Slashdot Mirror
Greenland Glaciers Melting Much Faster
grqb writes "NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says that satellite observations indicate that Greenland's glaciers have been dumping ice into the Atlantic Ocean at a rate that's doubled over the past five years. Greenland Ice Sheet's annual loss has risen from 21.6 cubic miles in 1996 to 36 cubic miles in 2005 and it now contributes about 0.5 millimeters out of 3 millimeters to global sea level increases. One theory as to why this is happening is that the meltwater, caused by increasing temperatures in Greenland, serves as a lubricant for the moving ice, hastening its push to the sea. Another study has estimated that the warming rate in Greenland was 2.2 times faster than the global norm -- which is in line with U.N. climate models."
the 'extremists' in the middle east want to destroy our (the US and Europe's) way of life, so they sent a boatload of people to breathe really heavily on the 'burgs. Since they already live in a desert, the 'global cooling' effect that the melting of the iceburgs will cause will not affect them. BOOYA!
This sounds like Greenland's problem, not ours. We need to start litigation to force Greenland to stop this harmful dumping of ice into the ocean.
But during these past 5 years, the favored phase of the NAO has been negative, which is associated with ridging into Greenland (translating into warmer temperatures there) while Europe and the eastern United States is colder.
I just don't think it's a good idea to make climate extrapolations from five years of data over a small part of the globe. There's plenty of other evidence of global warming without this bullshit.
We must put pressure on our politicians to legislate against the dumping of ice by glaciers, this cannot be tolerated anymore!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Let's invade Greenland for insulting our state religion by allowing science to accurately predict events in their country.
1) The fact that we need to do something now to save the world before its too late!
To them I say.. its useless. Your puny little voices will not be heard. The only way to stop global warming were for the people of the world to collectively reduce their usage of energy and lower their standard of living. Its not happening. It simply is not going to happen.
2) The fact that it cannot be proven that it is human's causing this global warming, and that we know very little about the climate and have been measuring it for a very very short time.
To them I say.. Sure. Fine. But just remember that our great and global civilization wont be the first to have underestimated their effect on nature. History has shown that civilizations CAN affect the environment around them to the point that their civilization becomes unsustainable. Look up the end of the Mayan civilization. Actually even the Easter Islands belong to this category.
Bottom line. I dont think we are hurtling toward the point of no-return.. I believe we are PAST the point of no return.. at this point we might as well just try to find ourselves another planet, or work on technologies that make sure our civilization can survive the future.
- Tempestdata
I for one welcome our new bobbing, shrinking, popsickle overloards!
Table-ized A.I.
At this point I don't care who or what is causing the meltdown. What I want are some realistic ways to mitigate the effects. Solutions, not finger pointing.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
Up until just recently, pretty much everyone (even the staunchest environmentalists) thought that the Greenland sheet was quite stable. This does not bode well for the fans of that lovable dane, Bjørn Lomberg, the skeptical environmentalist. As I recall, a good bit of his "evidence" was based on the relative stability, and even mass-increase, of the Greenland sheet - which now seems pretty much debunked by this news. Where's the ice stable now, Mr. Head-in-the-sand? Perhaps Antartica yet bears out your theory? In any case, Denmark lies pretty pretty close to sealevel, as I recall.
No insult intended. But I hope y'all can tread water.
You insensitive clod, as we all know, the earth has only existed for approximately 6000 years. We all know that the all mighty God set those dinosaur bones into the earth to make them appear to be 150 million years old, and that the sun revolves around the earth. Heliocentrists be damned!
Cue libertarian anti-environmentalist ranting and argumentative stupidity. Ooh maybe we'll see my favorite, "because there was climate change prior to man, man cannot cause climate change, as any occurrence can have one and only one cause".
They have a point that the climate has had semi-wild swings in the past that probably killed a lot of species. However, a more practical concern is the impact of changes on people, especially agriculture. Billions of farmers may be displaced. And, places like England may no longer receive warm southern ocean currents and turn into a freezing Moscow-like place. Plus, hurricanes, floods, etc. may happen in places where they didn't before such that people are not prepared for them.
Table-ized A.I.
It's going to be fascinating watching what happens over the next few decades, and how the governments and people of the world end up dealing with it. It could go all sorts of ways.
It's nature's way of trying to cool the planet. It's called global warming in the short term, but it will cool the planet in the long term. Yes, mankind caused it.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Your assertion contradicts the data. Can you give me a reference to back up your claim?
l As you can see, Iceland's glaciers are in a state of retreat.
Here is the real data: http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb8/sum0203.htm
The immediate effects of global warming include the destruction of NYC, LA, and New Jersey... the secondary effects include Illinois getting beach front property... Ok, why again is this a bad thing? (for the morons, my tongue is firmly in my cheek, but yes, the East Coast sucks)
The ESA has data showing Greenland's ice mass getting bigger._ icesheet_growing.html?4112005
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/greenland
I don't doubt that human existence is causing some changes in the Earth's environment, but I doubt we've hit the point of no return yet. Besides, if we're ever going to colonize nearby space, we'll needs lots of water. And since this is the only planet we know of to have vast amounts of liquid water (and certainly the only one we readily have access to), perhaps it's not such a bad thing that all the Earth's ice is melting. Adaptation has worked for our species before, I'm sure it can work again.
If all of the glacier ice on Greenland melted, worldwide ocean levels would rise 20 feet. I got this number from the history channel so I don't know how accurate they are with non-Hitlter based facts. Anyway the article says the current Greenland glacier melting accounts for a 0.5 mm rise in ocean levels per year.
1 foot = 304.8 millimeters
304.8 * 20 * 2 = 12,192
So we have 12,192 years until all the glacier ice melts in Greenland assuming the rate is constant. We still have some time.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
So lets see, the sea level rising means that Los Angeles, New York, and Miami all go underwater. And this is a problem why?
It's a scary read. Some evidence seems to support that global dimming might be the cause of famine in Africa.
There's a lot about the subject on google.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Muslims hate the Danes, and now they're on George W's radar...
Step 1, Kick Denmark out of NATO.
Step 2, Bomb their shitty country back to the stone age.
Step 3, See if the ice is still melting on Greenland.
Step 4, Ask the world community to join in since it's going shit creek.
Step 5, ???
Step 6, Drill for more oil in Alaska.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4720536. stm
Btw, it is interesting that if you go to the Science/Nature section on bbc, there are 8 articles dealing with energy crisis/global warming currently, and that number was higher a few days ago when I first checked.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
No it doesn't. This study only measured iceloss by looking at glacier thickness and velocity around the coast line.
Inland the ice sheet is actually gaining thickness. There is always a different side to the story. The geophysics department at Copenhagen University, where I have studied (astrophysics though) has thoroughly confirmed this.
Reference:a -eas110405.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/es
Finally, Greenland will be green again! That's a lot of unoccupied ocean front real estate. Taking orders now -- PayPal accepted. Given the current rate of global warming and ice melting, expect your property to be ready in roughly 10 years, contingent on any future treaties, political climate changes (including but not limited to a Ralph Nader victory), ephiphanies among our politicans, or acts of God(s).
EvilCON - Made Famous by
that we drag these glaciers to the tropics so that we can cool all the global warming with all the ice. Yeah, thanks! Please pass me my glass....
Here is an article published last year:
1 5356v1
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/11
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev
Abstract:
A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites, 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters per year is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance. Below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is -2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. The spatially averaged increase is 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, or ~60 cm over 11 years, or ~54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift. Winter elevation changes are shown to be linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation.
No scientist living claims there's a way to stop global warming, only (perhaps) to reduce it somewhat.
You can stop it by deploying a large structure in space that reflects some of the sun's light... or you can scrub greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere... or you can fill the atmosphere with dust like after a large volcanic eruption or a nuclear winter.
