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.
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.
"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?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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:
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....
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
My quality social news site.com.
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.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
[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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
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.
.' are needed.
."
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. .
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.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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.
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.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
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.
Shouldn't you be catching a Godwin exception somewhere in the last few lines?
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!
Tell ya what, I miss the days of Global cooling.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
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.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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).
I have secretly hidden some mispelled words in this post. Can you find them?
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?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
. 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?
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.