Slashdot Mirror
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.
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
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.
Ehh...this is the life we chose.
Actually, 30 years ago they were warning us about global cooling.
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.
The Raven
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.
My pics.
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.
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
You're thinking of the Orontius Finaeus Map of Antarctica from the 1500's.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
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).
You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favorite artist is Picasso.
The post was refering to wild climate fluctuations in ice core samples that date to >10,000 years ago, precivilization.
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.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
I am trolling
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.
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.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
>Are you blaming Katrina on global warming?
a .warming.ap/
9 9102,00.html
Partly, yes.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/01/katrin
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,10
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?
I am trolling
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.
You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favorite artist is Picasso.
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?
Please take a look at the first three graphs on this page from a NASA website:
i mchng.html
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/cl
Can you really look at this information, then confidently declare that human actions are the main determinant of climate change?
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
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.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
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.
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).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Indeed
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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...
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
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.
You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favorite artist is Picasso.
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.
You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favorite artist is Picasso.
>> 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.
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.
You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favorite artist is Picasso.
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.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
You need to check your numbers because you're very, very wrong:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
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. :)
You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favorite artist is Picasso.
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.
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.
According to US DOE EIA
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?
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
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/