There are solutions, but no money has been spent on developing them. This is because the policy makers either are incompetent or don't really care.
I don't know what sort of science fiction you've been reading, but global warming isn't going to make the Earth uninhabitable, or even remotely so. That sort of thing is nothing more than alarmist bullshit.
there are models which predict a run-away greenhouse effect. basically stuff like: north pole melts in summer, this stops deep ocean currents, this then warms continental shelf, which release lots of frozen methane into the atmosphere, frozen methane in the tundra is also released, the methane accelerates the global warming (methane is 2x as effective as CO2 or water in global warming). With all of this extra heat in the system, the climate could reach a new equilibrium at a much higher temperature than currently. People say this is far-fetched just because they don't want to come across as a crackpot, but the fact is depending on what the real values are for things that we don't know well enough to model right now, this could happen... and we don't know enough to exclude it.
So the question becomes, why the hell aren't policy makers pushing to improve the climate models and to launch satellites to measure the unknown parameters so that we know if this really is a possibility?? Such an effort would cost as much as one or two shuttle launches.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Cue libertarian anti-environmentalist ranting and argumentative stupidity. Ooh maybe we'll see my favorite, "because there was climate change prior to man, man cannot cause climate change, as any occurrence can have one and only one cause".
no, it's not stupidity, it's skepticism. the earth changes. the climate changes. thirty years ago, it was global cooling, a new ice age. now it's global warming. we don't know how much, if any, we've contributed to it, and, if we do can do anything about it. we might be able to alter it a few percent over the next fifty years, but at what price. and if we aren't the cause, then we're not the solution. there is lots of room for debate, it's not an absolute certainty. and truthfully, i'm not willing to risk our economic growth and security on a guess. and what about China, Russia, Africa, Latin America, et al. are they going to play by the rules established in "the west"? are they going to sacrifice economic prosperity so a few wealthy nations can once again dictate to the world how to live? hardly.
the major polluters are exempt from kyoto. and even then, we'll make only modest impact if that. i for one would prefer to see technology and the free markets provide the answers. in some post modern fantasy world, man has become the creator of all things, the omnipotent force, when history has proven completely otherwise. man is subjhect to the whims of the earth, not the other way around. every day the earth is bombarded by the universes biggest nuclear reactor. (that's the sun by the way.) perhaps all the radiation has had an effect? maybe we should build a big canopy and just hide in the shade.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
A vast new source of fresh water is available.
:-))
Fresh water is lighter than sea water.
Hence, all that is needed is a BIG plastic pipe to move all the fresh water south to irrigate the deserts of North Africa (it's downhill all the way
You missed out those of us who are actually in favor of the acceleration of man's destruction of the environment! If you don't give us our cue, how are we supposed to know when to give our opinions?
When mean temperature is raised by three degrees, ice melts. It's happeing all over the arctic, and anyone who thought that somehow Greenland would somehow avoid the trend is, literally, all wet.
the universes biggest nuclear reactor There are quite a few stars larger than ours.
I honestly can't tell if that typo was a mistake or you just staying in character...
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Believe it or not, Young Earth Creationists believe that Dinosaurs are large reptiles. Back then, everything was vegatarian (this is coming from a professor on Creationist Science (oxymoron, I know)), and as such, nothing died for quite a while. Reptiles grew large and they are what we call dinosaurs, since reptiles are in a constant state of growth. They also use this as the argument to why humans lived so long....everything lived in harmony. Now that beasts eat eachother and disease has spread, animals are smaller in size and humans do not live as long. Yeah, in my opinion, crackpot science, but that's what I was told at a lecture by a Young Earth creationist.
I came, I saw, She conquered.
What?! You dare suggest the Earth was created by our Lord as round?! You will burn in hell, Heathen!
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
How about this?
You think that libertarians are against environmentalist? Not so. In fact, I became a libertarian, because the other parties are jokes about it. from libertarian, we would allow such things as ANWAR and western drilling, BUT we would hold the companies to strict environmental conditions. If they pollute the ground water, then they would not just be fined, but would have to clean it up. If they go under, well, so be it (i.e. NO BANKRUPTCY). In addition, we would hold individuals LEGALLY responsible. That could mean civil as well as criminal. In fact, we would hold gov. officials responsible as well.
Now, does whatever party that you serve do that? No. The republicans are allowing total drilling everywhere. But they will not hold anybody responsible for causing an environmental issue. The dems avoided the issue by saying no drilling at all. Both are assinine approachs and irresponsible.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...and in my experience, the 'one cause' fallacy is usually uttered by environmentalists.
Sometimes the old, simple technologies are the answer ...
... the key is finding an area that's natually very cold to deposit the snow and, ideally, is located near fresh water.
Perhaps running a large series of snow making machines drawing water directly from the ocean, or more ideally a fresh water source that deposits into the ocean, 24/7 may be the answer to lower sea levels.
It wouldn't matter much where in the world this process is done, since water will find its level
Thanks for the laugh. The amount of power it would take to do what you suggest (not to mention materials for building the infrastructure) would cause so much fossil fuels to be burned that global warming would increase the entire time you were making snow.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
How is this a doubling in 5 years. This is an increase of a factor of 1.67 (67%) in 9 years. Please note, I don't have a problem with the data, just the combination of poor English and piss poor math. If the data above doesn't represent the whole truth, then include the data that does.
Lighten up. Its only a post.
A sheet is a dynamic entity, with different climates and temperature zones throughout. Balance is the key, and while it's clear that the Danes and Norwegians, in their eminent study, _thought_ that the sheet was in balance last year, this latest study just as clearly indicates that is no longer a foregone conclusion.
Wait for it, I'm sure the redneck ramblers have some obscure and insignificant point to bring to our attention which completely nullifies this research and shows global warming is not actually occuring. Thats right, it's all just an invention of the Democrats (not that they seem particularly motivated to do anything about it) and they have just bribed 99% of the worlds scientists (the rest work for Exxon).
Areas of rising temperatures trends are real enough but much of the attention given to it is neurotic. We live in societies where moral decay and character deterioration are in morbid, accelerated states. Human nature being what it is, many people not only deny this but they champion such deterioration as "progress". In this dynamic, nagging guilts and anxieties that are suppressed get transferred and fixed to other threats real and/or imagined. People with internal threats fixate on external ones. Acute, cataclysmic global warming is an example. We are more likely on the verge of a deep chill
With regard to global warming, the "hockey stick" mathematical model used to generate the Kyoto nonsense has been proved wrong. Global warming junk science imposes prejudicial, static, data profiles on dynamic processes. One thousand year periods with notable temperature changes are flattened artificially and recent fluctuations are magnified and held up in isolation (hence the "hockey stick" graph profile).Recent changes in solar activity gets ignored by sensationalists, and data from flawed temperature collections get a pedestal.
Temperature changes are part of a dynamic process, and the extrapolations based on static "snap shots" of often flawed readings are weird. Many areas in North America and Europe are temperate because of the Gulf Streams warming effect. How many polar ice cubes need to melt before that warm water is reduced and cold temperatures increase?
Legitimate studies show that rising temperatures are often followed by cooling periods (which can appear in a very sort time). We are all probably better off getting ready for another "little ice age".
Cataclysmic "gas worries" of the Kyoto type are bizarre. Even the enthusiasts describe only a temperature decline of 0.02C and 0.28C by the year 2050 - and that is no doubt optimistic.
No doubt we have temperature rises but the emissions bit is psychotic. We have a lot of people who are polluted inside themselves but look outside. Egotistically they think they are at the center of huge, complex global functions. The alarmist junk science that permeates the media is more related to psychological dysfunction than any real global trend. The condemnatory
"boutique politics" that arise from such junk studies should be isolated to the MTV/Greenday nitwits. That so many "manchurian candidates" in the higher levels of media, science and politics should compulsively conform to the same nonsense is a lot scarier than ice water.
