Ice Age by now.

10,000 years ago was about the time that Atlantis sunk into the ocean. Atlantis' sinking stoped blocking the jet stream, allowing Europe to heat up among other climatic changes. Volcanos went off/etc. Not really up on my alternate pre-history, so you'll have to look elsewhere for details.

Actually I am behind Bush's nuclear policy

[falconwolf]

It's a good thing he's not pushing it too hard or I might find myself saying crazy things like "I agree with Bush"

At one tyme I was against nuclear power, mostly for two reasons. One is the possibility of accidents and the other is storage of the waste. However new reactor designs, such as the fast breeder reactor designs India uses or those that use pellets or pebbles are safer. There's still the problem with the waste however I heard some of the new designs produce little waste. If they can get rid of the waste then I'd be all for nuclear power. It certainly shouldn't be stored at Yucca Mountain. For one thing it's been shown Water can travel miles from there, and the other thing is that Yucca is an earthquake prone area. Some buildings were damaged there in an earthquake.

Also the government needs to stop subsidizing and shielding the industry. But if they did then nuclear power wouldn't be profitable.

Falcon

Re:Who Cares!!!

[Chosen Reject]

Ah, the classic defensive defensive reply. Claim that I was making some defense and that it was classic and easy to refute, then spout off, then make even more claims about me.

It was a joke to begin with. I am fully aware of many of Bush's policies. But the original point was that Global Warming did not begin during this administration.

Secondly, I personally don't see how "his policies" are any different than 99% of all politicians (democrats, republicans, libertarians, independents, moderates, whigs, etc.) as they are all favoring wherever the money is to be made.

Thirdly, no, it was not the best I could come up with. Why would I even be coming up with anything? Anything for what? I'm not defending or supporting anything. And I was making a reply to a flamebaiting troll. Why would I give him/you my best stuff?

Fourthly, I don't drive an SUV and find them to be ridiculous. I drive a 14 year old Honda that gets better in-city driving than a lot of comparable cars get on the highway, roughly 32 mpg. The age of my car also has some telling to do. It takes energy to make cars, it takes energy to mine the ores, it takes energy etc. So I am using even less pollutants than people who buy a new car every three years or so. Also, it is a stick shift. There's some more information for how little I pollute for you. On occasion, I also ride a bike, take the bus, subway, train, etc. My next car, will probably be a hybrid. But it will be when the current one completely dies.

Fifthly, calling someone a murderer who has not murdered simply because you may or may not disagree with a war, is just silly and so eighth grade. Or would you rather still see Saddam in power and killing the same number of people, only no one would know about it? Notice I never said anything here about WMDs, 9/11, or terrorists.

Lastly, I usually don't get a good nights sleep. I'm in college and have late nights and early mornings all the tims.

In other news

[LPetrazickis]

Also, car accidents happen whether you walk across highways or not. Since walking across the highways is such a handy shortcut, we might as well keep doing that. Being hit by a car is just part of the natural cycle.

Greengrocer's apostrophe

[LPetrazickis]

More Bikini's[sic]

Please, I implore you. Never, ever use an apostrophe before a plural ending in English. Down with erroneous apostrophes! Up with revealing bikinis! Thank you.

So your points are:

[Grog6]

1)You cant learn anything from fiction.
          The whole geosynchronous sattelite thing must be unimportant...

2)Genetic engineering must be silly because it might lead to dinosaurs being produced.

3)Conceding that you dont know all the answers must mean you're a horrible scientist.

Instead of stroking your own ego, just stroke yourself next time. You're a TWIT.

Re:So your points are:

[David Rolfe]

1) What?

2) Jurassic Park taught us anything meaningful about genetic engineering? I thought it rehashed pretty safe thematic elements: humans are pompous, visionaries often fall to hubris, the natural world is scary and complex. The sequel(s) rehash the platitude that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

3) What? Good scientists always concede they don't know all the answers. This is the stick Crichton beats you with for the duration of State of Fear. It's the entire basis for his dismissal of climate science. I like (or liked) Crichton, that's why I've read the majority of his work and gave State of Fear a shot.

Is sounds to me like you didn't read the article I tried to prominently post, and then completely misunderstood my response to both. Whatever, It could be my own failing. Welcome to Slashdot, where berating strangers is par for the course.

I can't believe I replied to a troll, Cheers.

It is not too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn on all your air conditioners to start global cooling!!

Climateprediction.net

[Burz]

That is what the Climateprediction.net project does:

It uses distributed computing (ala SETI@Home) to test climate models against the past and present in order to hone its climate forcast for the future (post-2050).

http://www.climateprediction.net/

Mod parent UP please!

[Burz]

Thank you.

