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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[TheViffer]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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. :)

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

[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

[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

[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

[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!

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

[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?"

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.

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

[CheddarHead]

A Bush supporter calling for "some REAL science"? Boy, there's some irony for you!

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: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.

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

[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

[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: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:Oh, thank you very much

[Zigg]

Shouldn't you be catching a Godwin exception somewhere in the last few lines?

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.

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.

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).

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)?

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...

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: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:"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.

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.

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...

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)

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: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!).

"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?

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.

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.

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.