If this upsets anyone emotionally then know that is how a person becomes in suggestible in the first place. We have real serious threats before us. Tellingly, the people most likely to rant about gasses also minimize the real threats at hand.
They're trying to warm things up so they can win more medals at the Winter Olympics!
(obscure Goodies reference)
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
I respect your good intentions, w.r.t. conservation and what not, but in the end, your attitude will only contribute to the problem, which needs a more active solution. As to manipulating nature, perhaps you need to expand your horizons a bit. It's been done, and it works.
Islands like Kiribati and Tuvalu in the Pacific ocean have already been experiencing rising sea-levels over a period of 13 years according to a tide-gauge project run by Australia's Bureau of Meteorology.
The rate of about 6mm (0.236 inches) per year is quite slow, but it is significant for low-lying islands like these ones.
... taking off your sandals and striking yourselfon the head until you bleed:
http://www.physorg.com/news10978.html
Warmer than a Hot Tub: Atlantic Ocean Temperatures Much Higher - Scientists have found evidence that tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures may have once reached 107F (42C)--about 25F (14C) higher than ocean temperatures today and warmer than a hot tub.
Ooops.. and that was normal back then? With oceans like that how much ice do you think was floating in them?
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/vars un.html
Mike Flaugher: It is my personal belief that with the beginning of Sunspot Cycle 23, we MAY be entering into a period of climate disturbance similar to that in the early 1800's, and POSSIBLY like that of the three major disturbances of the last millennium, the Wolf, Sporer and Maunder Minimums. The latter possibility we will not know with certainty for several decades. Solar Cycle 23, however, appears at this time poised to begin a major downshift in solar levels which may well cause reactions in the stratosphere and, through mechanisms now being studied as illustrated in some of the articles above, a series of reactions in the lower atmosphere. I believe that the manifestation of these changes may soon be felt as a shifting of weather patterns of moisture, dryness, and temperature.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/i xnewstop.html
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
Ooops. How are we going to turn down the Sun?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was an unusually warm period during the European Medieval period, lasting from about the 10th century to about the 14th century. It has been argued a better name would be the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. The MWP is often involved in contentious discussions of global warming and the greenhouse effect.
Ooops. We've obviously already have been there - much to the chagrin of one or the other faction trying to justify social change by predicting dire climatic consequences. These factions - as the Wikipedia goes on - of course are hard at work trying to find ways to paint the current warming trend as something novel and unique even in view of literally rock-solid past evidence. The Wikipedia is another btw another good starting point for the debate between the global cooling/warming factions and the CO2 doomsday prophets.
While we're at it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Opt imum
Some more warming in timeframe of 9000 to 5000 years B.P (Before present, before 1950 CE that is):
The Holocene Climate Optimum was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypisthermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.
Temperature variations during the
Someone said "Nothing is constant except change." Get used to it, and learn to be a Darwinian survivor or become extinct. Is there more to say? Yup. But do not pretend that long term cycles DO NOT exist, and that those LONG TERM are so dramatically large in terms of varying solar input to the Earth's atmosphere, that they will not and can not dramatically alter Earth's climate over time. It is a fact these changes have ocurred regularly and will ocurr again.
The Earth's circular to elliptical orbit changes, the Earth axis tilt off the Solar plane, and the Precession of the Earth's spin axis all cause changes which seem to be at the root of a 100,000 year cycle. This has been seen in the Vostok ice core samples going back 500,000 years in Antarctic ice by measuring CO2 variations on the repetetive 100,000 year cycles (or nearly so).
Without man's influence these cycles and the "Ice Ages" ocurred regularly and repeatedly, and I propound that they will continue again, and I see nothing man is capable of doing to stop the cycles. Man might speed a cycle up by a few years or decades or slow it down, but I see no chance to "stop it".
Believe me? No. Start with the Milankovitch cycles and other data on this page http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos100-2/clim/>
No matter what the U.N. or the U.S. or all the countries of the world do, the weather will change dramatically, the sea levels will rise and fall, as will CO2 levels, and man will make little dent in this cycle.
Take an empty glass.
.... Wtf am I missing? How can melting ice cause the earths water level to go UP?
Fill it half way with ice.
Add water until its full to the top.
Wait a few hours for the ice to melt.
Where is the water level? It should be way down because ICE displaces MORE space than WATER.
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
you're right. but as far as our solar system goes, it is. maybe I should have said the milky way?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
we don't have the largest star in the galaxy ethier. :P
Viking ==> Brute (horny) Man ==> Woman playing hard to get ==> Man makes green cash ==> Man gives diamond to Woman ==> Diamond becomes woman's best friend ==> Brute (horny) Man becomes just Brute Man ==> Woman calls diamond "ice"
Hence Diamond = Ice = Cash = A lot of Green
All the men living in Greenland, we know your pain!
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
There's not a hell of a lot of science behind the "climate systems" mainly because there is not a hell of a lot of hard fact. Climatic models may well be good enough for forecasting the weather two or three days into the future but that is the state of the art. The models you are talking about are based on theories and having theories is what _these_ scientist get paid for. Up to now a CO2 based doomsday theory was a sure winner but nowadays the market is too saturated creating openings for solar-CO2 hybrids or pure solar theories, computer models and research inclusive.
It will have no effect on people who already believe global warming is happening other than confirming what we believe.
People who have a vested interest in the world not moving to combat global warming (like energy company lobbyists) will cite the fact that the climate has changed in the past, claim this accelerating melting is part of that natural change, and use it as an excuse to do nothing. When the effects of global warming become too sever to ignore any longer, they will feign ignorance, claim noone could have seen it coming, then demand a silver bullet-type solution from the same scientists who have been telling them what needs to be done for decades, but were ignored because the executives possess a shortsightedness bordering on myopia (that is to say, their utter inability to see beyond next quarter's profit goal).
Am I psychic, or just really, really cynical?
Actually the point of my post is that we aren't fucked yet. If we can stabilize the rate of melting we will be okay. If we accept the calculations and assumptions from the article you discover we are pretty much doomed. Meaning the entire Greenland glacier ice will melt in less than 100 years. Therefore the majority of coastal cities will be flooded and inhabitable. I was just saying we aren't there yet.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
"no, it's not stupidity, it's skepticism."
Skepticism can be stupid, if the stakes are high enough. Example:
"Those two headlights heading towards me at high speed could be a bus that will kill me, but they could be two motorcyles that will pass harmlessly on either side of me. I think I'll stand here until I know for sure."
To the best of my knowledge there's no such thing as "U.N. climate models". The IPCC , which is a UN sponsored organisation, exists to draw together, collate, evaluate and present other studies - the work done in the field over the previous five years, in fact.
Polar bears are heavy and undoubtedly put a large amount of strain on the ice.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
Here's my prediction: America's energy barrons will hire thousands of PR men to counter the mounting evidence of global warming by selling them entirely baseless and asinine theories like yours. American capitalism will continue to optimize for next quarter's profits while rejecting any policy that would address the problems of global climate change.
On the contrary to Mr. Perry's assertion that I'm being playful, I'm quite serious. Read Michael Crichteon's State of Fear. It's a good fictional account wrapped in facts that global warming, at best, is still a theory. Here is more evidence. http://brunnur.stjr.is/embassy/geneva.nsf/form/con tent.html?openForm&wt=4B0130312E30332E30352E303000 4C01454E4700
So if the current stops, the temperatures drop, thus you will have accumualtion of ice/snow and the glaciers come back with a vengence. I would assume because of global warming this will occur...we would perhaps have smaller ice ages that do not take tens of thousand of years to start/ finish, but rather maybe decades...