Wrong

[Goonie]

Your analysis is incorrect. If oil prices remain high, the "alternative fuel" technogies that are known to be capable of producing substantial amounts of fuel (as distinct from biodiesel and ethanol, which can only provide a very, very small fraction of humanity's transportation fuel requirements) are the direct burning of natural gas, the conversion of natural gas to liquid fuel, extracting oil from shale or tar sands, and converting coal into oil. The last two, in particular, will emit far more greenhouse gas in extraction, refining, and processing than petroleum-sourced fuels do.

However, the broader point is that transport fuels are not where we should be looking to make cuts in emissions in the short term. this graph of US emissions shows that CO2 emissions from the transport sector are smaller than the emissions from coal in electricity generation. And the nice thing is that there are some feasible technologies (nuclear power and in the slightly longer term geosequestration) that could actually substitute for coal, whereas hydrogen-powered vehicles (and, more to the point, the infrastructure for supplying the hydrogen at a realistic cost) are a long, long way off.

Re:Wrong

[e1618978]

I agree, except that I have great hope for solar towers and pebble bed nuclear reactors in the short term.

Note that biodiesel could provide for the needs of the western world if we convert 3rd world food production into fuel production. My view is that significant biodiesel production will occur, since we can afford to pay more for fuel than they can pay for food (and massive famine will result).

Europe is already starting the plan for buring Africans as fuel:

http://www.energybulletin.net/3288.html

"The European Union wants 2% of the oil we use to be biodiesel by the end of next year, rising to 6% by 2010 and 20% by 2020."

Hold on a sec ....

[ProfM]

If WE (the race of human beings) were told that a gigantic volcano is ready to blow, projected to wipe out the human race ... can WE stop it?

If WE were told that there's a coming ice age and it will wipe out the northern half of North America and Europe ... can WE stop it?

If WE were told that the sun is overheating and going to explode and cause all of the inner planets to perish ... can WE stop it?

If WE were told that half an island is likely to fall into the ocean and cause a massive tidal wave to hit the east coast of North America ... can WE stop it?

If WE were told that a storm is coming, possibly the biggest in recent history ... can WE stop it?

I believe that it's VERY arrogant of US to believe that we have ANY control over the earth ... be it for "harm" or for "good" ... and if any of you believe we can change our environment ... please PROVE to me that we can ... in the long term, not in the 25+ years we went from an Ice Age to Global Warming debates.

Therefore...

[edinho]

party like nothing is happening. Cheers, e.

solar system position perhaps

[cheekyboy]

Surely the position of the solar system in relation to the milkyway orbit and what other cosmic dust and gamma rays there are effects things like our sun which could change its output, it could dim 10% or go up 20%.

Galatic core gamma bursts could have an effect too

Try this line

[tqft]

I agree with you, but have found a simple "thought" experiment sometimes works well.

Next time someone says global warming is not or may not be real, ask them what they know of physics and of thermodynamics in particular.

Take billions of tonnes of stored energy locked up in carbon based fuels and burn them.

Would you expect such an act to raise the local temperature?

Now the residue (CO2 etc) is known to limit IR emmissions so you are trapping more energy.

Why do you not expect this to raise the local temperature?

As the Earth, the thermodynamics here, is almost a black body radiator and can only dump so much energy per unit time - what is the point at which this release of energy can't be released through blackbody radiation immediately and the local stored energy, hence local temp, increases.

Here local means planet Earth?

Please correct where I screwed up this argument.

Re:Try this line

[lgw]

The amount of power we generate is absolutely trivial (4 TW vs 170,000 TW incoming solar). The CO2 might be a problem, but the waste heat implied by the generated power simply isn't a consideration.

It's summer, Bozo !

[Ray Alloc]

In summer, ice melts.

In the end

[Bazzalisk]

it doesn't matter if we're to blame for the change in climate, what matters is that our actions certainly aren't helping to correct it.

Not a good time to buy Coastal land

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess I shouldn't invest in rebuilding New Orlean's or other coastal cities then huh?

Honestly though they melted and froze many times before. the only difference now is that humans have built cities by those oceans and it will suck for them when the waters rise. But hey, I live in Ohio. Our worst problem is the occasional tornado, but you can even avoid that if you live in a medium sized cities" heat island"

So screw all you coastal dwellers and your high priced land. My land will soon be very sought after and I own a couple hundred acres of high dry land in a temperate climate that will be quite livable at even 10 degrees hotter. :)

in the end.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well before we die from having the sea level to high from melting ice in the north the sea probably be boiling then you know its over.

Good news, everyone!

[Legion303]

I can start driving SUVs again. Hooray!