So am I correct here or am I missing something??
You know, it would be of great comfort to me if the average Slashdot poster could learn to recognize a fucking JOKE when he or she reads it. Lighten up. You'll live longer.
Sheesh.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Luddites were not anti-technology but anti-starvation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Perhaps you meant neo-luddite.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
> For heavens sake, why is everyone so arrogant to think that our species is capable of uprooting ...because the idea that we cannot do anything at all--that humans can only sit back and watch the planet change--is scarier than the thought that we might be causing it.
>the climate cycle of a [b]planet[/b]?
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
okay, is it at least fairly large? it is certainly by far the largest one 93 million miles away.
i hope!!!
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Come on, now you're just being lazy. Put some effort into it.
:-))
"People curious about computers start running Linux. They start writing kernel modules, device drivers, GNU software. They start creating little Lego Mindstorms projects. Eventually, they start overclocking. The effects of overclocking on global warming are rather like the effects of cow methane: if a single cow in Iowa rips one, no matter how bad it smells, it probably won't contribute much to global warming. However, if all the cows on the planet simultaneously fart, we have a problem. In other words, Linux is responsible for global warming. The Film Actor's Guild (F.A.G.) was unavailable for comment at press time, but it is well-documented that Alec Baldwin endorses Linux and encourages members of FAG to use the popular operating system: 'All FAGs should run Linux', he is quoted as saying."
(Sorry, just having a bit of fun.
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
by far the largest inside of a 93 million mile radius ^_^
Oh, man, that is a shitcan of worms that I'm not even gonna try to open up in this thread. :P
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
The starting point for anthropogenic warming is at temperatures already very, very near the the highest seen in over 650,000 years, based on available data.
Yes, global climate changes. But no, it has not changed into the realms we are moving into, at least not within the time span of the evolution of our species, or of almost all species now on the planet. We are moving global climate into new regimes.
The speed of my car changes all the time, too, But that does not mean I can put my foot to the floor when I'm already doing 75 mph, and expect things to remain all right for very long.
A large increase in the atmospheric concentration of one of the major temperature regulating gasses, over a 30% increase in CO2 and still rising rapidly, is due entirely to human inputs of CO2. We KNOW that, there is no question about that. Our planet is as warm as it is because of atmpspheric CO2. Without atmospheric CO2, we would be a ball of ice. We have just made a major alteratiin, in just about a century, in the concentratin of that gas, to levels WAY outside anything oserved in well over half a million years.
Arguing that we cant drive global processes is simply absurd, in the fact of even just this one fact.
All together now"
CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER!!!!!!!
We have trouble predicting WEATHER more than a few days out.
But I can guarantee you that when I fly to connecticut tomorrow, I will need a winter coat and not summer clothes. And I can guarantee you that when I fly there in July, that I will NOT need a cold-weather coat but I will need warm weather clothes clothes.
THAT is climate, and we routinely predict climate for months, years, decades, and even centuries into the future. We do this every time we plan a trip to florida for december, and we do the planning in july, for just one of literally countless exmaples.
http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=1516&cat id=9
Bruce
New Orleans has also been experiancing rising sea levels for the last several 100 years.
Er...
The Mississippi rive delta has been experiancing rising sea levels for the last several 100 thousand years and oil companies routinely drill oil wells into it.
Could it be the built the city on the River Delta? Could it be the river delta is sinking? Could it be some low lying islands are sinking?
Could it be that sea level is actually lower at the height of an ice age?
Could it be that the planet moved out of an ice age about 10,000 years ago?
IMHO when we get a measurable change over a few million years then maybe we have an inkling something is going on. Besides which - the planet is cold now and has been for about 30 million years.
IF the planet warms up soon - and this is a really big IF because we have had over 20 ice cycles in the last 2 million years and are presently in an interglacial - then IF the glacial maximum we just left is the last one (I think this is very unlikely) then we will be better off for it!
As fossil fuels run out we will have to move to a sustainable energy economy. One of the consequences of this is that oil and gas will not be available to heat our homes.
Each and every one of our Global Warming folks should lead the way to sustainability by shutting off their furnaces. Next they should stop driving their cars.
To make CO2 significantly change the environment (in models) you have to ASSUME a strong positive feedback on dihydrogen monoxide atmospheric levels.
My approach to the problem would be to assume the strong temperature/water vapor feedback and try to make it fit historic data. To date they have not. They are all too busy forcasting to bother backcasting.
Backcasting is the process of validating computer models by having the model accuratly predict past events.
Computer modelers that don't attempt backcasting are ALL POLITICAL HACKS. I say this with years of experiance running power system models. We routinely took models/datasets as presented by opposing teams and showed them to return crazy results in historic simulations.
On second thought, on review of my power systems work. I'd like to revise the above statement.
Computer modelers are ALL POLITICAL HACKS. Computer modelers that don't attempt backcasting are ALL INCOMPETENT POLITICAL HACKS.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Er...this is from the link you gave me: "During the past decades, however, they have markedly thinned and retreated owing to a milder climate, and some of the smaller ones have all but vanished."
Okay, are you just kidding around? First you cite a Michael Crichton novel, then you give me a link that directly contradicts your assertion. I thought you were being serious - I guess I missed the joke here? Maybe I'm not so great at picking up sarcasm.
Given my latest experiances with the moderations around here I will not be surprised if your very excellent well thought out and well written post gets moderated as a "troll"
http://science.slashdot.org/~cdn-programmer/
"Mod parent up! Friday February 10, @06:32PM 1 2, Troll"
This of course is done in the interest of suppressing ideas and information and is done by people who cannot handle critisisms.
My tag line should read "If you want to win the argument then pick the right side before you open your mouth".
Ah, I just read your post again, and I noticed the "still a theory" remark, always a dead giveaway of someone who doesn't understand the process of science. So you weren't just kidding - you actually, really cited a Michael Crichton novel as "evidence" against the hard data that was measured in Iceland. The mind boggles.
To use similar, but more reasonable logic to the previous poster, if it continues to double every five years, that means the entire 6096 mm will be gone in x years where
2 ^ (x / 5)= 6096
(x / 5) log 2 = log 6096
x = 5 log 6096 / log 2
or 63 years.
Do you know what percentage of atmospheric gases is CO2?
a .html
0.035%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere (Pie chart a little bit down the page.)
Let's say, just for argument, that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles. Then it makes up 0.07% of the earth's atmospheric gases.
This is not going to kill us.
"Carbon emissions for U.S. territories range from 9 to 12 million metric tons per year." http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg99rpt/appendix
One metric ton is 1000 kg.
"Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
One short ton is 2000 kg.
Let us compare. US activity gives off 18-24 million short tons, volcanic activity 145-255 million short tons, of CO2 each year.
How much can we affect climate change if our entire CO2 emission is 1 percent of that of a single natural source of CO2?
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye. Then it's fun and games without depth perception.
IMHO BP has embarked on their "Beyond Petroleum" advertising campaign is in part because they realise they are in trouble and are running out of oil. If we check their filings we find the amount they have spent on non-oil energy is insignificant. The amount of energy they supply from non-petroleum energy sources is also insignificant.
I called their public relations people and asked them what they were proposing for an energy source other than oil and gas. This was when I first saw the commercial of a brightly lit gas station - fueled by what? I dunno?
Their response was that the commercial should not have been broadcast in my area.
Yup - heads in the sands.
Part of this is so that when they make their massive profits having shut down much of their Exploration part of the business (which is quite expensive) people will think they are developing a replacement energy source.
About the only viable alternative in the short term is nuclear.
However - people can and should insulate their homes to about R50 in the walls and R70 in the ceilings. Also insulating shutters which close automatically at night (when nobody is looking out the windows anyway) can be installed.
Those people who are most worried about CO2 emissions and global warming should lead the way by (1) re-insulating their homes (2) shutting off their furnaces and (3) stop driving their cars.
They might also want to look into placing their office in their homes so that we don't have to have two (2) heated buildings to do what can be done with one. Since I have personally had an office in my house for the last 25 years and I don't drive a car at the moment I do happen to know it can be done.
Also - I make more money than most people. And I don't have to waste 2-3 hours a day commuting in rush hour traffic. Its also very nice to be able to pop out any time I want for a coffee with a friend or to run an errand when all the businesses I need to deal with are open.
In the long run I'll probably live longer too since I don't have the daily stress most people think is "normal".
While I am on the subject... I was able to walk my kids to school and spend time with them when they were little. Now they are young adults. I never experianced any of the problems I hear in the news that people experiance with teenagers. There was no rebellion, no drugs, no drinking. Instead I was treated to seeing the kids getting scholerships, developing businesses, hiring other kids, creating employment and yes - paying lots of taxes too.
It is much easier to be involed with your family when you have an extra 2-3 hours per day that most people don't have and the simplest difference was not having to make a daily commute.
So what if water "accounts for the majority of the green house effect" ? That's like saying, "I get the majority of my calories from meat and potatoes, so having another candy bar doesn't matter."
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Are you worried that melting glaciers may raise ocean levels, inundating coastlines and triggering massive damage?
Fear Not! NASA scientists have discovered a glacier that is not only not melting, but actually growing!
It is, of course, the glaciation on Mt. St. Helens. It had been blown away a few years ago, but it is now growing back!!!
So Panic Not! All we need to do is detonate a few thousand volcanos in Greenland, Siberia and Antarctica: problem solved!
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
(this should be too obvious for me to have to say it but...) The only way to stop global warming is to reverse the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is not the same as reducing energy use. We can use all the wind power we want (1.2 TW available in the CONUS alone). We can use nuclear. We can do something about sources of nitrous oxide and methane (a bugaboo that hits Europe hard). We can even burn coal as long as we stuff the carbon back underground where it came from. We can wrap our houses in really good insulation to keep heat in instead of burning fuel to replace losses.
Oh, definitely true. The thing to do is use the same capabilities which let us change things so far in the direction they've gone, and instead use them to change things back.Have you looked at the Keeling curve? The seasonal swings in CO2 concentration are still much bigger than the annual rise. If we could grab enough of that carbon before it goes back into the atmosphere and stash it away, we could level the trend. Think about possibilities for a while, and study (starting with chem and physics). No telling what you might come up with.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
And have been for the last few thousand years from what I gather. Heard a localglacier expert talk about it on the radio a few years ago (here in Iceland). Not that I dont think global warming is a danger.
Look, you can't have it both ways!
I'm far more inclined to believe that glaciers shrink and grow in a rythmn entirely their own, on a time-scale that depends on a million things. Hell, 10 years ago the greens in New Zealand were panicing because Fox Glacier was retreating at some god-forsaken, never before heard of, world altering rate - and now that self same glacier is growing at some god forsaken, never never before heard of and world altering rate! And guess what? They're spinning out!
When the glacier was shrinking, it was "Global Warming Is Dooming Us All". Now it's growing, and hey, it's "Global Warming is Dooming Us All".
I think from this we can take the following information:
1) Glaciers shrink sometimes
2) Glaciers grow sometimes
3) We don't know dick about where, when or why
4) We should shoot all those who profess to know the answer to #3.
5)????
6) Profit
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
Someone upthread said there was a 30% increase in CO2 levels in the last 100 years.
That's about .3% increase in greenhouse effect (assuming it's measurable).
Addressing the feedback assumptions in the models is the core of the technical arguement regarding mankinds contribution to global warming.
Assume large positive feedback and the sky IS FALLING.
More realistic assumptions lead to less threatening conclusions.
Which models do you think get the air time? The funding?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Backcasting is not done to the degree needed (because the alarmest models invariably can't get history right).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Equilibrium processes?
We WERE at equilibrium. We have added a new substantial source of CO2, and we are now moving to a new higher equilibrium concentration. Tehjabsolute levels of
BTW, your volcanic CO2 numbers are very, very wrong. Anthropogenic CO2 emissins are more than two orders of magnitde heigher than volcanic emissinons. Total natural emissions of CO2 are about a norderof magnitude higher than anthropogenic inputs. Adnanthropogenic inputs are changing the equilibrium.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
This folloing info is from the second URL
>From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million
by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to
315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994 [Battle] [C.Keeling]
[Schimel 94, p 43-44]. All the signs are that the CO2 rise is
human-made:
* Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year
1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and
290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level
observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice
cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from
peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago,
but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94,
p 44-45] [White]
* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history
from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].
* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions.
Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils
must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo,
p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler].
* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements
in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind
by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time.
The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according
to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [Schimel 94, p 43]
[Siegenthaler]
* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon
13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in
the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends
fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible
with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the
ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.
* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher,
p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257]
To suggest that global warming is going to change the environment is the same as suggesting that there will be no future ice ages. Since there have been around 20 in the past 2 million years on something like a 110,000 year cycle - this would mean that the last has come and gone. Please note that 5 million years ago there were trees north of the Arctic circle.
If we believe in irreversable Global Warming, then we can expect the planet will revert to the warm phase which is about 20 degrees F (10C) on average warmer than now and which the planet enjoyed for oh about +85% of the last 500+ million years. This will melt the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
There is no evidence to suggest this will happen. Most likely we are simply in an interglacial and there will be another glacial cycle just as there has been in the past.
If we reject the idea of the Global Warming, then this senerio - if the planet warms up a little for a short while then it will just delay the onset of the next ice age.
During the last ice age there were glaciers as thick as the Matterhorn in Switzerland is high. Toronto was covered by more than a mile of ice. That is a lot of ice and it wouldn't be very nice to live in a world like this.
The thing is that whoever is correct, there is little that mankind can do about it. If we have a warming trend for a while then some islands may be flooded and Florida might need to hire some Dutch engineers. Britain may once again be able to tend vinyards. If we have global cooling for a while as occured during the little ice age then we may find that we won't have enough food to eat.
A far more pressing problem is that mankind is buring fossil fuels at a totally unsustainable rate. IMHO we are going to be facing the peak of world oil production within a couple years and when this happens, $70 oil is going to look real cheap.
So I would suggest that rather than worry about global warming, we should instead prepare for a world with less oil and gas. This will probably have the side effect of reducing CO2 emissions. If anyone considers this a positive outcome then fine.
North America peaked in natural gas production in 2001. Since that time - what has the population of North America done to cope?
The answer is pretty much nothing. A huge part of the fertilizer industry has been shut down. Now part of the plastics industry will follow suit. The price of Natural Gas goes up and up (and temporarily down for now - yes I DO know about gas in storage levels) and still people talk about building more gas fired electricity stations. Ontario is still thinking there is no issue and they can have all the gas they want and I read New York State is also imbued with a high level of polyanna thinking.
The last major company to think this way was Calpine. They are in bankruptcy now. If we look at their history we will find that a few years back their shares were trading at $45 bux. They had more gas turbines on order than could be built in the USA. They were planning on burning most of the North American gas supplies all by themselves. The market LOVED THEM.
I do not subscribe to the fears of Global Warming. However I will say again - those who do should get off their butts and do something about it. Insulate your homes. Shut off your furnaces. Stop driving your cars.
Do something that counts, something that will reduce your demand for fossil fuels. If you want to justify it by citing Global warming then be my guest. But however you justify it - DO SOMETHING. Tear a wall down in your house and use some spare time to put R50 insualtion into it. That alone will accomplish far more than wasting your time worrying about something you can do nothing about.