I trust Big Business more than government

[ccmay]

Of course, the same industrial and financial firms who wished to maintain their status quo by resisting change and financing PR fake science will shift gears in the new warm world and find massive profit in the meltdown. It's all the same to them.

Of course they will. If they can provide goods and services which mitigate human suffering or discomfort or inconvenience during periods of climate change, they deserve to profit from it. If they fail to do so, they will go out of business.

That's the greatest thing about capitalism. Even the wealthiest captain of industry has no power over you, except by persuasion. You buy his products, or do not buy.

This is in contradistinction to government, which can send armed men to your house and force you to do their bidding.

I trust Big Business far more than I trust government at any level.

-ccm

MODERATION ABUSE

[Analogue Kid]

My parent comment was NOT flamebait. Who the heck is it baiting? Maybe people don't like the idea that our science really is so advanced that we can destroy our world, but simple disagreement with my presentation of the facts is no reason to moderate it as flamebait.

Perhaps my post was a bit tounge in cheek, but with the offensive topics I regularly see targeted at Americans, Christians, MS employees, etc... I can hardly believe that my informative post, with links to supporting evidence can be considered flamebait. As long as people think we can't really damage the world, they're less likely to truly worry about the harm we do to it. Only by seeing the utter and complete horrible truth about what we COULD do, will people start thinking about what we MUST do. If we've already developed the ability to destroy the world, we should have confidence in our ability to find a way to save it.

Re:Doom and Gloom NO, Just one of 5 CO2 Peaks

[Anonymous Coward]

The ice cores only measure a period of 400,000 years, though. In geological terms, this is a sample of such staggering insignificance that it would be lost in the rounding noise of any real long-term atmospheric data (if we had any).

Don't get mad; GET GLAD.

[newpath4comVersion2]

I'm glad they published these terrible findings. It will just make my victory that much better. http://www.enginesuspension.htm/ . byw, I wrote a new page last week that is the Master Link Page for newpath4. From it the links reach out to every major idea in my website: http://www.newpath4.com/Physics7Universal7Energy7B alance7Does7it7also7apply7to7Morals7Lives7Gods7way 7or7the7highway7How7long7this7road7OGod.htm . I also added some copies of reports by Mr. Sovacool on one of the links, let's see, oh yeah the link at the top. Just click on the word "highway".

Re:Don't get mad; GET GLAD.

[newpath4comVersion2]

hehehe Should'a woke up first. It's http://www.newpath4.com/enginesuspension.htm Wow, should have used that PREVIEW BUTTON.

Re:Venus is an unsettling example...

[Anonymous Coward]

Venus' atmosphere is however very different from that of the Earth. It is much more dense (90x the surface pressure of our atmosphere), and 96.5% of it is CO2, with a cloud-layer of sulphuric acid rather than water vapour. By contrast, our atmosphere contains about 0.035% CO2, even with man's current activity.

Re:Doc-should I stop smoking? Too late; don't both

[karlandtanya]

While I would never claim to understand how you feel (or even if it's a big deal to you) about the subject I brought up, I would like to tell you that it was not my intent to be cruel. In my family, it was emphysema, which my Great Uncle acquired over many years of smoking. It was not a happy thing, and he was made an example to all us kids. Who all tried cigarettes anyhow.

It'd be nice to believe that a real "oh shit" would cause people to change their behaviour. But it never does.

Some people eventually (choose to) realize that what you do does matter; that it is possible to f*ck up so badly that you're not going to get out of the consequences. That's the end of denial, that's acceptance; that's responsibility.

There's still a debate (more like political flamewar) about certain subjects, but the point is that in our daily lives, most of us make decisions with the foresight of 3-year olds. As individuals and as a society.

Consequences suck; and most people would prefer that they don't exist. Those that point them out are generally reviled as deluded doomsayers, blamers of victims (since when is victimhood redemptive?), or cynics with an agenda.

Newton's law of gravitational force

[sabre307]

F=G((Mearth*Msun)/r^2)

G is a gravitational constant = 6.673E-11 Nm^2/kg^2
Mass of Earth is 5.9742E24 kg
Mass of Sun is 1.98892E30 kg
r is the distance between the two objects = 1.49E8 km

Run this calculation through you favorite scientific calculator and you will find that the force of gravitational pull between the earth and the sun is equal to 5.32147E36 N. Note that the answer is a positive number, a really big one at that. This means that the sun and the earth are exerting a positive gravitational pull on each other. This would cause the earth and the sun to get closer with each successive pass. How the hell do you figure that the distance between the earth and the sun has not changed for 4 billion years??? Pay attention in physics class and you might learn something!!!