It's a fictional "entertainment" book yes, however, it's has many facts, all backed up by legit data that refutes the claims of global warming. Do you even know when the "theroy" of global warming came to be? 1989, and guess what happened that year? 4 countries exploded Nukes, big earthquake in San Francisco, Berlin Wall fell, and there was a drout in the U.S. Bottom line is this: people believe what they want, and you believe that global warming exists. I live in Chicago and it's -10 wind chill right now. Think I believe in Global warming? Re-read the link I sent: During the 1960s the retreat began to slow down, and some of the glaciers are now advancing again.
In other news, suspicions that the giant magnifying glass in orbit is causing the glaciers to melt was dismissed as just being to silly.
>CO2 greenhouse effects are lost in the noise ....Which models do you think get the air time? The funding?
You offer a conspiracy theory of Global Climate Change, in which Global Climate Change is a fiction promulgated by money-hungry scientists.
According to you, these scientists are smart enough to create phoney computer models to get grants out of the small pool of available funds, but not smart enough to get grants from the vastly richer petroleum industry.
There is an alternative theory of science: observation, theory-forming, testing and refinement. All observations strongly support recent Global Climate Change; all credible theories point to human impacts on the environment; Greenlands' glaciers are furnishing us with a natural test; and no doubt the theories will continue to be refined as we learn more.
If your calculations of CO2's impact do not agree with the observations, then your theory of CO2 impact is faulty. Go refine it ... if you are into science and not polemics.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
You're correct... floating ice does not make the water level rise. However, melting ice that was supported by a land mass that is not floating in the water will indeed make the water level rise.
" i for one would prefer to see technology and the free markets provide the answers"
Yeah, like how technology and the free markets arrived out of nowhere like superheroes to save New Orleans from hurricane damage and flooding, days before the hurricane hit.
Oh, wait, that never happened. Despite being a known threat for decades, no private-sector profit-oriented firm popped up with a solution for saving New Orleans.
Sorry, but "Technology and the free markets" don't do anything. People do. Guided by management and investors, technology and the free markets chase money. They will ignore many significant problems unless other people spend money on those problems. In the case of most problems larger than personal entertainment and transportation, that means government. That's just reality.
Markets lag demand, for the most part. The problem with climate change is that we need to take steps long before the shit hits the fan.
The solution to air pollution was not to wait until the air became unbreathable and "technology and the free market" provided "solutions" consisting of air tanks and comfortable, affordable mass-produced respirators. The solution was to institute regulations to keep the air from getting to that point.
Then, the existence of the regulations creates demand for ways to reduce costs, which spurs "technology and the free market" to produce solutions so companies can more economically meet the requirements of the regulations.
As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. We can wait until climate change has provided "necessity" by screwing things up, causing trillions of dollars of damage, and killed millions. Or governments can provide the necessity through regulations, before any of that heavy loss of capital and life.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Sorting through the article we find that some more raw data has been recovered from Antarctica. However... tweaking the model that it will fit past data still wont allow them to chart the future. Something that can't even be achieved for in comparison ""relatively simple"" systems like the financial markets they expect to achieve for a far more complex and unknown system. That damming criticism up front and then regarding the so-called "EPICA challenge"... so they weeded out a couple of teams whose bets on the extended vostok data were way too far off while allowing the winning teams to fine tune their models to the new extended data set. We all know to what impressive lengths people will go to in order to secure funding...
Tweaking the model?
The modelers were presented with temeprature data for about 300,000 years of new data, with NO Co2 data accompanying. Teh CO2 data wer not yet determined. The modelers then prediected CO2. Note taht this was for glacial epochs with different timing, temp extremes, and dynamics than those that were previously known, and for which the models had been previously verified.
8 teams using 8 models, published their predictions. The predictions were very close to each other. Adn then when the CO2 data were later released (in subsequent publicatinos) the predictins were very close to the actual data.
This is not 'tweaking the models.' This is using a BLIND test to verify the models against brand new data. Adn the models passed.
"Something that can't even be achieved for in comparison ""relatively simple"" systems like the financial markets they expect to achieve for a far more complex and unknown system. "
I can predict with a very high degree of acuracy that the current cyucle of clear and cool followed by extended periods of rain, here in the SF Bay area, will transition in 5 months to coool and foggy near the coast and hot as blazes inland, with no rain for about 6 months. That prediction, a CLIMATE prediction, is a no brainer. I can extend that precition to 17 months from now, and 29 months from now, and 41months from now, and 53 months from now, ad nauseum, with a very high expectatin that I will be correct.
For markets, I wont predict even somethign a simple as whether it will be higher or lower in 6 months.
So no, markets are NOT 'relatively simple' in terms of predictability, when compared to climate.
The current rate of increase per year comes out to be 5.8% -- but they note that the rate has increased. So a good estimate is 10% per year, or doubling every 7 years.
This year, the water levels went up 3 mm, 1/2 mm of which was Greenland. (Let's not forget that as we raise these water levels, we affect the rate of melt for ice worldwide). So after 50 years, we could estimate that the water levels go up 6 feet, 1 of which was greenland. After 70 years, the water levels go up 48 feet, 8 of which was greenland.
That's the same numbers, but a different perspective. It assumes a exponential increase. Actually, even that assumption, though better founded than your constant-rate equation, isn't correct.
The reality well might be worse than exponential growth in melting at the current time. And later, as the Gulf Stream stops, it might be not so bad: closer to your linear model -- or even reversing the melting, as the warm Gulf Stream stops delivering heat to moderate Greenland's summer temperatures. I'm not saying that either of these cases is correct. I'm saying we can't tell, but your estimate of a linear melt rate is insanely ludicrous. It just has no bearing on anything.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
This engine doesn't produce any greenhouse gases. It's a new type of engine that doesn't combust any fuel. Also no recoil so ALL the energy from the solenoids goes into the metal steelies {balls}. Extremely devoid of friction but resistance in the generators.
The resistance can be greatly minimized once the generator sizes are closely configured during R & D. White House has looked at it and the Department of Energy but since they see little way to tax it and no way to charge a monthly bill for it to power each person's home, the engine is -for the time being- meeting with some resistance.
However, seeing as how we have come down to "crunch time"... and seeing as how hurricanes, tornadoes, & sudden high winds combined with snow & ice are taking so many powerlines down, it looks like resistance is futile. Nuclear power takes 5 years to build just one plant and even after they're built the powerline infrastructure is destructing faster than the ice in Greenland.
http://www.newpath4.com/millenialdawnpowerandlight secure21.htm produces power for each home and apartment. It would cause such a sudden reduction in greenhouse gases that one day we might have to produce greenhouse gases ANYWAY to stabilize the planet.
There is also a new car engine being examined worldwide right now. An enclosed pollution-free system of combining supercold liquid air with superhot steam vapor for an intra cylinder expolosion. It doesn't exhaust anything, uses the air and water over & over in a closed regenerative cycle. The liquid air causes each separate H2O steamed molecule to collapse INDEPENDENTLY. The resulting collapse of all the molecules creates an instantaneous vacuum that pulls the expanding liquid air into instantaneous slam against the piston head.
It's also being looked at very closely. Here's the link > http://www.newpath4.com/enginewow.htm . They're both mine but since they come so close to looking like perpetual motion -and since climate change was accelerating- I released them free of charge instead of patenting, so that all the people able to refine them would have them immediately.
I agree with you tho that it does look hopeless. In fact, I recently defined hopeless as being 4 different types of manmade Armageddons >
http://www.newpath4.com/index.html#The4ManmadeArma geddons1EarthbutstillFluid2Water3WindPeopleLeaders andthefourObjectives4FirestormFloodofRadiation_Arm ageddonlinksonnewpath4homepage ...
& suddenly the Bible's Armageddon looks a lot better than 4 from men. At least the Bible Armageddon promises to leave survivors (Revelation 7:9,13-17)
I will predict that googles stock will fall when they get busted over the head by the feds own courts for not disclosing search data. That's a no-brainer just like predicting that winters will tend to be colder rather than warmer for a certain region. I suppose as long as Earth's axis is tilted and retards get to be presidents this will be true for a very very long time. Having dealt with your prediction here let's take another look at your Epica challenge...
A question right on the top of my mind... why are you defending the CO2 models so vehemently? What's your stake in them? Personally in my career I've met a lot of people hell-bent on producing (desired) results and the CO2 camp is well funded because it has become a political tool and corruption is certainly not unheard of in research. An "Epica challenge" competition held by the like-minded (and above all like funded) is a little to self-serving, don't you think?
At this point I will leave it up to the reader to decide what to believe. I don't want to trump your "Epica 8 Team coinciding result" card because I wasn't there as a witness and thus can't point to any foul-play, but anybody following the thread all the way to here will always know there's another side to the equation to consider - which really is all I set out to achieve tonight.
Regards.
The way I see it, the most likely fallout of planet wide warming is an increase in infectious diseases. Take a look at the avian bird flu as it is slowly spreading across the world despite our best efforts to contain it. The higher the temperatures go, the more interesting the disease become. It's no accident that the most virulent diseases in the world are in warm moist climates.
Even that is not an alarmist thing to say. We can adapt. But in a warmer Earth, I think disease may play a bigger roll in population reduction than many anticipate. In a colder Earth, we play the bigger role by killing each other for diminishing food and fuel resources. Pick your poison.
I know there are always a lot of people that say, "Hey, it is not so bad. We will adapt. Etc." But I think everyone can agree that the tone of commentary on the planets climate has shifted pretty dramatically since I was in school 15 years ago. We've got some serious trends emerging including high hurricane activity (with unusual electrical properties never before witnessed), rapid melting of glaciers that is outstripping the predicted rates by our best scientists (just today recent data is showing Greenland melting far faster than we predicted even 5 years ago and the arctic shelves are calving into the ocean at a rapid rate), increased threat of a pandemic despite our rapidly increasing scientific knowledge in the field of epidemiology (right now we are looking at a bird flu which is a hit on our food rather than on our population directly), and of course, our dwindling fossil fuel supplies upon which our industries are based.
That last one I put in there as an indicated of economic stresses on the system. We will feel some pressure from that one. Yes, we can transition away from fossil fuels, but if you combine the economic pressure from that with rising sea levels displacing industry and people, greater likelihood of worldwide epidemics (sure the US is pretty covered but 3rd world countries should be terrified by this possibility more than a US citizen could likely imagine), and so on.
Any one of these things, we can deal with, but we are not confronting just one thing. We are confronting a multitude of things that are all converging on our current way of life: an unsustainable one. Heck, I work in health care and I know the exponential cost projects very well. We can't sustain the costs. There's just no way. Something will give within the next 10 to 20 years...which again coincides with all these other things. There's a big pattern here. I don't think many people see the forest for the trees on this right now. You can argue about this one posts topic, but it's just one topic of a dozen that are all pointing toward, "Ouchtime".
I don't think it's hopeless, but I think there's a Hell of a lot of work to do in the next 20 years. People need to start making right choices on their own and helping their neighbors to get educated and shift their life choices toward a path that protects us from the problems on the horizons. In health care, it's simple things like HSAs that let you get tax free payroll deductions into an investment account to pay for health care and getting more educated about what treatment you really need and what you don't (you might not need that drug the Doctor is being paid to prescribe--sometimes you do). Here's a fact: health care costs are rising exponentially and well beyond the capacity of our insu
I have ever seen on slashdot, and that's pushing a long way.
You dint respond at all to the point. You indirectly called my motivatin into question, you indirectly called the hoensty of EIGHT INDEPENDENT TEAMS into question, you implied that none of this is worth paying attentin to, and you managed to do so without ever addressign teh actual data.
Congratulations.
BTW, my motivation is a desire to understand what we know about our planet, magnified a bit by the potential risks of this anthropogenic apparent perturbation in our planet's processes. What is YOUR motivation in vehemently denying the relevance of the models, to the point of dismissing them without addressing the actaul evidence?
Let us compare. US activity gives off 18-24 million short tons, volcanic activity 145-255 million short tons, of CO2 each year.
How much can we affect climate change if our entire CO2 emission is 1 percent of that of a single natural source of CO2?
Wow, you really, really flubbed this arguement, 18-24 is ~10% of 145-255. And that is just the US and territories, only about a quarter of the worlds CO2 comes from the US.
So, um, to cover a couple of other points.
Let's say, just for argument, that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles. Then it makes up 0.07% of the earth's atmospheric gases.
Not going to kill us? Of course not, but there is a good chance it will heavily affect the temperature. I think it was back in the 70s when Carl Sagan predicted that venus would be really hot because of the large amount of co2, he was right.
We know for a fact that CO2 is a prime driver of heat retention, quit trying to pretend like it will not have a big effect.
A blog about stuff.
The last line you quoted is the key -- increased snowfall is cyclical, linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation.
The accelerated flow of the ice into the ocean, by contrast, is new and apparently related to warmer ocean and maybe meltwater from the surface of the ice flowing down through crevices and lubricating it.
The natural forces are cyclical (aside from the fact that the sun will continue to become warmer until it becomes a red dwarf and swallows the planet, but that's later).
He's at http://www.lomborg.com/ ...where you can hardly avoid reading or watching interviews where he stresses that he accepts global warming and discusses the issue mostly in the context of the IPCC report - the major one that predicted global warming between 1.4C and 5.8C by 2100, with a couple of "most likely" scenarios around 2.2C.
A page or two of 'The SE' did ah, "cover the controversy" about global warming itself, Lomborg mentions that there are data that point the other way, scientists who disagree.
Then he basically waves all that aside and stipulates the conclusions of the IPCC report are true and should form the basis of deciding our response.
Why would the joke be on me? It's my wife who's made a genetic investment in the future (with some guy I've never met, nor am I ever likely to). She's trying to persuade me to risk someone else's life, but she's not making much progress on even getting me to the urologist.
I saw the whole of the problem when I learned how to do the maths of exponentials. Unfortunately, most people can't (or won't) do the basic maths, or interpret the results in personal terms.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
So are you saying that all the evidence for global warming including the EPICA challenge is simply made up or invented by dishonest scientists chasing a pay cheque ?
You'd have thought that if that is what you're saying you'd have mountains of evidence yourself clearly demonstrating the corruption, the fixed results, the bogus data etc and wouldn't need to resort to simply making unfounded allegations of dishonesty against people against whom you appear to dislike or disagree with.
Alternatively you could perhaps publish your own studies demonstrating where the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from and the likely effect it'll have on the environment. Will you be doing that ?
We can (perhaps) save the situation - but only if we all work together. That is, the whole of humankind must be aware of this "clear and present" danger, and must change its energy and waste usage before it is too late.
I am 60 years old, This warming will not (probably) affect me directly - but it will (unless countered) remove the possibility of my having any great-great-grandchildren.
Ian D. K. Kelly
idkk Consultancy Ltd.
"Quality through Thought"
I'm still recommending that people examine your claims and theories taking into account the perspective I've given in the previous part of the thread. At this point I just note that you seem to be extremely upset over this or you wouldn't get personal with me.
Heh heh ... god forbid you should give "equal time" to climatologists!