Re:Newton's law of gravitational force

[stevelinton]

The Earth orbits the Sun. Ironically enough it was Newton who worked out how this all happens. The Earth constantly accelerates towards the Sun, but since it's moving rather quickly "sideways" around the Sun, the effect of the accelaration is to curve it's path just enough that, one year later it is back exactly where it started, having gone all the way round the Sun.

I have a University degree including some mathematical physics (from Newton's alma mater, as it happens. his college rooms where about 50 yards (and 300+ years) from mine). I did pay attention and I did learn some stuff.

Re:Newton's law of gravitational force

[sabre307]

Well then... explain to me why calculating Newton's own law of gravitational force gives you mathmatical evidence that there is a strong gravitational pull toward the sun and his law of centripetal force would indicate that this gravitational pull exceeds what is neccessary to maintain an orbit around the sun. Putting the two together would give you an inward pull on the earth and point toward a slow sucking sound from that direction!!!

I'm also not impressed, I too have a University degree and have taken both Algebra and Calc based physics in the process. It wasn't Newton's alma mater, but I have been blessed by some damn fine professors none the less, as I'm sure you yourself are.

Re:Newton's law of gravitational force

[stevelinton]

Well then... explain to me why calculating Newton's own law of gravitational force gives you mathmatical evidence that there is a strong gravitational pull toward the sun and his law of centripetal force would indicate that this gravitational pull exceeds what is neccessary to maintain an orbit around the sun.

Numbers? In pure Newtonian two-body physics, all closed orbits are stable, essentially because angular momentum is conserved.

In GR all such orbits lose energy and angular momentum by radiating gravity waves. This, however is extremely slow, and would have no measurable effect on the Earth-Sun system for many billions of years.

Perturbations from the other planets (mostly Jupiter) have an effect, which cannot, in general, by exactly described or predicted, however numerical calculations suggest that, while the eccentricity and incilinarion of Earth's orbit, and things like the orientation of the long axis of the ellipse, change roughly cyclically over long periods of time, I have never heard of a suggestion that the Earth is systematically moving closer to the Sun due to these effects.

Re:Newton's law of gravitational force

[sabre307]

Now that was an argument!!! Fair enough! I tip my hat sir.

how reliable are the models?

[technoCon]

Apologies if I created the impression that I was ignoring "evidence." This is probably because of my dismissive handling of the theories build upon the evidence that has been collected.

I've done a bit of modelling of chaotic, dynamical systems myself. And one thing i know about iterated models is that boundary conditions are important. (And it's disgustingly easy to fool yourself with an unvalidated model.)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I can imagine arriving at a model of 2020s climate is to build it upon a model of 2019s climate. And so on back until we get 2005s climate where we establish boundary conditions from current evidence.

This climate modelling businesws has been going on since the Cold War warnings of nuclear winter. Thus, there should be several models predicting 2005's climate. How well did they fit this year's observations? (you know, that "evidence" I was ignoring.)

If reliable predictions exist, then money can be made in futures contracts for commodities like fuel oil. Since environmentalists still ask for money, they must not be making enough money this way. This does not prove reliable models do not exist, but it suffices to make me dismissive of doomsayers.

Since you didn't like that haiku, you probably won't like this one:

Technology ruins
Not as much as ignorance
Clean up your own mess

Re:how reliable are the models?

[postbigbang]

Finite and unbounded systems often present a conundrum when projecting either. There've been many that have made what turned out to be hilarious predictions, like the eventual world dominance of OS/2.

Using trend analysis is a good thing. Now that the permafrost is starting to thaw, we know that it can release immense amounts of trapped CO2. Add that to what we churn into the atmosphere, and it adds up to a soup that causes further heat. Unless a good volcano comes along to bounce away solar radiation, the atmosphere gets hotter and hotter. We know the effects of what can happen then.

The doomsayers can, with a deliriously wide standard deviation, say that a thermal cycle has occurred that will cause a lot of harm. The ecosystems are pretty fragile, yet they heal over thousands of years, too. Damaging them is delicate business, especially when the damage is done within a short time frame, so that the disjointed healing systems cannot re-synchronize with each other; they do this normally within their own time domain, rather than linearly across the multiple domains.

This is catastrophic, if the evidence is cited is true, because the rest of the models are pretty well known and accepted, academically.

Ignore it you say?
Nero will play
Great grandchildren will pray.

Re:Sea ice will not make any difference in sea lev

[Anthony]

The main issue with sea ice melting is the albedo decreases, further accelerating a postive-feedback runaway effect with warmer oceans. The risk then is that Density-driven polar currents stop, shutting down the current global circulation. Civilisation has been dependent upon stable weather. Climate change means that geographical reasons for building cities where they are will change. Look at the debate over rebuilding New Orleans for an indicator of how stongly we humans feel about our cities and their current locations.