... in fact I don't see why you are so keen to make the point - who cares?! I just like the fact that, at this temperature, the city where I live is above sea level. Maybe this is "abnormally cold" by long-term standards, but really, so what? Even if global warming were caused almost entirely by increased solar radiation (which it is not) - what does that matter? Do you think that lets us off having to do anything about it?
... do you think that paleoclimatologists are trying to hoax us? Didn't you study physics at school? Did you not cover the greenhouse effect? Are you just unaware of fossil evidence linking CO2 and temperatures, going back hundreds of thousands of years? http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/mist030699. html
... but remeber that right at the moment we are in fact in a period of rapid warming, correlated strongly with rapid increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations. Let's leave hypothetical problems of the future to the future, shall we, and instead try fixing the actual problem of the present? Because if it turns out that we are up for an ice age we will be fine because we now have an established technique for averting it - burning fossil fuel. You can get your SUV back out of the garage then.
Personally I'm not too fussed whether this is "normal" climate
We are well advised to try to do our best to keep the global climate stable, whether that's (so-called) "normal" or not, and whatever is causing it. Sure we can't turn down the sun when it gets brighter, but we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to compensate.
BTW, do you honestly doubt that the recently-enhanced CO2-levels in the atmosphere are warming up the Earth's surface? Seriously? I mean
You will always find some mavericks to dispute any science (see the Discover Institute), but you are kidding yourself if you think that climatologists in general are in doubt about it. Pretending that it's still too early to take seriously while there's not 100% consensus just makes you look naive and silly, frankly.
Also, I don't care that animals from millions of years ago wouldn't like today's climate - it doesn't matter now because those animals are extinct. In the long term, if the climate continues to warm, humans and other animals will continue to adapt. Polar bears will die out, but when the Earth cools down again similar animals will evolve to fill the polar niche again. A few tens of thousands of years should be ample. But your long-term sang-froid is not much comfort to people of the next 100 years having to live with the consequences of rapid global warming, though.
You sound very defensive in your eagerness to deflect the "blame" onto something other than humans - are you secretly a guilty SUV-driver or something?
BTW, perhaps we are due for a bit of global cooling
the point is that you don't. GP said "build around". it floods where you live? go live somewhere else. high winds there? try again. repeat untill your house survives longer than you live (and die of old age). also try not to build something that lights on fire easily. Guess what, the edge of an ocean isn't the best place to build a house.
There once was a poll:
"You're In Stasis 100 Years. What's the First Tech You Look Into?"
I replied "an icepick", which was modified as insightful. Which made me very glad. But I feel I've now gained even more insight! As from today (actually yesterday) my reply would have been "scuba diving tech".
Can we please have a rerun? Please??
--
"Life is wasted on the living"
Unless you're planning to do 1 wall per year, putting another R-12 over all 4 walls is much better than just putting R-50 into one.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Last verse of "Never set the cat on fire", to be specific:
Don't start an interstellar war, it has no proper uses
When they ask what you did it for, you'll only make excuses
If thirty billion folks get hurt
You'll go to bed with no dessert
Don't start an interstellar war
And mind your manners as circumstances may require
And never set the cat on fire.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/0 7/0017221d =10643918072
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_i
Climatologists have addressed this before:
In contrast to the claims of solar output, historical temperature data is quite firm and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are accurately known for almost a million years. In short, the claim you're making is a canard. On the contrary. We have an excellent idea of what is "normal" in human history, and how poorly we're likely to do if things change seriously. We're already seeing damage to ecosystems. Given the number of people with interests in the status quo who will abuse any trivial uncertainty as an excuse to continue doing what they're doing, I find your projection very ironic.Sustainability and energy independence essay
A 2006 model car (note that I said car, not masquerading truck) will get better mileage, comfort and performance than it's 1996 equivalent. Again, how does that lower the standard of living?
If only that were true!! Sadly, vehicle fuel economy seems headed in the wrong direction. Take the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla:
1986 Civic HF Manual: 52/57mpg (non-hybrid)
1996 Civic HX Manual: 39/45mpg (non-hybrid)
2006 Civic Manual: 30/38mpg (non-hybrid)
2006 Civic Hybrid: 49/51mpg (hybrid!!)
1986 Corolla Manual: 31/37mpg
1996 Corolla Manual: 31/35mpg
2006 Corolla Manual: 32/41mpg
Does this look like we're moving in the right direction? This year's Civic Hybrid costs significantly more and uses more gas than a car from 1986. And the Corolla looks pretty stagnant, although it has improved slightly.
I'm all for the hybrids, but because we keep making the cars bigger and more powerful year after year, we're not getting anywhere on economy.
Wake up, friend. The truth is available even as you sacrifice your liberties on the alter of fear and ignorance.
that's true
l ls.htm
/. world thinks of me, it is meaningless.
Wikipedia isn't my source of info in such matters, just a convenient place to link to, though I did read it first to see if it concurred with my opinion/bias.
The Luddite movement started here in my home town, Nottingham, so I have some personal attachment to the subject. I also have the modern industrial world's first factory near by in Matlock
http://www.andrewspages.dial.pipex.com/matlock/mi
As to what the
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
BTW, it isnt anger. More like disgust.
"Do you think that lets us off having to do anything about it?"
Do, what exactly? Ask the sun nicely to stop being quite so hot?
OK, so say we stop using internal combustion engines tomorrow, and every economy on Earth crashes, and I have to eat you for dinner because there's no more food distribution.
How's that going to stop the sun from getting hotter?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
No, instead of stopping tomorrow, let's say we aim for a few years, but let's at least stop dithering, because it's already too late to stop global warming altogether, and the longer we fuck about, the worse it will get, and the worst will come sooner.
You're just trolling, surely, but I'll bite: actually, "Mr Rocket Scientist" :-), reducing greenhouse gas emissions won't have the slightest effect on the sun at all. See, the sun is hundreds of thousands of km away, and not noticeably affected by the changing composition of Earth's atmosphere.
But it would have the beneficial effect, on the Earth, of reducing the rate at which the environment is heating up, mitigating some economically harmful effects of global warming in the future (do I have to mention New Orleans?), and thereby just maybe keeping you in a job so you don't have to stoop to cannibalism, and I can remain a vegetarian.
Paua do try not to ignore increased solar activity.
And if you think that the moderators give a damn about this thread, indeed, if you are concerned at all about moderation, then, well, my point is simply reinforced.
As everyone knows, the only solution to Global Warming is getting more pirates. Explanation here.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Remember that story from a little while ago saying all the frozen tundra was melting?
YO made an indirect acusation of academic dishnonesty, in lieu of actually adressing the points. I posted direct quotes and links to a blind test of the models, and the best you can do is say, "well, they might have cheated, so I wont beleive it." Good on ya...
Ah!!! I am glad of this news!! It's going to swipe the humans out of earth! let's hope that we al die instantly. without pain..
I have just started work on my Ark!
Increasing elevation (though only at high altitudes) could actually be a sign of increased temperature.
The increased elevation must be coming from snowfall, which requires that there be moisture in the air. That moisture comes from either sublimation of the icecap, or from the air that moves in from over the ocean. The moisture from sublimation is probably insignificant and can be ignored.
As for the humid sea air: I'm no meteorologist, but it seems to me that the colder the air is over Greenland, the faster the sea air should dump its moisture as snow as the air mass moves onto Greenland and mixes with the cold local air. Which means that the colder Greenland is, the less moisture should be in the air when it reaches the interior of Greenland, because it will have been dumped closer to the coasts, leaving the air dry and unable to produce much snow.
On the other hand, if Greenland is warming, then the sea air would retain moisture longer as it passes over Greenland, and there would be more left to precipitate out as snow in the interior, especially at colder high elevations.
So, basically, it looks to me like the evidence shows that Greenland is in fact warming up.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA