Slashdot Mirror
Another 150,000 Years of CO2 Data
An anonymous reader writes, "We've known since 2004 that the past 440,000 years have shown atmospheric carbon dioxide levels varying between about 200 and 300 ppmv, the difference in extremes being the difference between advancing ice sheets and our current clime. In 2005 the data were analyzed back to 650,000 years and were found to be much the same — Al Gore was proud to be able to show that then-new analysis in his 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth. Now all 800,000 years of the ice column have been analyzed, and the data show much the same pattern, according to the researcher: 'When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range' — to 380 ppmv."
Just one more reason to support the colonization of Mars -- it is obviously that we shouldn't be keeping all our eggs in one basket...especially when the people steering the basket are pretty sure the world is only 6,000 years old and everything that happens upon it is the will of Xenu.
Mars ho!
These stories are free but worth money.
taking care of mother earth is very important and we should do everything in our power to preserve it.
But now, with all theses numbers, what should I do ?.. What should we do ?..
When should I start to be realy worry and build a bunker or start moving?
People that still want to live in katrina's path, are they dumb?
I mean, what do theses number means?
Clearly our earlier homonid ancestors are at fault here.
Evolution Sucks, the world hasn't been around for that long!
I reject any conclusions that could be drawn from this on the basis that it's cooler than normal in my neck of the woods. Obviously, even though I don't understand the science behind any of this, I have cleanly disproven all silly liberal claims about "global warming" and whatnot that are about to pop up.
This doesn't prove anything except global warming is real
I bet there's still plenty of people out there that will deny this.
They're probably the same people that believe oil supplies are limitless because of some retarded mechanism like Abiogenesis or whatever it is called.
The fact that what might happen naturally in 1000 years has occurred in the past 17 years should be a wake up call, but I bet the same old people will claim that maybe it happens that quickly, and averaged out over 1000 years it would be the same, with lots of sudden peaks and troughs.
In 100 years time, when the sea is a few foot higher, and we're building sea defences, they'll still be there - it's all natural, not our fault, you can't prove it 100%, it is God's will. They'll then drive off in the future's version of an SUV.
is that he invented the ice age
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
No, you can't have another planet. Learn to take care of the one you got first.
I'll turn this rocket right around!
We need to start working on carbon sequestration right now, unless you want 140 degree summers across the entire midwest belt. And we need to use carbon taxes as our main source of governmental revenue, not stupid things like employment taxes.
I really think that unless we do something immediately, the habitability of at least half the landmass on Earth will be be jeapordy.
True leaders will rise to lead the people ahead of a crisis, and not just react. In the world arena, I do not see any one nation or leader that can motivate human kind into action to reduce CO2. Therefore we will have to endure severe devestation, and then with the pain and suffering that it brings, people will THEN react to rectify the problem.
Global warming, that is one of the things that bugs me! Science is just a stupid political thing with no fundamental truth behind it, I bet we're in for a cold winter!
This guy is all over it!
You know a main greenhouse gas is H20 and that in the seventies scientisits were sure we were sliding into another ice age? RIght?
if companies, and the products they produce, were to pay for the damage they cause ...
few, if any, companies would be able to afford to pay such excessive salaries
just exactly how much longer can we afford to pay big bucks to exploiters and wasters?
O'Reilly points out that if igorants in a 3rd-world country like Brazil can wean it off oil and onto ethanol, there is no reason why people in the supposedly most technologically advanced country (i.e., the USA) cannot do the same. O'Reilly claims that the reason for America's still being dependent on foreign oil is that Washington is in the pockets of Big Oil: ExxonMobile, Chevron, and Shell.
Not being a climatologist....but how are we sure that the air trapped in bubbles embedded in the ice are unchanged from the time the ice formed? Ice that has been in my freezer for a few months tastes different from that fresh made. I'm sure that any change / reaction / leak would be slow, but 800,000 years is a long time. Anyone know details?
"Our position is that the unnatural levels of CO2 are the direct result of the Left's insistence upon breathing and speaking. Our studies show that, if they were to halt both of these annoying habits, a more natural level of CO2 would be quickly achieved. The course of action is clear. You are either with us or against us. Period. The End."
That's hi-larious. Given that there was nothing said about the height of the ice age in TFA. Way to debunk with rhetoric! You should be a politician.
Leela: Bender, that aerosol head spray makes your antenna smell nice... ...but it's doing long-term damage to the planet!
Bender: Thank you.
Leela:
Bender: So? It's not like it's the only one we've got.
Isn't that the obvious thing to display?
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
I really liked the move, I've got just one complaint. There are way too many shots of Gore being driven around in a big car or being flowin around in a jet. The whole movie, he talks about reducing our carbon footprint, but he doesn't use public transit once in the movie. I can't believe the filmmakers didn't see this jumping right out at them.
Industrialization, deforestation, or simply exhalation?
The last would be the most inconvenient, but it just might be plausible considering how fast our population has grown, and that of our herd animals.
We need to start working on carbon sequestration right now, unless you want 140 degree summers across the entire midwest belt. And we need to use carbon taxes as our main source of governmental revenue, not stupid things like employment taxes.
;)
Hey, I live in Canada... Up here global warming sounds like kind of a nice idea, unless you like shoveling snow...
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
If you are going to claim that as CO2 went up, the climate changed, and vice versa, then you are stating, unequivocally, that CO2 drives climate. So, the question then becomes, if the CO2 varies from 200-300ppm over the last 800,000 years, then what drove those changes?
s un.html and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
9 /5613/1728 Although the folks at RealClimate like to just sweep this little fact under the carpet as unimportant. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 To them, apparently, man made CO2 causes instant warming, but natural CO2 takes up to 800 years to have an effect.
Once again, this article confuses correlation with causation. If you are going to state that CO2 changes cause climate change, then you must also demonstrate a mechanism for the changing CO2. If, on the other hand, climate change causes changes in CO2 levels, then you need only explain climate change, something which has been adequately explained by solar cycles. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/var
In fact, it's more correctly stated that CO2 levels tend to lag behind climate changes by up to 900 years. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/29
Again, be very careful about assigning cause and effect in a system as complex as the atmosphere.
In other words, this extra datum is nice to have, but it changes nothing in any ongoing debate.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Parent post will get modded as "funny"... but unfortunately there are always the few who will not understand this and use exactly these kind of points to argue against global warming. I suggest Slashdot add tags such as "Funny - because it mocks dimwits" to assist some of the less intelligent right-wing readers here.
Meh.
It seems that politicians want you to think it's as simple as "CO2 makes the world hotter." But humanity is not the climate's keeper. For instance, the oceans dissolve tons of carbon dioxide and slowly deposit it in rocks. The hotter the climate, the more carbon dioxide can be dissolved in the water. And I am still waiting to hear how much volcanoes pollute, because we certainly don't control them and they look like they might be contributing to the contents of the atmosphere just a tad. Yet nobody is trying to find out how much the oceans help regulate the atmosphere, nobody is trying to defame volcanoes. There just isn't any money there. First you scare people by threatening the apocalypse, or even worse: change! Then you have something to base your campaign on, or something to get grant money with.
Esoteric reference.
I really think that unless we do something immediately, the habitability of at least half the landmass on Earth will be be jeapordy.
Jee-zus!!! Do I have time for a sandwich?
Maybe not... it's seems the air over your landmass is pretty thin already...
Link
These data are CO2 concentration of the air occluded in Siple Dome ice core,
Antarctica. The study was conducted between January 2001 and March 2003 on a
deep ice core from Siple Dome Core A, located at 81.66 S, 148.82 W. The data
covers up to the Termination II (around 140,000 years ago). The parameters are
depth in meters and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in part per million
(ppm). The deepest depth (>995 m) show CO2 values of more than 390 ppm
- real hackers don't have sigs -
We're at a CO2 level even highter that what we had during the height of the ice age, yet the arctic glaciers that swept through all of Europe and North America somehow are not advancing on us at the alarming rate they should be?
Of course not. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, and an increase in it's concentration causes more sunlight to be reflected back to the surface of the Earth rather than sent out into space, thereby raising the temperature. The 200ppm concentration of CO2 was measured from the last Ice Age. Their data shows a positive correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature, or in simpler terms: as CO2 concentrations increase, temperatures have also increased.
and that humans are influencing climate change by polluting. You missed the point of the article.
Meh.
I hate to be the turd in the environmental punchbowl here, but what about increased solar activity, Monder minimum, the little ice age, and all that? How do we know that it's just CO2? And given the tendancy of the solar wind to strip off the atmosphere and our reversing magnetic field, mightn't some extra gas in the atmosphere be a good thing in the extreme long term, even if some cities get a bit soggy in the short term? I'm just asking...
So the question I have is: WHAT THE FUCK WAS AL GORE DOING TO COMBAT THIS WHEN HE WAS IN POWER? For Gods sake, he was the number 2 man in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth. So why didn't he attempt to turn it all around back then? Was this some sort of new relevation to him? According to the data, during his reign the CO2 levels increased tremendously.
Also, I live in DC and to call Gore and environmentalist is a joke. The guy drives around in limo's and has a couple of mansions, one of them in an environmentally sensitive area.
1. Go to Mars.
2. Detonate some atomics to release subsurface gases.
3. Heat to taste.
All it requires is a little gumption and several trillion dollars. Easy as 1-2-3.
These stories are free but worth money.
"You mean, we have no idea how to properly predict climatology? Any changes we attempt to make may be a moot point, because the planet in the end may have complete control?"
The climate scientists do appear to be making predictions. Those predictions aren't pleasant. Further, they are making these predictions based -- now -- on 800,000 years worth of ice core data (rather than ~600K years of data as before). There are other indicators, from tree ring data to a range of species from warmer regions migrating up north and down south as temperatures change. And then there's all that glacial freshwater being dumped into the sea due to arctic warming, as well as unprecedented permafrost melts.
There's plenty of data to back the assertion that human activity is the cause for increasing CO2 density in the atmosphere. --M
Either you're making a poor attempt at humor, or you *really* don't understand global warming.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
I believe in global warming, I believe CO2 plays a part.
I'll even accept that it is quite likely human behaviour is a contributing factor.
However AFAIK there is no solid proof that human activity is a major or even significant factor in the changes over the last 200 years.
This claim has been made many times, but so has the claim that human activity is only responsible for some tiny fraction of global CO2 emissions.
I haven't seen anyone link this apparent discrepancy, or prove/disprove either statement.
I would like to see someone prove their answers to the following.
1. Our current cycle of global warming isn't natural. Note "hasn't happened before" isn't proof.
2. Human activity is a major factor in global warming.
3. Identify the other factors influencing global warming. If it was ONLY human activity there wouldn't be other factors to cause a positive feedback loop, then we wouldn't hit the tipping point "soon"
#1 is unlikely to happen because it really doesn't matter. Natural or not global warming could be disasterous. Plus many experts rely on panic for funding. This is why expensive cause of the day gets all the attention.
#2 This is actually possible.
#3 This is possible, but someone other than anti-* environmentalists will likely have to do it.
What you're ignoring, and what is particularly alarming, is the *rate* of increase of the levels. There is some lag between the increase of CO2 and environmental effects, which is especially worrisome here because the rate has increased beyond recent bounds so quickly.
>But now, with all theses numbers, what should I do ?.. What should we do ?..
Until the rich are gasping for air alongside the poor, nothing will be done.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
As usual, what's good for the environment/consumer/voter takes a back seat to politicians' special interests.
Well, if any of this data supports the theory of "humans causing global warming," shouldn't you suppose that the target should not be limited to the United States? How about developing countries that are not under any regulations? Also, trying to use intimidation methods really doesn't function IMO. Telling people that the Earth is headed towards destruction because someone drives an SUV is another method of creating a version of class warfare. I also doubt that Gore will be seen as anything other then the "Creator of the Internet."
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Science tempers fears on climate change
..."
"THE world's top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years.
I've seen the South Park episode but still don't get the Al Gore/"serial" thing. Is there some backstory behind it or is it just another not funny South Park gag?
They don't know how to make fun of people on South Park anymore. Other than when they did their sendup of Michael Jackson, an obvious and trivial case, they don't incorporate any aspects of the real person's personality or behavior. They just cut out a photograph for the face, give the character the same name and a reason for coming into town, and then he behaves just like any of their other "idiotic adult" characters. The Al Gore parody character wasn't even recognizable as Al Gore and that's quite an accomplishment. They also blew a golden opportunity with Mel Gibson. South Park entered maintenance mode years ago.
You're burning gays?
-JAB
{...sorry...}
A goal is a dream with a deadline
I'm glad he has said things like this on national television - it can only help the cause.
Occasionally O'Reilly says something reasonable or admits a progressive cause(conservation, actually is historically a conservative cause, hence the name), and we should applaud him for doing so.
Likewise, we should applaud a thousand monkeys with typewriters when they write occasionally write something reasonable.
Evolution needs positive reinforcement.
I don't know any libertarian who believes that oil or the Earth will last forever. What they do belive is that government interference is uncessary in dealing with the energy supply. If we start to run out of oil, prices will go up and encourage the development of alternative energy supplies (something all the billions government has poured into bloated programs has failed to do).
As for the global warming hype, check out the real inconvenient truth
... and ten minutes after that he will be seen as the pathetic joke that he is. Al Gore did not invent the internet and he is not a scientist. He is an elitist shill and deserves to be shunned.
Al Gore and others like him are the reason that real science can't do it's job, that is determine if there is a problem, what that problem is and then how to go about correcting said problem.
Right now the only problem I see is Al Gore.
Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range
How is it un-natural just because we influenced it? Aren't we a part of nature? Matter (which includes the elements composing Carbon and Oxygen) cannot be created or destroyed, so our behavior is simply re-arranging pre-existing (or "natural") matter. That act is neither good nor bad, normal, nor abnormal, but has (arguably) measureable consequences.
Before you mod me a troll... My personal view is that we need to be good stewards of the Earth we are given, therefore if we are causing damage then we need to adjust our behavior. For example, we changed farming practices after learning the effects of soil erosion (geological and economic) - now it is a problem we know that we have influence over and encourage others to follow sound practices. I am beginning to view atmospheric conservation the same way.
With farming, nothing changed until the damaging practices made a key resource (tillable soil) scarce. I don't think we can expect any change in human/industrial behavior until climate change gets to the point of causing tangible economic impact. What is the atmospheric equivalent of having all your topsoil blow away?
We argue over whether people BELIEVE it is happening - the real problem is whether people CARE, regardless of who is right. Science and research can educate forever, but until a problem affects people's wallet or the food on their plate, they won't care and they won't change.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
If I had mod points I would mod you up.
Nothing will be done until the people in power are suffering from the environment along with the poor.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
More-expensive oil has made more-expensive exploration economically feasible, with the expected results. To balance this, better-funded global warming research is needed. Of course, if the petroleum industry is given enough subsidies and tax writeoffs, there won't be much left in the budget to fund climate research...
1. Go to Mars
2. ???
3. PROFIT!
If you'd like to use some of the data these articles discuss, the EdGCM project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2 or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM.
Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.
Space and Computers.
as my grandfather used to say: "climate is what you expect, weather is what you get".
climate is all about predicting trends and is a very sound science. given massive amounts of data, identifying and determining trends is easy (well, for climatologists). the unpredictible part is figuring out the tiny bumps in the general curve, that is: weather.
i think you have 'climate' confused with 'weather'.
2 1337 4 u!
It's called The Tragedy of the Commons, and the way humanity has traditionally solved it is private property. So, instead of moving to Mars, let's go hollow out the asteroids (more volume) and move them to a warmer neighborhood, with our own private atmospheres.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Sometimes they tell the story better.
Not only does Gore fly around in a jet and drive a big car, but none of his multiple homes use the more-expensive Wind Power that is available from his respective local utilities.
I got one for you: he doesn't sequester the carbon dioxide that comes out of his nose. He complains about carbon dioxide and in the same breath he contributes to the problem with carbon emissions from his multiple nostrils. What a hypocrite. Clearly nothing needs to be done about this. Do I win a cookie?
I take it you don't watch the factor (probably never have) and have no idea who Bill O'Reilly is outside what you've been told. Keep up the good work:).
the last 800,000 years are atypical.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I have my boat ready.. I say bring it on.
The world is due a good slimming down. And I like living on the water anyway!!
Now, as always, we can cue a horde of astroturfers and deluded followers, rushing in to tell us all how global warming is a myth, and that the shocking recent rise in CO2 levels is somehow not demonstratable, or not significant, or something.
Well, that's okay: Now that the Siberian permafrost is melting, along with Antarctica, it looks like the Earth's processes have been pushed into a region within which global warming will continue, even if humans reduce their carbon emissions, which itself isn't likely. So congratulations, guys: you won. You kept us from doing something about the problem until it was too late, and now we're going to be stuck with it.
You "skeptics": in twenty years, when the problems caused by global warming make Katrina and heat waves that kill 35,000 people look pretty trivial, are you going to look back on your postings on slashdot -- and whatever else you're doing to spread the idea that global warming can be ignored -- and feel ashamed? Are you going to feel partly responsible?
Probably not.
And that's a bad thing? There's too many people on the planet anyway. You could view global warming and the inevitable die off as a natural course of man's evolution influenced by none other than man himself.
still working on collecting more data but I think there is something here... The earth is getting warmer and with the baby boomers, there are a record number of old people. My grandparents always had the thermostat set on 'inferno'. Hmmmmm
I don't believe the Libertarians have any kind of anti-environmental stance. In fact it appears from their site that they want the government to be held accountable for its more than fair share of pollution...
"taking care of mother earth is very important and we should do everything in our power to preserve it."
Too true.
I've heard a lot of people talking about colonising Mars and mentioning the 'because earth will be ruined soon' argument.
The BIG problem with this is that if we as a species are so stupid that we wreck this planet, moving to another one won't help in the slightest, we'll be just as dead, it'll just take a little longer.
Also, though many seem to forget this, we are the evolved product of a complex ecosystem. You can't just send humans to a new planet and expect everything to be just fine. Mars has lower gravity, so our current shape isn't so apropriate, we'd revolve to a shape better suited, making Earth inhospitable to our new form (possibly taller and frailer, certainly lower muscle mass and bone density)
Plus we need a whole bunch of bacteria to keep ourselves healthy. Those are constantly replenished from our environment. That wouldn't happen on Mars, so guess what, we've evolve further to cope with this or die off. That means our entire digestive system, exposed mucosa (mouth and stuff), and skin would undergo fundamental changes.
Or we keep Earth going by sorting it out, and give Mars time to be properly terraformed (taking around a thousand years I beleive, from estimates I've heard), so there is a comparable and stable ecosystem there. We cope with the lower gravity by accepting that we will end up with two, possibly distinct species of human. They may even not be able to interbreed after a few thousand years.
I do beleive that we need to expand out to mars, but not to escape Earth. Instead I think we should do it so that if one planet gets properly spanked by an asteroid or comet, humanity, and hopefully a fair bit of earths current flora and fauna would survive.
Staying one one place is just asking for it....
The US does infact use much much more in the way of fules that can release carbon when burned that is true, but we do so with the greatest effeciencies in the world. China alone and much of the third world if you group regionally release much more carbon the we do here. They are not going to stop because we asked them to, sign Kyoto or whatever. If they are not going to stop our stopping will only delay the inevitable. There is no vailid reason to destroy our economy because you liberal fruit-loops think your helping somehow.
Pull your heads out of your asses and realize that we should be focusing our efforts on understanding what the results will be from an excelerated and unballanced carbon cycle and how we can adapted to those conditions or take other steps to mitigate them.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Granted, a chart at wikipedia that doesn't include this new data.. but..
Many people look at the data and charts like this one and say, "see, CO2 levels seem to correspond with increased n temperature.. there, it's a fact that global warming is being caused/increased by humans!" But really, look at the chart. reading from right to left (since it's graphed today on the left and goes into the past as you go right).. I see what look like more cases of the temperature rising (or falling) before CO2 levels rise or fall. This would seem to indicate that perhaps CO2 levels are effected by temperature, not the other way around (or more likely, there's a symbiotic relationship). Notice that most of the highest (and lowest) points of temperature deviation are to the right of the corresponding CO2 points.
I still think that, while humans are having an effect on global temperatures, I don't think anyone has truly proven that we're the main (or even a significant) cause of global warming. There are plenty of people that have worked in climate fields for 40-50+ years that think the same way (like William Gray and many of his colleagues. Why I should listen to their opinions on things like Hurricane predictions yet ignore other things they're saying is beyond me. Most articles I've read where human induced global warming proponents try to get you to ignore people like Gray, simply dismiss their claims, or try to claim they don't know what they're talking about (despite 50+ years in the field), seemingly because they don't consider them "true" "climate scientists" vs meterologists.
What it really comes down to is that the global climate is a very complicated system, and I don't think we truly know enough about it to be making claims as fact regarding things like human induced global warming.
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
Woah, currently it looks like someone has faith that we are both, as it were, teh trollz0rs
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Thats not true at all. Your lungs do not process all of the oxygen you breathe in.
How do you think that mouth-to-mouth recessitation works at all?
Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
Increased CO2 levels trap more heat in the atmosphere making it *warmer*, not colder. And what do you know! consistent with this prediction, the the global temperatures are on the rise and the glaciers are melting. Why don't you learn a little about the issue before opening your mouth?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I get that we have more CO2 in the air than at any point in history. Yay. Now what? I understand that cutting back on the use of fossil fuels will decrease the amount we are putting in the air. La dee da. How it got there is irrelevant. The real question, to end all questions, is how can we clean the existing CO2 out of the air to bring it back to reasonable levels? Keep in mind over cleaning could be catastrophic because, for the scientifically impared, green house gases hold in heat and if levels were brought to zero no heat would be maintained and earth would become a ball of ice. Don't clean enough and the icecaps melt, stop warm ocean currents, and we become a ball of ice. Guess it is time to buy stock in companies that make parkas...
No animals were harmed in the making of this sig.
Well, there was that one puppy, but he is all better now.
The fun really starts when the requires temperature levels are high enough to trigger the release of methane which is stored near the ocean floor.
- It's 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide
- It also expands when it reaches the surface because of a difference in pressure.
I don't even want to think about something triggering a massive release of methane from the World's oceans and what it could do to the global climate. (including the rate)
Al Gore, you go first.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I don't see that this whole global warming thing is anything to worry about, particularly since the nuclear war with/over North Korea, Iran, and the whole Middle East will wipe out everything anyway. In the words of the alien cop directing Galactic traffic past the Earth's radioactive remains: "Nothing to see here, move along."
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Replace the corporations with the government and you will have as much or more corruption, with the added benefits of bureaucratic inefficiency and lack of accountability. The government is already plenty responsible for a good portion of pollution.
We can attack the people who you believe to believe the world is 6000? years old, when you all seem to believe that the world is 440,000 years old. Pretty please, show me more and more until I can /never/ say I don't know.
/who|whatever/ is causing all of this, because frankly, it's not very helpful.
Only answer to your useless complaining, due to the fact that YOU STILL DRIVE YOUR VEHICLE, is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink Yay! Make one! Grow a plant! grow a forest, do something other than Drive your car and complain that the corporations, bush, or
I take it you make a lot of assumptions about people without actually knowing anything about them and sprinkle smiley faces into your comments to make it seem like what you are saying isn't a thinly-veiled(or not so thinly veiled) invective.
I used to watch the O'Reilly factor with one of my conservative friends. He lost me within the first five minutes. I'm not sure if it has changed since then. I can't stand how the text on the right side of the screen mirrors what he says. I can't stand how he sucks out a lot of the nuances and complexities of issues to make them match his (in my view) simplistic moral world-view. In short, I think he's full of crap most of the time.
He's a bully. He doesn't let people speak if he disagrees with them - even if he says that he's going to give them the last word. He lies, often blatantly("I've been in combat!").
His show is definitely not the no-spin zone it is billed to be and he is definitely not an independent.
You disagree, obviously. You have your O'Reilly world and I have my world, where just telling someone to shut up does not win you an argument, and does not promote a reasoned, bipartisan discussion of the issues. We'll just have to agree not to cross each other.
Last I saw the U.S. released about 22% of the global CO2. China was at around 10%. China has 4 times as many people as we do.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Problem: they've weaned themselves off dead dinosaurs, and on to TOPSOIL. Before irrigation, Egypt was green. GREEN! Now it's a fucking desert. The same is in Brazil's future if they elect to continue to overproduce sugar cane in order to make ethanol out of it so that they can use it to make fuel.
The simple fact is that agriculture should be kept at a bare minimum, to preserve topsoil which takes up to hundreds of years to build, so that we can use it for food production - if we must. Ideally, ALL agriculture would go hydroponic at some point. Brazil is only growing economically and if they continue to expand, then they will end up with a soil crisis, where we have an oil crisis, and peak soil is a fuck of a lot more serious than peak oil.
Don't point to Brazil as a positive example. They're currently in the process of destroying their country. The only way they're superior to all us oil-guzzlers is that for now, they're only hurting themselves, as opposed to our "stomp around the globe in heavy boots" tactics of securing oil.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hmmmm....140 degrees in the Midwest belt....fundamental anti-science types in Kansas in the Midwest belt. I think we've found a solution to one of the two problems. :-)
Just kidding, I sincerely enjoy our Midwestern brethren, but the propensity and ease with which they are manipulated by politicial short-term speechery certaintly is not helping the warming issue.
All of Gore's travel is carbon-offset by Native Energy.
Another wankfest by the left.
Hey, that Global Warming sure has increased the hurrican activity!
But Wait, There's More!
The "Offical" Global Warming alarmist have revised down their predictions of doom.
It was linked on The Drudge Report. You find it. I don't give a sh*t.
While there are legit criticisms of Gore as a VP, including his environmental record, what does this have to do with anything? The data is what it is and ripping the data because Gore drives around in a limo is pretty silly.
Also, 10 years ago, there was a legitimate question about warming, now it seems the data is backing up the theory.
Steven Milloy, founder of Junkscience isn't exactly an above-board type of person. I mean he was trying to give you a hint by calling his site "junk science", but I guess that was too subtle. ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seriously, except as the loser of the 2000 elections.
And most people won't even remember that 50 years from now.
well, that's certainly a lot of fallacies in one post!
2 1337 4 u!
On that vein: Thank you for your properly spelled post.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Y'know, I agree with you for the most part. But the public school funding is just wrong. As a recent graduate of Portland, Oregon public schools, I have seen that sometimes they really are just out of money. It's not just a matter of funding, but funding is inevitably necessary and needs to be a first step. Maybe they spend more than they do historically because:
- there are more students in public schools than before
- inflation (don't know whether you counted that)
- teachers have *never* been payed what they're worth in public schools
- support for students with special needs has grown
If you enter a new school district, the schools get about a dozen times better, because there's more money per student. They have newer textbooks, more modern campuses, more support for the arts (which are the first to go when there's no funding), and smaller class sizes. This last one in particular has a direct effect on learning.
Is this because the Portland schools are mismanaged? Perhaps partly. But it's also because there's much less funding per student, due to distribution of state funds.
Are you saying that you understand it?
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Well shoveling snow to get out of your driveway sure beats swimming to work.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
What the fuck was Al Gore doing to combat this when he was in power?
Urging the world to adopt the Kyoto Accords, maybe?
Actually, higher CO2 levels are great for the biomass movement. Libertarinism brings little to the climate change debate other than skepticism and pragmatism. Reducing carbon emissions by 5% at a cost of trillions of dollars will accomplish nothing. The benefit, if it exists, isn't worth the cost. Most Libertarians expect oil and coal and natural gas to run out eventually. In fact, as predicted, high gas prices have really jacked up the biodiesel and ethanol movements. Likewise, we've also seen an increase in wind, solar, and nuclear power generation as well. People are buying fuel efficient cars without government mandate or tax incentives. Golly, how could that be?
Then you've got the other side dancing, as you say, in the opposite direction. The reports always come out doom and gloom and the sky is falling, because otherwise, if you say things are fine, no more grant funding and you have to find a real job. I'm not sure what, if anything, could have been gained from another 150K worth of ice core samples that wasn't in the 440K they already had. Apparently, it was nothing, but they stressed how important it was and how they needed to do more research. I'm still waiting for something usefull to come out of the global warming crowd. I think I might be waiting for a while.
With respect to the first knock yourselves out. With respect to the second pull your heads from the magical oil sands.
But for the third here is what you can do: Contact your reps.
Those of you in the U.S. will find that election day is fast approaching. The Mid-term congressional elections as well as many state elections are next week!. Now is the time to call, write, and fax your elected reps. Quote this data to them and demand to know what they will do telling them, in plain form, that they will forefit your vote and your money if they do not make you happy.
Don't just focus on the federal politicians California recently showed how a state can aggressively (start) limiting greenhouse gasses. States also control the vast majority of funding for public transit and are in charge of monitoring many polluters. Local Govenrments can do more as well by tackling transit issues as well as local pollution control efforts.
Right now many of them are desperate and worried. Now, more than ever, they can in should be bombarded with calls and moved very clearly in the right direction.
I know that it's fun to sit on
Those of you in other countries do the same thing neither whining nor lunatic dreams of carbonless oil will get us there.
Karma is not action.
What caused the rise in CO2 in the distant past? Dinosaur Farts?
Conservatism and conservationism are in no way related. A political conservative is typically socially conservative and fiscally conservative. In the United States, being socially conservative is typically associated with a desire to uphold Christian-based morals by way of law. Being fiscally conservative, those on the right are less likely to want to spend the money required to preserve the environment, not more likely.
Historically speaking, conservatives got their name not from environmental conservation but from conservation of tradition in society, versus the threat of change.
A conservationist, on the other hand, sees the value of environmental preservation and reparation as being worth the cost of additional taxes levied on the people to pay for the preservation effort.
[Z?]
I would guess that as a rich nation, we should be better able to make the changes that can lower our C02 output.
seg fault
We all know trees don't do much in the winter. And now we know that CO2 raises the temperature. So, the temperature will rise, the winters will shorten, and the trees will work a longer year getting rid of the CO2.
How can this not be modded up? You dissapoint me sometimes slashdot.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
But CO2 levels we are low on the million year scale, if you believe stuff in wikipedia...
5 .html
Graph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide levels were 10x what they are now
"Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day."
Plus, mars is warming with receding ice caps. Maybe solar effects are what is driving our change? http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/336237
I am always a bit skeptical, since I was the generation that had both Igloo effect and global warming in the same textbook in middle school...
Considering these things go in cycles, (I mean, in the 1970s, magazines were declaring we were about to enter another ice age), it won't take long for Gore to look like an idiot.
I think what we'll really see is that the cycle will slow within the next few years, and Algore will declare victory over Manbearpig, and claim credit.
God created earth 6194 years ago. All data that looks older is just part of the creation, and does not represent any 'atmosphere', just Gods attention do details in the creation. Maybe this is a way for God to tempt and test your faith and belief in him. (Along with dinosaur bones etc.)
"Fix it"
We're currently approaching a minimum in solar output (end of 2006) for the current 11-year cycle. The high was more than 5 years ago. 2005 was the hottest year on record.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
4. Profit
I might burn in hell for making that crack but it was SOOOO tempting!
Oops, how did this get here?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
How someone with anything even remotely resembling a brain could mod the parent insightful is beyond me.
He clearly doesn't have the slightest clue about the issue at hand, in fact claiming that more CO2 in the atmospere should lead to a colder climate, while the discussion does of course claim the exact opposite:
More CO2 == higher temperatures
I was here a few weeks ago, and it felt like Slashdot had swung into the anti-global warming camp, but now it feels like most posters have swung back. Good to hear.
They can't predict the weather a week in advance to any acceptable accuracy, but these guys think they got the climate weather nailed a century out. Oh brother.
It's very simple. Global warming is real, the Repulicans did it, and we are all going do die.
Is that "Parts per millivolt?" WTF? Oh yeah, I suppose I should RTFA...
Someone watched the Battlefield 2142 trailer a few too many times.
We have warmer temperatures. Higher CO2 could be an effect more than a cause. Anthropogenic CO2 is averages about 80 g/m3/yr. Rain is 800 kg/m2/yr. 1e4 times more is likely to have a much bigger effect. CO2 might even have a cooling effect if it increases cloud nucleation and increases albeido.
I rate this article -5 for flamebait. It is interesting to note that the CO2 levels were the highest in the ice ages... so why are we not freezing our asses off???
For those actually paying attention, there is no "ongoing debate" in scientific circles over human influence in climate change. The only people "debating" it are the conservative politicians and anti-environmentalist special interest groups, in order to seed doubt and to prevent any action to be taken.
Of course, that does raise the question as to why he would have written the article in the first place.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Which "developing countries? As far as I can tell, the only developing countries that have not signed the Kyoto Protocol are the US and Australia.
Look at the map and list of List of Kyoto Protocol signatories. China, Russia, the EU, all of South America, Canada, Asia (inc both N. & S. Korea) have all signed and ratified the treaty. That means that those countries will be reducing their emissions to 55% of their 1990 levels.
Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
anonymous: turn off your computer; your post is creating
excessive CO2.
"I now inform you that you are too far from reality."
actually, I wish that we would persue the methane. Now. Before it escapes naturally. This way we could use it in different fashions including capturing the co2 from a burn phase or from stripping the H2 off of it.
Once it is in the atmosphere, then there is little that we can do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Parts Per Million by _Volume_ for a gas in the atmosphere, hmmmm... Those without atmospheric science degrees might not catch this or why it is misleading, but they'll still regurgitate the hype at backyard BBQ's pretending to know all about this "problem"
While your other points are excellent, when will people stop blaming things on SUVs? Light trucks, minivans, and many other cars are just as bad, if not worse. Many cross-over SUVs, like the Honda CR-V, get mileage as high as cars of similar capacity. Now, the Hummer, Ford Excusrion, and other larger SUVs are another story completely (as is the F-150, etc).
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
What a disingenious thing to say. Perhaps you should say that you have 'no idea how to properly predict climatology'
I don't pretend to be an expert, but it seems to me that a concept known as momentum could easily account for this. Perhaps you've heard of such a thing?
To clarify, the changes to CO2 levels that occured in the ice ages might have taken thousands of years to occur, whereas our change has taken 20 years. In control theory terms, we've just applied a step function to the climate, and of course it is going to take some time to react.
Sorry, most of what you've said is just wrong. First things first, when I did the historical comparison, yes, it's *per student* (I thought that was implied) and adjusted for inflation. Second:
- teachers have *never* been payed what they're worth in public schools
Yes, "socially valuable people" "deserve" more. I understand your point. But most comparisons about teacher's pay neglect that they generally don't have to pay the Social Security tax (which is 12.4%, not 6.2%) because of pension systems that were grandfathered in, and work fewer hours and less of the year.
- support for students with special needs has grown
That's true, but again, government generally way overspends. I've talked with a speech therapist who works with special needs children and if you compare what it costs to hire her privately for one child, vs. what the government spends for the same needs, per child, they are spending it very, very inefficiently.
If you enter a new school district, the schools get about a dozen times better, because there's more money per student. They have newer textbooks, more modern campuses, more support for the arts (which are the first to go when there's no funding), and smaller class sizes. This last one in particular has a direct effect on learning.
I'd believe that, if it were not the case that the school districts with the most spending (Washington DC and Atlanta) per student are the worst, and private schools, with higher costs, accomplish more at less per child. (And before you make the special needs case, that difference holds even if you subtracted out the public schools' costs of special needs kids.)
Is this because the Portland schools are mismanaged? Perhaps partly
But that's the point!!! We won't know the *answer* to "perhaps" unless and until schools have to compete for students the same way almost every other service provider has to compete for your business. It's easy to overstate the true management cost unless you have competitors to compare to.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
The result of The Threat of Global Warming(TM) is that it will be used as an excuse to implement everyone's pet project, no matter what it is. No matter how inapplicable.
Just you wait. Bush will declare that we must invade Iran to stem The Threat of Global Warming. It will just be another excuse to create and enforce draconian changes, but the actual handling of the problem will never happen...
Well this is like evolution or proving that God doesn't exist.
How can you "prove" evolution if you didn't sit around for millions of years to see the progression between ape and man? All we have is just a perponderance of evidence.
Proving that God doesn't exist isn't even possible. Should we just assume he does exist?
Pulling up a bunch of ice cores and seeing a million year's (I think they just went back 800,000 years in this particular study) of data and then seeing some fairly consistent cycles of data, then comparing it to the present and noting what is happening now is rather unlike what is happening in the past.
One of the key points of the skeptics was that we went thru similar periods before of warming and cooling in nature; showing that something that is indisuptably a greenhouse gas, CO2, is in highly abnomral levels that have not been observed in the historical is a rather strong (but not conclusively provable) indication that we're contributing.
I personally aim to consume less. I walk or bike to many places where I used to drive. I recycle. The car I drive is fit for my needs (I don't need an SUV when I do 98% of driving alone). I don't purchase endless amounts of manufactured goods.
The sort of behavior we are engaging in does not exist outside of our realm. Creatures that over consume or overpopulate die out and perhaps go extinct. I suspect that the same could happen to us if we continue down this path. The effects of pollution (respiratory diseases, brain damage, etc) are only the beginning. Overconsumption is already taking its toll on our foreign policy.
Jesus, how about addressing the damn issue instead of mindlessly quoting South Park? Between you and Gore, you are the one that looks like an idiot.
Let me guess, if Al Gore were to say that smoking is bad, you would disagree?
Now I would admit that human action is probably responsible for some of the CO2 build-up. But what if it's only 80, and not 300? What if the Earth was already moving towards a 'hot spell'? And 800,000 years is not that much time, along geological time scales.
What bothers me is how so many people (including Al Gore) are -so sure- they understand this stuff!
I'm waiting for someone who can explain the "Little Ice Age", and ice ages in general, which seem to have been happening long before there were significant amounts of fossil fuel combustion.
I don't doubt global warming, I just have a lot of skepticism that we really understand climatic processes on geologic time scales and in particular the human contributions to same.
dave
I'd dispute both those assertions.
Frankly, today's estimates of terraforming Mars will be about as accurate as a 18th century peasant's estimate of how long it'd take to dig a tunnel from England to France, under the sea. He'd say "impossible" or "at least 1000 years". We know the real answer to be somewhat shorter.
Simply put: more than 20 years from now, all bets are off - anything you care to speculate about is certain to be wrong.
I would think that with enough Terawatts from He3 Fusion, we will terraform Mars in under 200 years. And the first 50 will probably be taken up with bombarding it with asteroids from orbit, to increase the surface temperature.
It doesn't really matter whether we go there as bio-organic humans, or as electro-inorganic ones, as we'll still like the idea of sitting next to a lake, with a gentle warming breeze making waves in grass, and sharing it all with a pretty girl.
Certainly I'm looking forward to that on Mars, sometime in the 24 hundreds.
Much later I may come back to watch the sun consume the Earth as it expands in its death throes.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
Well, if increases levels of CO2 cause global warming, should we really be emitting more of it from previously sequestered sources into the atmosphere? My vote is No.
-b.
One more year of drought and they will lose the Amazon, it will just dry up.
CO2 is a horrible greenhouse gas. http://www.icbe.com/emissions/calculate.asp Methane is 21 times more powerful. Some of the other chemicals are thousands of times better greenhouse gases. Secondly, despite the hype, overall, CO2 makes up only 0.5% of the greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere, with assumed human contribution (the total increase from 280ppm to 360ppm) equaling 0.28% of the total "greenhouse effect" of the atmosphere. In fact, most of the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere comes from a far more abundant greenhouse gas, namely, water. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. html
Now, your argument has become: a change of 0.28% is responsible for all heat increase over the last century, despite the fact that solar cycles far better follow the actual temperature profile of the same period of time.
So, as I've stated in other responses, you must ignore the fact that (in the article you're commenting on) 800,000 years of data show vast (50%) swings in CO2 concentration without human intervention, but human produced CO2 must be causing the current warming trend of the last three decades/12 decades/future 10 decades (based on your current belief).
And it causes more hurricanes, except for this year, when it causes fewer.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Also read the article about scientists being intimidated, and threats of cutting their funding, if they question the alarmism about global warming, by Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT Professor of Atmospheric Sciences) at http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220. I find the following paragraph particularly galling:
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
You folks fail to relize that they can't have data dating back 800,000 years if the earth is less then 6,000 years old.
They are in no way related in today's definition of "conservatism." There are many definitions of conservatism, however. In addition, I said historically, and I meant in terms of what historically were conservative values.
Moreover, conservationism is an element of traditional Christian morality and social values - preserving God's creation. You are correct that it is not an element of the messianic, Rapture-anticipating values of contemporary Christian evangelism and fundamentalism.
I wasn't clear about the name thing. I mean "conservation" sensibly follows from "conservative" values, not the other way around.
From the Wikipedia article about conservatives:
"In early liberal philosophy 'Nature' and the environment were treated as a resource to be exploited: value derived from their human use, in accordance with the labor theory of value. Most early conservatives, however, saw the value of Nature as inherent. Both strands have influenced conservative politics in many countries, since the 19th century. The etymology emphasises the close correlation between the early conservation movement and conservative ideals."
The Repubican party definitely has a history in conservation. Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, lead conservation efforts. While he was a progressive conservative as conservatives go, he still brought nature as an issue to the forefront of American politics.
There is an interesting book about environmentally-minded conservatives
If all projections are correct, then The Singularity gets here first, and then *they* can take care of the climate problem... if *they* see it as a problem...
The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and it goes through many cycles, one such cycle being the magnetic shifting of the poles. With such a long history, 8 x 10^5 years is a blink of an eye and can easily fit into natural cycles of warming and cooling. The best evidence for this is that 65 million years ago, Antarctic was tropical.
Given the fact that Antarctic was once tropical, chances are that one day it will be tropical again, and that will happen regardless of our activities.
Yeah, it's starting to look like it's already too late for Brazil. It's amazing that people can go through school, learn how trees work, and then forget entirely when they go into politics :P
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yep, now flamebait responding to troll. Both -1!
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
They're at it again! Those terrorists have been secretly increasing our CO2 levels! Bomb em!
Care to cite a source on this? The whole region (the Sahara) was much greener in the past, this is true, but desertification started long before the advent of agriculture, and has been creeping along for the last 30,000 years or so. Egypt, at least as long as it has held civilization, always been mostly desert, which is why the largest population centers there (now, and thoughout history) have been next to the Nile. Also do a brief refresher of Egyption mythology to see the importance of annual Nile flooding for their agriculture thoughout the ages. 60,000 years ago Egypt indeed might have been more grassy than today, or even 30,000 years ago, but it changed previous to the advent of heavy agriculture.
I think Brazil is doing much better ecologically than we are, even if this "risk" to topsoil is real. Top soil can be managed through intelligent farming techniques, it can even be retained and replenished thanks to modern farming technology. Even fertilizers can be used to replenish mineral and nitrogen content of the soil, and while if used unintelligently this can lead to enviromental impacts, this is not a necissary consiquence.
In the end, the enviromental consiquences of ethenol is much much less than using fossil fuel (which, BTW, has nothing to do with dinosaurs, or even prehistoric fauna, it is the result of ancient, but much after dinosaurs, swamps and boglands decaying).
I really don't see how Brazil is destroying their economy. All indicators say that their succesfully applying a socialist model to it, with great results. Granted, their not quite up to "first world" standards, but in light of the region, and history, they're doing great for an progressive emerging economy.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
implementation. Take a look at how countries that have signed are doing under its rules. The US is actually doing better than most in terms of emmissions % of 1990.
So, if changing CO2 levels caused glaciation or glacier melting -- what caused the changing CO2 levels? Is someone trying to argue that burning fossil fuels contributed to CO2 levels 500,000 (or whatever) years ago? CO2 contributes a fraction of the greenhouse effect that good old H2O does.
On the other hand, the mechanism for changing CO2 levels as a result of glaciation or melting is pretty straightforward: gases dissolve better in cold water and decay processes are slower when it's colder, so cold temperatures would tend to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, and vice versa. The temperature changes that cause this (rather than vice versa) are easily explained by very tiny fluctuations in solar output.
Interesting that with the drop-off in solar activity since the peak last year, the arctic icecap didn't melt back as much this summer as it did last.
-- Alastair
The problem is that there is so much BS from various 'environmentalists' that a rational person has to question the validity of what is being reported. Just listen to how often the comment 'What right do we have to exploit Mar's environment?' comes up. There is a very large contingent of Neo-Luddites who feel that post ~1960 tech is evil and will destroy the world. (mind you the exact date moves around a bit) These people often have fancy titles, and sometimes even legitimate education. It does not stop them from making dishonest statments for the benefit of thier religious beliefs.
There are plenty of examples of fake "good guy" industries that make a lot of money by spreading fear. It keeps the funding coming. Given most peoples limited resources to do world wide, large scale research, not taking the word of someone with a financial incentive to push an idea irrelevent of whether it is true or not, is not a irrational.
If CO2 increases raise global temperatures causing the ice caps to melt, how does the system respond? The melting runoff lowers seawater temperatures, colder water holds more disolved gas, the oceans absorb more CO2. Is this more than the CO2 trapped in the ice? What is the overall effect of decreased dry land mass (other than Kevin Costner with gills)? Can ocean life survive higher disolved CO2? Can we survive? Anyone? Anyone?
Earth will survive, we may not.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
There is no possible way that they can extract statistics like that from 800,000 years worth of ice. Ice doesn't stay static - it melts, moves around, freezes again, etc. Besides, how can they accurately determine the age of the ice? Carbon dating? Pff. Carbon dating isn't accurate enought to extract accurate numbers. This is bullshit.
I theorize that this is the work of Hoggish Greedly. If only Captain Planet could catch him!
Oops, you linked to junkscience.com.
I think we get plenty of oil industry opinions from our government.
Thanks anyway.
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
Conservatives favor government interference in your personal life, and are against interference in the market. Liberals are the opposite. Those who want everything controlled are called populists and I forget what those who want nothing are called, besides anarchists (and some libertarians.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes, perfectly. If we all simultaneously suicide by locking the entirety of humanity in an air-tight cave under the ocean we will both sequester a great deal of carbon back in the Earth's crust where it apparently "belongs" and end the anthropogenic addition of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere, thus neatly solving the problem and preserving all other life on Earth.
We also get the added benefit of never having to hear the following "debate" ever again:
Humans are causing the Earth's climate to warm up.
No they aren't.
Yes they are.
No, they aren't.
Are!
Aren't!
(etc.)
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
it's estimated that we'll be at the 'tipping over' point of runaway warming when we reach 440ppm CO2 concentrations, which will take about ten years. The world can't transition off of fossil fuels, nor can the economies of the first world and India/China even slow the growth of the use without their economies collapsing. So, we're already screwed and may as well party.
It's ok. To most Americans, Canada is in that mythical place "the rest of the world". I'm sure that, if they tried to invade, they'd end up conquering Mexico instead :-)
"How about developing countries that are not under any regulations?"
Racist.
(yes, that's a joke.)
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
If you enter a new school district, the schools get about a dozen times better, because there's more money per student. They have newer textbooks, more modern campuses, more support for the arts (which are the first to go when there's no funding), and smaller class sizes. This last one in particular has a direct effect on learning.
I have often wondered why History text books need to be updated...why don't they just buy suppliments for what happened in the past few years? I mean, other than the revisionist history and trying to stomp out good things about The United States, etc., I don't remember history changing a whole helluva lot...
Same with math, I pretty much perform integration and differentiation the same way I learned it 20 years ago...
Am I missing something? I guess you can just replace text books as they wear out beyond usefulness. I think that would do two things, make the tree huggers happy (that we are using less trees) and the schools would be spending less money. Just a thought.
Of course everything along the equator will probably be a parched desert. And the parched deserts will be even more parched deserts. Details...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
to be fair, there is still a lot of argument over precisely where oil comes from, and I don't feel like getting into it. But I disagree with you. Simply using land for agriculture results in losing it. See, when it's covered with dense plants, usu. native grasses, it's protected both from being washed away and blown away. When it's got a looser planting on it, then it's protected from neither. It ends up in rivers, where it washes out to the coast and creates anaerobic conditions there; this kills sea life, especially in harbors, river mouths, bays, et cetera. This also harms the community of plants along the coast, and it's one of the reasons why New Orleans got run over by the weather last year - the natural windbreaks are pretty much nonexistent today.
If Brazil does make it up to "first world" standards, and they don't do the intelligent thing and do everything in their power to eliminate all possible private transportation and improve the public transportation system to the point where it can handle people's transportation needs, then they will destroy themselves. You can quote me on that. :P
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's indeed also an option; a 'controlled release' so to speak.
If you aren't in the room you don't need them on. And just do it with a switch. Many of those motion sensors draw more power than you want for no good reason. When you enter the room, flip the switch, when you leave, flip it again. Simple yes?
Seriously Unless the machine is actually doing something (and the screensaver doesn't count) then turn it off. I don't care what rumour you heard that powering off your pc at night is bad it isn't and it doesn't help to keep it running 24/7. Those of you who are stuck with bad admin policies (updates that run at 2am at the office) get it changed. Point out to your bosses that PCs can be made to shut down or power up automatically and that updates can be set for just before or after work meaning that the machines can in fact be off most of the night to save power, and money, and the earth.
There is no reason to keep any electronic goods running (or even plugged in) unless they are in use. You will find that many things (e.g. the TV and DVD player) still use a nontrivial amount of power even when they are "off". Many systems that use remotes constantly draw power to wait for the remotes. You might put said systems on a power strip and then switch the strip off when you are out of the room. After all if you can't be troubled to come and turn them on mechanically then you need to work on laziness.
This is especially an issue for AC/DC converters. Most AC/DC converters (the small boxen that come with lamps, cellphones, palm pilots, etc. continue to draw full power even when nothing is attached. Even if the phone is not being charged the AC/DC converter is drawing power and then dissipating it as heat. Unplugging those (or just putting them on a power strip and turning it off) can save a large amount of money and environment over time.
At one point I managed to halve my electricity bill simply by aggressively attaching devices to power strips and unplugging unused AC adapters. It turns out that the TV/VCR/DVD-Player collectively used about the same amount of power when they were "off" as when they were on. Just a single power strip and some good habits saved me some serious money.
Those of you who get the daily latte, get a to-go cup. If you are spending $2.50 a day on caffene you can probably spend $10 once on a permanent cup. If you go to most places you will even get a discount for doing so.
Changing the oil and jkeeping the car tuned up also keeps the gas mileage up. Cars that are out of tune or filled with gunk tend to run rich and burn excess oil and gas throwing up more pollution than necessary and fouling the earth heavily.
I know that many of us don't have the luxury of purchasing a new prius, but some do. Those of you who have a hummer just break down and get an electric car for the daily drive. At 8am noone cares what kind of car you arrive in and if you have to have the truck to impress the girls do it in Friday night. Noone cares about a hummer on Wednesday morning anyway.
Never underestimate the power of a large number of small things. We keep looking for the magic single act. We forget that what got us here was not one act but many and what keeps us here is not outside forces but inside habits. Change the habits and you change the world. Even if your neighbor still drives his dumbass hummer your changed habits will still be good.
Heh.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
I have this one all figured out, folks. Let the climate shift happen (which, if my understanding is correct, means some parts of the world get warmer while others freeze over due to oceanic currents drifting and whatnot), and inform the world that all is doomed. Instill fear, which may be quite justified, as the world is drastically changed. Claim to have an solution that is equally drastic, but wholly justified. Watch as the nuclear devices are deployed in a last ditch effort to create a new thermal cell that melts the increased glaciation. Be somewhat shocked that the military chose certain strategic locations, but overjoyed for the terrors of cold, and, well, terror, have been destroyed!
Ummm...
Profit?
And then bow down to our new cocroach overlords!
I think you might want to check out the wiki page about the Kyoto Protocol itself. It looks as if that should be reducing emissions by 5% from their 1990 levels. Also, there is some interesting information about the inequalities in the 1990 levels. For instance in 1990 Russia had not almost nothing to reduce emissions, so in 1990 their emissions were at their worst level. And because of the carbon trading that the Protocol allows Russia can actually make money by trading the excess. That hardly sounds like a good system to me. Or at the very least this protocol is not the thing that will save humanity from itself. Like most things there is good and bad in the treaty and it should not be assumed that by not ratifying it the current government hates the environment. I would also point out that even the Clinton Administration did not submit the protocol for ratification, and that was an adminitration Gore was involved it.
Care to cite a source on this? The whole region (the Sahara) was much greener in the past, this is true, but desertification started long before the advent of agriculture, and has been creeping along for the last 30,000 years or so.
Egypt may be a bad example, because the climate change in the Sahara was naturally occuring, but if I'm not mistaken Mesopotamia -- the famed "Fertile Crescent" -- is a good example of what irrigation and deforestation can do to a region if that region is not capable of supporting it. The problem was simply that the region doesn't receive enough rainfall to easily replace what was taken. Most of Europe was treated equally badly as Mesopotamia, but because it receives more rainfall it was able to sustain itself.
I think Brazil receives more than enough rain fall to sustain itself, if as you say it is done intelligently. The only reason it was ever in danger was because of modern industrial techniques that allow completely flagrant abuse of natural resources.
The enemies of Democracy are
"That means that those countries will be reducing their emissions to 55% of their 1990 levels."
Or buying credits from other countries (usually less developed) to keep on pumping out carbon in excess of that.
I am not a climate change denier, and I'm pretty certain that the human race contributed more than our fair share to the problem, but it seems to me from my reading of treaty is mostly money will be shuffling around from big polluters to low polluters, without much actual change in the planetary greenhouse gas levels. I hope I'm wrong though. Time will tell.
They will just start paying big business big bucks to build co2 scrubbers for the air. Then every one will be happy. Companies get government pork, polititions get kick backs/contributions and people get fresh air and screwed at the same time.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Would he be considered a hero for not buying green energy at his Tennesse mansion when it's available, or not partaking of that option at his OTHER homes? (I guess Gore is so green that he can afford to have 2 homes ... not like that increases his ecological footprint). Then again, the DNC doesn't even buy green energy, so I probably shouldn't complain about Gore.
Maybe Gore will be considered a hero for the generous donation of his land for the usage of a Zinc mine--sure it's had some pollution problems, but Gore also gets 20k a year from it--that's nothing to spit at.
the guy can make movies as much as he wants, the truth of the matter is he could move into the woods and live life as an ascetic for the rest of his days, and yet he could never offset the ecological weight of his multiple homes, constant flying, and zinc mines. He can act carbon neutral all he wants, but an ecological footprints an ecological footprint, and Gore's got a big one.
And funnily enough, completely to my surprise, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Guvnor of California has done what's required.
What he's done is create a market in permission to pollute, much like the already existing Europe wide market which does exactly the same thing. What happens now is that those who pollute lots have to buy these permissions. It costs them money which goes to those selling excess permissions that they have or to those who manage carbon sinks. The result is that the big polluters start losing money, the greenies start making it.
Now... A few things need to happen:
Neither of which are particularly easy to do. However you don't need to do anything special, just keep your eye on prices and switch to cheaper products and services as you would do normally. The polluters products and services will automatically start becoming more expensive, the more efficiently produced products and services will automatically become relatively cheaper and the world will be saved because green products and services will be cheaper, more competitive than the others.
Deleted
Which process do you think is easier?
Lech Walesa once said something to the effect that it's easier to make a fish soup out of an aquarium than the other way around. He was referring to Poland, but he could have been referring to the whole world as well.
mt
So, as I've stated in other responses, you must ignore the fact that (in the article you're commenting on) 800,000 years of data show vast (50%) swings in CO2 concentration without human intervention, but human produced CO2 must be causing the current warming trend of the last three decades/12 decades/future 10 decades (based on your current belief).
_ 400kyr.png
Wow, that's some argument there. Look, the whole point of the data is that in 800,000 years, the CO2 concentration has only swung by 50%. This fact is the absolute core of the whole issue! Nobody is ignoring it but you!
Just look at the diagram, OK?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide
Not exactly (A plant-free greenhouse also warms up): http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.h tml
What is there about the conservative beliefs and worldview that makes them automatically spend less money and shrink government? Nobody's been able to show that. On the other hand, there's a lot of evidence to indicate that conservatives will grow the parts of the government that they like (security and military apparatus) and shift all the spending over to the military rather than reduce budget. Everything they cut in social programs winds up being spent for guns and pork.
There just aren't any fiscal conservatives, and that is the truth. (As a sidenote, Libertarians sometimes get really confused because they think that the conservative ethos of masculine strength and self-reliance is the same as the libertarian ethos of independence. They are not the same, and libertarians should stop making that mistake. Libertarians who split themselves into half-Republicans and half-Democrats (socially liberal and fiscally conservative) are COMPLETELY missing the point.)
If you're going to describe what conservatives are, it helps to properly define them. Regurgitating the talking points isn't the same as an accurate description.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
This comes out on the same day as news that we've discovered vast new oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico.
More carbon to pump in to the atmosphere! Hooray!
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Hmm, at 00:54, doesn't the curve go backward?
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
I bet he's all warm and fuzzy inside having read that.
Brazil has about 60% of the population of the US (185 million to 300 million), and the US has nearly seven times as many motor vehicles per capita as Brazil (about 811 per 1000 people in the US compared to about 121 per 1000 people in Brazil as of 2002). Taking admittedly off-date numbers and combining them nets about 243 million vehicles in the US compared to about 22 million in Brazil. Hence, the US has roughly an order of magnitude more motor vehicles in it than does Brazil, and that is the primary reason why they could switch to sugar cane ethanol.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
We need to start working on carbon sequestration right now, unless you want 140 degree summers across the entire midwest belt. And we need to use carbon taxes as our main source of governmental revenue, not stupid things like employment taxes.
Oh great, tax people for working out, breathing out CO2, and not the fatties, storing carbon in their blubber.
That won't backfire, will it?
I really think that unless we do something immediately, the habitability of at least half the landmass on Earth will be be jeapordy.
And as I demonstrated above, your plan will hit their hitability. By gods man! What's a few floods compared to that?!
You can't take the sky from me...
I think Brazil is doing much better ecologically than we are, even if this "risk" to topsoil is real. Top soil can be managed through intelligent farming techniques, it can even be retained and replenished thanks to modern farming technology. Even fertilizers can be used to replenish mineral and nitrogen content of the soil, and while if used unintelligently this can lead to enviromental impacts, this is not a necissary consiquence.
Fertilizer requires a large amount of fossil fuels to produce.
Not an insult - but a mechanism for helping to maintain topsoil.
Agriculture does not consume "topsoil which takes up to hundreds of years to build". Sure, you can bulldoze it out of the way or arrange for it to blow away, but that's stupidity rather than agriculture that's doing that. As an example, the part of England that I was born in was originally natural deciduous forest, and over the last 2000 years was farmed first for trees, then for a mixture of everything (with cows doing their bit to maintain the topsoil), and now mostly for barley. If your argument was correct we'd have had a dustbowl in the 1700s. It didn't happen - and in fact even where people have been growing wheat on chalk (with only a few inches of topsoil, and using mostly nitogen fertilizer in place of the aforementioned organic one) what soil there is is incredibly resilient.
There's a "when it's gone it's gone" argument for saying that the Brazilians should preserve their old-growth forest; but it's a bit rich coming from Europeans (in my case) who have already got rid of theirs.
Thomas Malthus was wrong when he said we'd run out of food in the 1800s, and you are too.
Pearl Jam is trying to offset all of their carbon emissions from touring. They also give some links for calculating your carbon footprint.
CO2 has increased appears to be a true statement, although the reports did not ndicate range of accuracy of measurements. But that does not mean that the whole change or even most of it, is caused by humans. The earth's CO2 levels are, to some extent, self-regulating. CO2 variation over the last billion years has been correlated with Ice ages, and has risen to ten times the current level prior to the biggest ice age. Obviously, that had nothing to do with humans. So saying humans caused the rise in CO2 is just shooting your mouth off. Close it. We do not need any more lies. Politicians are paid to lie. You are not.
wake up and hold your nose
Well, and of course, there's the inconvenient fact that in order to get the yields one needs to support a ethanol-based economy, the corn fields in question need a large amount of artificial fertilizers which come from (you guessed it) fossil fuels (And, yes, I grew up in an Illinois farming community, so I do know a thing or two about growing corn and where fertilizers come from). In reality, it's not clear that switching to an ethanol-based economy would decrease our dependence on fossil fuels (it might switch us to greater use of natural gas over crude, but we're starting to have depletion issues in that supply department, as well). In reality, the sooner we can switch over to fully electric vehicles that get their initial energy supply from wind, hydro, or nuclear power, the better off we're going to be. The hydrocarbons remaining underground are far too precious as materials feedstocks to be wasted burning them in our cars.
That is all.
O'Reilly claims that the reason for America's still being dependent on foreign oil is that Washington is in the pockets of Big Oil: ExxonMobile, Chevron, and Shell.
Er, has O'Reilly nooticed that the President, the Vice President, and all their friends and families are OIL MEN? And jas no one noticed that the price of gasoline has tripled since they took office? Yeah, it's $2.48 today but it was $3.10 two weeks ago. Hmm, must be an election coming up.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Before irrigation, Egypt was green. GREEN! Now it's a fucking desert.
I'm sorry, but this is exactly the kind of falsely alarmist crap that's causing so many people to be skeptical of the environmental movement.
Egypt and the surrounding desert was green about 6,000 BP because of an period of unusually heavy precipitation in the region called the Neolithic Subpluvial. It supported agriculture in what is now desert, yes, and also a pastoral economy. Desertification resumed about 5,000 BP not because of these activities -- there were, for example, no forests to cut down -- but because the rain stopped. (And this was also not due to human activity, which was at a relatively low level at the time.) Agriculture in the Nile Valley has ever since, and until the construction of the dams at Aswan, been reliant on the annual Nile flood. This flood irrigates fields all by itself, without human intervention. There was a degree of artificial irrigation, true, but it had little effect on the progress of desertification.
Stick to the truth; you'll be more convincing.
And the brethren went away edified.
The options that are obvious are sticking it underwater (stupid because it is potentially very deadly if it upwells again like in that lake in Africa), underground (difficult), reduce it (lots of hot hydrogen does it - but we need a lot of energy to get that) maybe turn in into limestone (lots of energy and calcium or some super bio-engineered polyps in enormous numbers - maybe it's totally impractical but it sounds cool) or plant vast amounts of vegetation (water problems). Reducing the output of CO2 is probably a lot easier than any of those alternatives - designs of things that use a lot less electricity is a start, and now we have the control systems it is a lot easier to use intermittant power sources than it used to be. Obvious stuff like getting daytime heat from sunlight for industrial processes that need a bit of heat is another option - if you don't actually need steam you can use hot water instead of electricity or fuel, electricity just gets used now because it is far more convenient. We need to do a few things a bit at a time instead of arguing for a decade about whether nukes are the answer and then spend another twenty years designing and building some future nuclear plants that do a reasonable job.
The credits aren't magically created, they're achieved by reducing one's own pollution levels. So even if the US joined and bought trillions of dollars worth of credits to cover its mess so it wouldn't actually have to clean up, the resulting cleanup of all the other countries would still make the world a better place.
Now, there is the issue of the inequality of credits since the system is based on "% of pollution compared to 1990" instead of actual comparable numbers, so paying Elbonia half a trillion dollars to reduce the pollution of their one plant by 1% wouldn't have nearly the positive effect of the US cleaning up 1% of its mess.
We produce all sorts of ethanol, too. We just consume, FAR FAR more oil. We also don't have a lot of rain forests to chop down to replace with cane plantations.
The "Brazillian model" is absolutely irrelevant to the US, unless you expect three quarters of people to give up their cars and for us to rip up most of the national forests and parklands to plant fuel crops.
Brazil is burning the rain forests. That's a hell of a lot worse than burning oil; you're destroying a carbon sink as you release carbon.
One tree at a time (e.g. in your wood stove) is OK but burning down the whole jungle to grow sugar doesn't make a lot of sense, especially since they aren't managing the soil very well.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
It's almost like there's a stupid ray you have to have fired at you in order to get into office.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
Which does essentially nothing to reduce C02 emissions!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Brazil is rapidly destroying their ecosystem. They are building an economy of expansion, but seek little in environmental protection. Now, how did they have elephants in Carthage or horses? I don't see how you could travel through the Sahara of today by elephant or horse to Egypt. Yet, there are stories of this and the carthagian empire. bill
I know you're joking, but speaking as someone who both a) swims about 1 mi some mornings and also b) lives around a 2 mi swim from work, I actually wish I could swim to work some days. The morning exercise makes the rest of the day much more pleasant.
Of course things like an active shipping lane and the occasional Great White venturing near the Golden Gate stop me from ever thinking seriously about such a plan, but otherwise I think it would be a workable idea with fins.
I don't buy into the environmentalist control paradigm, Steve just because yet another Piltdown Man
unearthed by the same bunch of people who are directly or indirectly are funded by the same
European socialist crowd that is busy shutting down that continent. I don't buy into the
Bushian control paradigm of endless War on Terror either but given the choice between the two
I will settle for the lesser evil and that is where I am living in abject poverty _but_
have hot food and warm water ever so much more often.
To these scientists and those who tout there findings maybe out of malice maybe only out of gullibility:
Apart from fancy graphics and a bunch of figures on the side of it you have nothing compelling
to show for your theories as the word of your renowned scientists who for the most part are
in one way or other flogging the subject for tenure, research grants and of course kickbacks
from the environmentalist "industry" they have helped build in Europe. And then there are other
just as renowned scientists paid by yet other interests which whip up the same kind of charts,
reports and findings as the environmentalist crowd only of course this time around debunking
the Piltdown Man.
So you see, within the frame of "Scientist say" there is no way this subject can be argued.
A more sucessful way of researching the subject would be to chart the money flow to "research"
and the interests and the true motivation those funds originate from. With a control paradigm
interest in the way, that is built on shutting down human freedom by means of the environmental
angle this is probably a much harder task than doctoring carbon results and giving a press
conference.
I know someone is going to be really upset over this obvious break with catechism and will mod
me down over this, presumably with a -1 Troll. That would however be an admission of defeat
and it would show you are evading the key point I am making here:
You will always find a bunch of people that will sing your song as long as they stand enough
to gain. With that kind of corruption in academia who can we trust?
Egypt may be a bad example, because the climate change in the Sahara was naturally occuring, but if I'm not mistaken Mesopotamia -- the famed "Fertile Crescent" -- is a good example of what irrigation and deforestation can do to a region if that region is not capable of supporting it. The problem was simply that the region doesn't receive enough rainfall to easily replace what was taken.
In those days, depletion of groundwater was not a big issue, since drawing water out of a well was so much work. The decline of agriculture in that area was probably due to either the Mongols or just soil salinity building up over the long term.
>could never offset the ecological weight of his multiple homes, constant flying
Gore is buying carbon offsets for his travel, in other words paying other people to sequester or not produce enough CO2 to compensate for what his travel produces. Put another way, he's paying the full cost of his consumption.
We used to not know who Deep Throat was. We also didn't know a lot of things about USSR and USA spy operations that have since been declassified or leaked.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Bill O'Reilly, hypocrite, finally comes forward and talks about saving the planet and did almost nothing during the his time on television.
Also, VP's job description only includes waiting to break senate ties and the president to die. He does not have any real power to do anything. Gore wrote a book on the topic and talked about it during 1993-2000, while BillO did nothing.
Welcome to the un-spin zone.
Re: the previous comment, we have no lack of ideas for how to let nature catch its balance. It's a societal problem with valuing immediate consumption over long term well-being. If we can't fix our priorities, technology will only a tiny number of people, and you bet the rest won't be left out without a fight.
I've de-converted from the ranks of technological messianists.
Care to cite a source on this?
Check out "When The Rivers Run Dry" by Fred Pearce. It really opens your eyes to the wholesale destruction of river ecosystems that irrigation and dams have unwittingly caused. Egypt and the whole "fertile crescent" used to be very green. The mesopotamian region was accidentally turned to desert by early Sumerian irrigation systems; Egypt was more recent due to damming the Nile for irrigation (thus preventing/reducing the yearly floods that, unbeknownst to the dam builders, are the cornerstone of a river ecosystem, not something to be banished.)
While Brazil is not destroying their economy yet, they are on the road to it if biofuels are their idea of a self-sufficient energy strategy. Future water crises will be worse than current, past or future oil crises. By using one of the most water-hungry crops (sugarcane) to produce fuel, and inevitably diverting massive amounts of river flow to irrigate it, they are heading down the same path that led to the desertification of the fertile crescent.
Not that the rest of the world is doing any better. Depressing, really.
Here is the sixth result from BBC News:
Scroogle
I can't speak for the rest of Brazil, but the public transportation system in Salvador, BA beats the pants off of most such systems I've seen in the U.S.
Great, so they CLAIM that ice is a DEFINITE, undeniable measure of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any one time AND they KNOW that the ice cores they've pulled are DEFINITELY 800,000 years old...
Why do we have to assume these requirements to be true? Because someone claims it's true? Because it's easy? Why bother me with this kind of information without establishing the validity of that which is presumed, whether it can be shown to be true that polar ice is an accurate measure of global CO2 and that CONSISTENTLY for 800,000 years. Either let these scientist show the validity of THESE claims or let them go and start a cult of worshipers who take their claims on faith, or WORSE, presumption.
Besides, with the increase in volcanic activity, these High Priests of Humans-are-Extremely-Powerful-in-the-Earth don't seem to bother with taking volcanic output into consideration, like the The Year Without a Summer and the atmospheric effects of Krakatoa.
Let 'em take their snake oil else where.
You're talking about total greenhouse effect here, which doesn't mean anything. It is the change that matters. Even small changes in the greenhouse effect, like the one caused by CO2, have a significant effect on earth's average temperature. Water vapor can be ignored, because its concentration levels have remained almost constant.
Dear America: Plenty of room, come on up.
:)
Oh, but... you don't mind another 20 million left-wing voters, do you?
That's because there's a very tiny subset of U.S. cities with workable public transportation systems. The only cities in which you can really reasonable say you don't need a car are San Francisco (and environs), [parts of] Los Angeles, and New York City.
The U.S. is built around cars. They tell you that driving is a privilege, not a right, but in most of the US you seriously cannot make it without one, especially if you have dependents. There are simply not enough hours in the day.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I try to avoid discussions on global warming, talking religion with strangers usually just leads to problems. For those of you who have a real grasp of what this data might mean, is there any way we can get causality out of this? Does the CO2 preceed or track the climate changes? Greenland isn't quite green yet, so I'd guess we still have time to figure out what, if anything, is going on.
-- Zieggenfus
On the other hand, there's a lot of evidence to indicate that conservatives will grow the parts of the government that they like
Like Medicare?
$30 Off All Plans: Use code TRIPLESAWBUCK
I'd suggest that you watch the Colbert Report. It's a very hilarious take on the O'Reilly format.
In those days, depletion of groundwater was not a big issue, since drawing water out of a well was so much work. The decline of agriculture in that area was probably due to either the Mongols or just soil salinity building up over the long term.
Yes, soil salinity was a major reason why the ground became unsuitable for aggriculture, which is related to both irrigation (which causes salt to build up in the irrigation channels) and lack of rainfall (more plentiful rainfall would wash away more of the salt). Forrests were felled for lumber and to make room for farmland, allowing the winds to carry away the topsoil (a problem seen in the U.S. Midwest).
It was the agriculture and lumber practices of the day, combined with an environment unable to withstand them, that resulted in the Fertile Crescent becoming a desert.
Oh, I see the confusion; when I said "the region doesn't receive enough rainfall to easily replace what was taken" I didn't mean specifically water, I meant natural resources in general.
The enemies of Democracy are
Oh well...
Any REAL scientists want to analyze the data? Are any left?
The only cities in which you can really reasonable say you don't need a car are San Francisco (and environs), [parts of] Los Angeles, and New York City.
Better strike LA from that list and add Chicago and D.C., Philly, and Boston.
Unfourtunatly you are correct and when youn realy look at things long term there isn't such thing as a renewable resource. The best we have for long term energy is the sun. It's technicaly not renewable but we should be able to get a few billion more years out of it. Now if only we could produce solar cells efficiantly and cleanly
No liquid core = no magnetic field, so you will have to live underground forever. I think it would be better to move a moon into place around Venus, strip off the excess atmosphere, get it rotating the right way @ 24 hour period, and start terraforming from there.
You could use Mercury as the moon, and have huge ion engines powered by solar panels (cover the surface of Mercury with self replicating solar panel robots). You drive Mercury around Venus a few times to get the change in rotation, and the moon would give Venus stable seasons.
I haven't read it (though I will) so I can't really dispute the premises, but I take most theories of prehistoric human disasters with a grain of salt, since there also exist naturalistic explanations for many of the phenomena now attributed to human causes (mass-extinctions, for example, though the theory of the fall of Greece would be more applicable). It seems that humans, as a whole, really like to blame past problems on themselves if it serves to further modern agendas. In the last couple thousand years we have seen several global climate events of a large magnitude (ice ages, mini-ice-ages, and warming trends) that have had natural causes, and had sever effects on human societies, so my default view on blaming climatic events on humans is generally to say it is naturally caused until a burden of proof shows otherwise. Again, not critiquing your premise, just explaining my position.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Sorry, I had my times wrong... It still does not hurt my point that these changes were probably not human caused.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I'm afraid they won't be able to feel responsible as they will be dead from the 160 degree heatwave.
Really? How do you get in on THAT?
I'm going to drive around in city traffic for the next hour unless somebody pays me $50.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
That means that those countries will be reducing their emissions to 55% of their 1990 levels.
A) The 55% figure is not correct--I believe it is more like 20%
2) Canada signed the treaty, but the Liberals did next to nothing with regard to meeting our targets, and the Conservatives have owned up and said we will not meet them. Since the time the treaty has been in place, the big, bad, ugly United States has done far more to control greenhouse gas emissions than how-green-is-my-Canada. The U.S. actions have been mostly due to initiatives at the level of individual states, who are far ahead of the U.S. federal government in this regard.
iii) Ergo, simply signing the treaty means nothing, and in the case of the U.S. at least, not signing the treaty does not mean nothing. I think I just sprained my square of opposition.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
We are the gay monkey's who burn stuff
That is our role
if the inferences made from these samples are correct, then temperature changes predate co2 fluctuations...thoughts?
e -plot.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperatur
800,000 minus 440,000 is 360,000.
Kinda ironic that in a discussion about what various calculations mean for the Earth's climate, that the slashdot editors are incapable of getting the proper answer.
You're right about that. We can't just find one magic fuel to replace oil and continue on our merry way, but we could make it with a combination of efforts. Right now, most energy for transportation comes from liquid fuels, and energy for electrical generation comes from everything else (coal, nuclear, hydro and natural gas). We need to electrify as much transportation as we can. That means rail, light rail and electric cars/scooters. Electric cars today are not even close to ready for the mass market, but we need to work towards them long term. Either electric cars will improve or the price of oil will catch up with the inconvenience of electric cars.
I know electrical generation has its own problems with fuel supplies and CO2 emissions, but we have more options there for clean, sustainable energy.
Oh great, tax people for working out, breathing out CO2, and not the fatties, storing carbon in their blubber. That won't backfire, will it?
You're right, the US will become a nation of fat slobs. Oh wait...
You can be carbon neutral. Check out terrapass. An SUV's yearly CO2 output can be offset for about $80, a standard car is about $50 (depending on how much you drive). The cost of making a round trip cross country flight carbon neutral is about $15. It's not a license to pollute but it certainly makes a difference.
Check out their faq for more info.
The changes we ought to make aren't that extreme or terribly expensive -- $15 extra for a flight is about what the TSA tacks onto your ticket for passenger harassment, er security.
fear is the mind killer
Yup.
The problem you cite with Mesopotamia (and much of the Middle East) had little to do with deforestation and farming, and everything to do with Bedouins and goats.
Cattle just eat the top part of the grass.
Sheep eat the grass down to the ground, which damages the grass, but doesn't usually kill it off entirely, at least not if pasture rotation is practiced.
But goats pull up the roots, and that kills grass outright. (D'oh!)
And without ground cover (not necessarily trees -- grass is better for retaining topsoil and moisture), any dry region can be transformed into a desert in a very few years.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I don't believe in global warming. Based on the temperature trend from yesterday to today I predict that we will all be frozen to death by the end of the year.
The ethanol extracted from sugarcane has only 3 elements: carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. After extraction, the rest of the sugarcane is returned to the soil, thus restoring the minerals that were extracted.
Brazilian farmers normally burn the unusable part of the sugarcane to power the distillation process for producing the ethanol. The burnt sugarcane and whatever remains from the distillation process is plowed back into the soil.
1. Solar radiation output is increasing as helium 'ash' accumulates at the sun's core; The change amounts to 33% in 4.6 billion years. .016, a nearly perfect circle.
2. Sunspots are dark areas which radiate less energy, not more.
3. Earth's orbital eccentricity is currently
4. Momentum of orbiting bodies is conserved therefore there is no such thing as gravitational friction.
Score: -1, Factually Incorrect.
and go first. Unless you are one of a very small minority (generally having no children and living in one of a few select metro areas), having a car is a necessity in the US. In the future, cars will be changed, not eliminated, as a response to rising fuel costs. However, this will take years. Far fewer Brazilians have cars as compared to Americans, and for various historical reasons, have much smaller ones. Therefore, their cane crop can cover a lot of their fuel use.
Studies have shown that biofuels, with currently available technologies, can only supply a small fraction of our fuel use, even if we plant every inch of even semi-arable land in the country. Of course, technologies will improve, but for now, biofuels are still going to be a bit player in the US.
The sugar crop is easy enough to produce. We can always invade Cuba!
Make the world better. Quit hating.
About brazilian ethanol. It did not start for environment reasons. Our military dictatorship created this ethanol program to have a fuel that would not depend on the middle-east. I would not even be impressed if it was not their USA bosses, to test this thing on us.
Then, they enforced everyone that wanted to sell gas to sell ethanol too. And they gave tax benefits to the ethanol makers/sellers. When these benefits where over or reduced, ethanol almost disappeared from our economy, but the sellers kept selling it.
These days, ethanol was coming back, because of dual fuel cars that are being sold here, and the gas got too expensive. But the ethanol sellers rised its price, so its pretty much the same thing again.
I, for one, prefer the cane to be used for sugar, and the soil for food. Better live without cars than without food.
The oil price will increase when its near the end, and the alternatives will be increasing interesting. There will be a natural change, all this fuel discussion is overrated.
Before irrigation, Egypt was green. GREEN! Now it's a fucking desert.
Wow, there's a desert that fucks? What or who does it fuck? All this time, I thought bigender 'male and female' species fucked.
Let's not forget their beady little eyes and flapping heads.
Correlation does not imply causality.
Actually, often it does imply causality. But it doesn't prove causality.
Henry's LaW [Gas solubility] _requires_ steady-state CO2 levels to increase with increasing temperature because of reduced gas solubility.
Not percentage-wise it doesn't. Yeah, the oceans will hold less CO2, but they also will hold less oxygen, less nitrogen, etc. There's nothing that says that the percentage of air that is CO2 has to go up with temperature.
Me, I've seen enough correlation to believe that we cannot afford to burn all the stuff in the ground that has been storing energy for years. Even if the CO2 released isn't the direct cause of the warming that follows, in the past is is likely the indications of CO2 increase in the past following the indications of temperature increase means that if one didn't cause the other, they have the same cause. And that cause could easily be the burning of carbon-storage structures (wood, oil, coal).
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
"Actually, studies of just this have indicated that changes in the sun's output account for about 30% of the changes in global temperature. That's significant to be sure, but still leaves 60% to be accounted for from other sources." Ok, so what is the last 10%? Is it from sources other than the other sources?
Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
Plus, mars is warming with receding ice caps. Maybe solar effects are what is driving our change? http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3362375 .html [chron.com]
Does it matter what the cause is? If the temperature goes up, a lot of people in Manhattan will be unable to live there anymore. It appears that shifts in the ocean currents will make living in Europe a lot more difficult too.
So, even if the temperature going up is caused directly by the sun, it behooves us to fight it. Anyone who likes the planet like it is right now (esp. anyone near the coasts) has a reason to try to keep the global temperature the same. Because if the temperature changes, you can't be sure what will happen. Well, you can be sure of one thing, that is things won't be the way they are right now. Change is the only certainty.
Even if the sun is causing the warming, but we could counter it by reducing CO2 emissions, we should do it.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Also add Portland, OR
http://www.junkscience.com/
Consider this also, it may be that increasing temperatures FROM SOME OTHER CAUSE (the sun????) lead to more plant growth which leads to more CO2 emissions.
The Kyoto protocol is about dead because of the US and China opting out. That is true. But it was crap anyhow.
The basic idea was to put a global cap on emissions, i.e. pick the quantity side of the economic chart. Thus the price has to adjust for the given quantity. This seems like a good idea, it has worked pretty well in the US over SO2 emissions. So what is the problem with Kyoto?
The first problem was the base year for emissions - 1990. This was a year where US & Chinese emissions were relatively low, but Russian emissions were relatively high. By using this as a base year the Russians would be given a huge amount of the "certificates to pollute" so to speak. Since US emissions are higher now, and Russian ones are lower, this misallocation would cause a huge shift of wealth from the US & China into Russia, for no reason other than they polluted more in 1990. This means the distribution of emissions and burdens is not even and the amount of income transfers required isn't close to feasible
This isn't the only problem. The overall level and trajectory of emissions is highly volatile. SO2 prices in the US started out reasonably, they're now something like $1000 per ton. That has become expensive enough to bar any entrants into the energy market: even the low emissions ones we are trying to encourage. Other issues include: no one agrees on the right level of emissions, the protocol is not based on any economic objective, and quantity baselines are troublesome from uncertainty.
Another issue is that picking quantity makes sense if you assume costs are linear and benefits nonlinear. This doesn't seem to be the case. If benefits are linear and costs are nonlinear, a global tax makes much more sense. There is good reason to think that marginal costs are sharply increasing, and benefits depend on the huge stock (amount of gas in air now), not the flow, so benefits are likely to be linear.
Price is a better choice than quantity in this case. For governments there is a fiscal advantage of taxing, so they are likely to enforce the limits. However, when choosing quantity, governments have far less strong incentives to enforce the resolution (they may even have negative incentives). When choosing quantity, both buyer and seller benefit from corruption. In choosing price the taxer wants to be paid. A few other assorted issues include: taxing creates no artificial scarcity, & measurement issues between rich and poor countries on quantity don't exist on price.
Choosing price isn't foolproof, we'd have require careful track of hidden subsidies (since governments could just rebate the tax to the companies and thus defeat the purpose). Another issue would be that we'd have to include existing taxes as part of the tax burden - i.e. much of Europe already has high taxes on this sort of thing, there is no need to double existing taxes. But that is tricky because it requires a careful calculation of existing taxes.
Anyhow, we do need to do something about the emissions problem. Absolutely we do. But the Kyoto protocol was a horribly flawed idea addressing a very real problem. We need to scrap this dead pseudo-treaty and do something else.
WHAT!
Water levels remain constant?!?
Are you insane?
Water levels in the atmosphere vary by 35% to 75% on a daily basis . Or is it always 72 degrees and partly cloudly in fantasyland where you live?
Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect. It varies up to 75% on a day by day basis. Despite this major role in global temperature, climate scientists can't even agree if it is a positive or negative feedback system. Spare me the diatribe and do just a *tiny* bit of research into the problems of climate modeling.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
I'm not ignoring the swing, I'm telling you that in the overall picture of things, a 0.28% change in greenhouse gasses is negligible compared to the estimated 1.3% variance in solar output measured during the last 40 years. But go ahead and focus on the wrong variable. I'm tired of the lack of anyone on this list to open their brain and actually search out *all* the data, including some that *isn't* reported in Popular Science magazine and the New York Times.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
In this case, it is an observable phenomenon that is currently happening throughout the world. Overirrigation of fields is leaving salt deposits behind in the soil that are normally washed down to the sea. In some locations, each year farmers use over HALF of their yearly irrigation water just washing the salt away before planting crops for the year. In some communities in India, the farmers have abandoned more than a quarter of their farmland due to salt deposits since the big dams / irrigation projects started.
In ancient Mesopotamia it was much the same. We know the Sumerians were the first civilization to use widespread irrigation. We know from the archaeological record that as their civilization declined, that their wheat yields began to fall steadily and their main crop became barley, a grain that is much more tolerant of the increasingly salty soil. This same scenario is playing out all across the globe today - increasingly salty irrigated fields are requiring more and more water to wash away the deposits each spring, and eventually they are simply unable to generate sustainable crop yields and are abandoned.
In any case, this example isn't a climatic event, and the damage caused by widespread irrigation is relatively easy to observe in controlled environments. However my original point is that Brazil is not a poster child for the new energy economy - it is simply exchanging one long-term disaster for another, due to the the damage caused by irrigation on the scale that would be required to produce enough energy from sugarcane.
This whole discussion is filled with so much misinformation...
With respect to New Orleans, the opposite is true. The flooding of the Mississippi is what replenished the wetlands and protected New Orleans from storm surge. The creation of the levees prevented the river from flooding and ironically prevented new soil from maintaining the wetlands. Check out this for more information.
As for windbreaks, I doubt the wetlands have much effect, but any effect is diminished as the wetlands shrink due to lack of replenishment.
Chris Mesterharm
We need laws favoring carbon neutrality. Because carbon is made of tubes.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
There are no pure, categorical truths in science. You can only get that 100% perfect proof in mathematics.
Science accepts very high certainties as truths. If I have made a lot of observations and they all behave according to a certain rule, then I am statistically 99.9% or more sure that this rule is universal. This certainty becomes then the truth.
Ever wondered how many observations (data points) Newton had for veryifing his Laws?
Our current cycle of global warming isn't natural. Note "hasn't happened before" isn't proof.
Sure, and there is no absolute proof that gravity won't simply stop at some moment and we will all float away into space. After all, we have only had a few thousand years of direct observations. Hasn't happened before? Maybe it will happen tommorow!
So in this case of climate change I will accept as THE TRUTH, that if carbon dioxide levels were between 200 and 300 ppm during the last 800 000 years, the current level of 380 ppm is not natural, not cyclic, not due to sun spots, etc.
The only explanation can be that it is due to the factor that was not present before: human industry.
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
Despite 100% conclusive evidence on this matter at this time, OIL is a major geopolitical problem for the entire world. Cutting down on Oil helps both problems.
Also, remember even when its proven 99.99% true there will be people still thinking the world is flat, the holocost did not happen, and Bush Jr was smart and informed.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The CO2 or the Temperature? Note that they don't say, which leads me to believe that saying would be inconvenient, so chances are that the temperature went up first and the increased biological activity on earth then caused CO2 to increase.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
There is plenty evidence that the earth was much warmer in the past. For a period of hundreds of millions of years, the polar regions were as steamy as the tropics is now. What caused that? Dinosaur farts?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Temperature powerfully affects the carbon cycle which in turn affects CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I have seen a lot of chatter to the effect that ice cores prove that CO2 levels control major heating and cooling trends and that is not the case.
Here where I live, green electricity costs 1.6 cents/ kw-h more than regular electricity. This typically adds $5-10 to my bill each money. Carbon offsets for a typical car run around $50/year.
Worst cast, $170/year for me.
Now get off your ass and quit polluting.
This is in that book? I'll pick it up next time I swing past a Borders, it seems interesting. Sorry I can't really comment until I read it, but the scenario you underline seems plausable and interesting.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I have a pretty open mind about this subject but the mere mention of Al Gore's name in my mind a strike against the argument of global warming.
Why? I feel the man is a bit of a goober and am suspicious about a failed politician striving to remain in the limelight. Honestly, I think the best way to advance the argument of global warming is to have front-men such as Al turn the reigns over to more presentable spokesman.
-- Posted from my parent's basement
bipartisan discussion
I probably dislike O'Reilly as much as you. But seriously dude, making a claim like this does not help your cause. Truly good debate ignores peoples' political affiliations and ideologies, and instead focuses on what they have to say.
And for the record, the political spectrum is a little more complex than a lightswitch that has settings of "liberal" and "conservative".
Got it. Post a link that shows that the entire premise of the "article" is a lie, get modded "flamebait".
How typical.
The fact is that 380 ppm isn't anywhere near being "outside the normal range". The article is a lie. End of discussion.
It was so much easier when everyone just used "B.C.", instead of changing the initials every fucking day so I don't even know wtf people are talking about anymore.
Modded "informative" for failing to understand the definition of a developing country?
Here's a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country
To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process;
"The Haber process now produces 500 million tons of artificial fertilizer per year, mostly in the form of anhydrous ammonia, ammonium nitrate, and urea. 1% of the world's energy supply is consumed in the manufacturing of that fertilizer (Science 297(1654), Sep 2002). That fertilizer is responsible for sustaining 40% of the Earth's population."
basically the reaction, N2(g) + 3H2(g) 2NH3(g) + H, only proceedes at a practical rate at a high temperature and pressure which is why its so energy demanding.
Used to be more complex. That was back when you could almost field a viable 3rd party candidate for president. Not like that anymore and may not ever be again, at least not until the culture gets fed up with the status quo. We are absolutely divided right now thanks to some lightning rod issues that don't seem to want to go away. Number one on the list is abortion. I think if that would go away then the lesser divisive arguments would fall to the side. But right now it owns us, and I would not be surprised if it gets us another 4 years of whatever mess the GOP slaps together on the 2008 ticket.
BP means "Before Present". That's "present" as in "now", not as in "gift". It sidesteps the BC/BCE issue completely so that no one gets whining rights. Very handy.
And the brethren went away edified.
Most of the people think, that CO2 just rises the average temerature and even this is doubted. Spare me your arguments whether this is the case and if it is man made.
e rer-plantchem/
When I was studying, we had a course in plant physiology discussing CO2 levels and the impact on plant growth and how they can cope with changing CO2 levels. While in general it has been shown, that the amount of biomass per area increases up to 40% with doubled CO2 levels it has also been shown, that the ratio between carbohydrates and other nutrients in the plants changes as well and as expected. In other words; insects,animals and humans have to eat a lot more of these plans to get the same amount of e.g. selenium, chromium and others. While humans can supplement their food with vitamins and trace elements( at least in the western world) animals haven't developed these capabilities so far and may not even know about this problem.
See here: http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/07/12/sch
Another impact on plant physiology is the number of stomata with which the plants exchange gas, heat and water with the environment. Increasing CO2 levels lead to the reduction of the numbers of stomata, which in turn makes the plants more sensitiv for "rapid" climate change.
See here: http://www.ucd.ie/cabinets/exhibit1.html/
Just two examples, but if you look, you can certainly find a lot more on these issues. There is a lot of fun coming up and most important, if one doesn't understand what is possibly changing or doesn't care, because we can easily solve the problems we create, it will cost lots of money...
"People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
B F
Ethanol from corn is pretty stupid when you consider the fertilizers etc. you need. Instead, ethanol from cellulose would be a much better bet - you don't need to grow specific crops for ethanol, you process farm waste, weeds - pretty much anything containing cellulose. It's one of the most promising ways of getting ethanol in the future - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose_ethanol
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Except for slash and burn in the Amazon rainforest. They're destroying 52,000 square kilometers per year.
Yeah, it's as negligable as a 0.1% rise in sea levels.
And the fact that your "50% swing" argument wasn't your main argument doesn't make it any less invalid.
"Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, lead conservation efforts."
True, and Nixon established the EPA. God, I never thought I would miss Nixon.
Durring the cold war 1st world = USA and free countries in Europe, 2nd world = socialist country, 3rd world everyone else.
So I would say it is unlikly that brazil will be 1st world standard if they keep applying a socialist model.
Second World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You could also give and example of the Aral Sea. This great salt lake (sea?) had tremendous shrink (> 50%?), after the river, that was feeding it with water was used for irrigation. This was only 70 years ago (1930+), or so.
That wasnt a troll, its true. You will see.
Tell me the govt cannot afford 35000 aircons, or even 100000 free aircons , max 100m dollars.
To install for free in lots of old peoples homes that are too hot.
Then again, thats 35000 extra houses/flats up for rent/sale driving prices down.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Part poor attempt at humor, part not. Is the Earth getting warmer? Appears to be so. Is is all our fault? Definitely not. The planet goes through cycles. I'll bet greenhouse gas levels were way higher during the age of the dinosaurs, and the planet was much warmer. Somehow those levels went down without humans doing anything about it.
If you want to stop increaese in CO2 levels, perhaps we should stop chopping down the rainforests, which are the largest and most effective CO2 scrubbers on the planet.
The entire Northeast corridor of the US, from Maryland to Maine used to be one big forrest. How much CO2 do you think that forrest consumed 300 years ago? I would bet a hell of a lot.
=sarcasm=
Plants are our salvations. If you want to blame someone for global warming, I would blame loggers, builders and vegetarians!
=/sarcasm=
A halt to fossil fuel burning is only PART of the solution IF global warming is a phenomenon we caused and have control over.
It will take a long time before Ford/GM (if it still exists/Toyota etc to put out super huge Mars rovers to screw over that planet too!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I believe this event helped to usher in a big long-term promotion wave of pro-business, pro-executive branch authoritarianism. The Fairness Doctrine falling was a fairly major contributor of a decades-long sea change in politics that started back in 1987. That's when Republicans got control of the committee overseeing the FCC and shut down the general rules on raw partisanship and personal attacks on political subjects in the media. I can't tell you how many people (like my dad, a few coworkers, etc.) have been directly peppered--and I would say slowly corrupted--with a drumbeat of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Fox News types in the world. It used to be if you broadcast to millions, you sort of had to attempt to actually be "fair and balanced" (totally unlike what Fox News is). You had to let public figures have equal unobstructed time to respond when he was attacked and basically lied about. That was gone after the Fairness Doctrine was done away with. Colbert has is right.. now people who watch/listen to these shows become perpetually perturbed, fierce, angry, and brainwashed that the world has simple solutions. The simple solution being to have a strong leader who can make instant decisions based on convictions without a lot of 'endless' debate or fussy accountability.
Offtopic I know, but here are some beefs with Fox and other conservatives that make me shake my head at the state of popular media in the country:
I guess I'm confused about what you're saying.
I was trying to support bipartisan discussion, not coming out against it.
This of course means exactly what you say, in my book. People with different sets of belief coming together and negotiating the correct course of action for the country, regardless of what branch of ideology they come from. This is how our country is supposed to work.
Maybe you were confusing the word "bipartisan" with the word "partisan"?
I am perfectly aware that the political spectrum is complicated. That's why I accused O'Reilly of being simplistic - It is exactly the Bill O'Reilly types who make it much simpler than it is in reality. Basically, it's the us vs. them attitude, which creates a false choice that all Americans are tricked into making. For instance, you can have both safety and security. For some reason O'Reilly, Hannity, et. al seem to think you can't, and support whatever hare-brained effort the president is making to constrain our freedom. You can allow gay marriage without destroying the institution of marriage. Etc etc. etc. There are lots of these issues that these guys love to trot out to confuse us and to make us believe in one or the other propositions that aren't actually, logically or practically speaking, mutually exclusive. There are good values on both sides of the isle, but the poliitical debate has been clouded so by these pundits that there is no longer any honest discussion over the real issues. That's what I am accusing O'Reilly of. Regardless of whether he is conservative or not, he is still an idiot. I would think he was an idiot if he was a liberal or a centrist too.
If I had a good comment IDE, I wouldn't have missed that closing )
Stupid Slashdot!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
There's a pretty healthy group of Scientists that do not believe that global warming is being caused by Humanity. And there's a big group that also believes that global warming, as a phenomenon, does not exist. They all have excellent data to back their position, so I think we can say that predicting global climatic change is not nearly as easy as you think it is.
Despite what anyone says about "Saving the planet", we're not trying to save the planet, we're simply trying to save our own asses. The planet will get by without us, should our own stupidity wipe us out.
I still say plants more forrests. They're great CO2 scrubbers.
Ok, so what is the last 10%? Is it from sources other than the other sources?
Dark matter, of course.
The enemies of Democracy are
Before irrigation, Egypt was green. GREEN! Now it's a fucking desert.
I also request the citation for this statement. I also refute it by a simple question. If Egypt was so green, why did they need irrigation?
I actually used to be a Republican before the party sold its soul to the Religous Right, and then sold it again to the NeoConservatives. Hmm, maybe all the problems today can be traced to the fight over ownership? That's what Bush means by an "ownership society" maybe?
While I'm not a registered Libertarian, I do agree with lots of their party platform. I do, however, believe that there are some functions that can only be provided by a government body (besides national defense and the like), it'll take some generational change...
If only the Libertarians could plot a coup to take over the GOP. Nah, with the new domestic spying powers that Gonzales graciously interprets Bush as having, you know - Security Letters and all, the plot would be exposed and somehow tied to Iran or Osama (remember him?)...
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
Man, you really had us going there! Then you had to trash you entire effort by referencing Forbes! :-)
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
If I'm wrong, let me know, but this is what was taught in my last (college-level) civics class. At least, as I remember it. I wasn't really thrilled to be there.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We've got Diebold, so that's covered.
If you're prepared to make your mind up on the basis of one name, then you don't have an open mind. There are far worse people in the world who have supported perfectly reasonable ideas.
Ethanol is a fuel aternative. It's combustion byproduct is still CO2. So all you are doing here is removing OPEC from the equation. As for getting lower amounts of greenhouse gasses, nothing has changed!
> all 800,000 years of the ice column have been analyzed
Congratulations. You've covered 0.017% of the Earth's age, and, more specifically, a period infested with almost constant, murderous ice ages.
But that doesn't sell governmental power grabs to control the economy that socialist arguments last century failed at, does it?
Note: The outrage you feel, the burning in your ears, does not mean this post is a "troll" or "flamebait".
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1. The CO2 released from burning ethanol was only recently sequestered, such that (in theory) an ethanol economy would have no net effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The problem with fossil fuels is that the carbon released during combustion has been sequestered for a long time, such that that CO2 is effectively "new" to the system. With Ethanol, CO2 is part of a short cycle while with fossil fuels it's part of a very, very long cycle. In trying to limit the increase in atmospheric CO2 (and trying to limit the rate of such change), that makes all the difference.
2. I wouldn't call CO2 a "byproduct" of combustion. In most cases, the conversion of solids or liquids to hot gasses performs the desired work. The release of CO2 from the fuel stock is a primary rather than secondary or incidental product.
So, let's say for example there's no viable Socialist candidate. What you're saying is that because of this, nobody can be a Socialist. Right.
By the way, the US is not the only country in the world. Even within the US, there are places where third-party and non-party candidates are viable. These offices are what the Libertarian Party counts when they claim they're the biggest/most elected/most influencial third party in the country. Of course, I'm not sure that getting people elected to dog catcher positions and rural town councils really improves your party's clout.
And about abortion: there will always be issues that the ruling class/ruling party(ies) seize upon to divide the working class. This is just the loudest one right now. See also gay marraige, gun rights/control, etc.
Maybe you were confusing the word "bipartisan" with the word "partisan"?
It's rare on Slashdot that you get someone who actually tries to clear something up. Congrats on being that guy. Anyway, my response here is that no, I am not confusing these two words.
Let's deconstruct the word "bipartisan". First we have "bi-", which means "two". Then we have "partisan", which in this case we mean "member(s) of a political party". Thus "bipartisan" means "the members of two political parties".
Now I'm pretty sure that you were referring here to two very large political parties of the United States of America. And this is where I have a problem. I don't believe it's truly possible to have "reasoned debate" when one must box the entire human race into being aligned with one of two non-profit corporations that function as the major political parties of one nation. What if you live in Yemen? What if you're a member of the US Greens?
Of course, you probably didn't mean exactly what I just said. I'm going to take some liberty here and replace "bipartisan" with "liberal, conservative, and/or centrist". I also have a problem with this. These labels are basically useless, as pretty much no one fits into them. If they did, we'd logically have three political parties, and we wouldn't ever need to have political debates, because the policies of each one would never change. This is far from reality. And there's many more issues here, most notably the fact that the "left/right" continuum is not something that's universally agreed upon.
I agree with you on most points. I just don't think the labels are useless, especially in this country . Just because we have labels doesn't mean those labels are static - they just represent the political discussion in its current form. I don't think that being a member of a party is such a rigid designator of political opinion. It may be perceived that way by some people- but in reality, you are quite right in saying it's not that simple. In reality, being a member of a party is just having a tendency of thought and a tendency to vote for candidates who represent certain kinds of beliefs. That is what the left/right distinction is too. There are definite agreements on the kinds of opinions that people who are on the "left" have - and there are, likewise, agreements about what the kinds of beliefs that the "right" has - it follows a continuum, as you say, and there are lots of variation and therefore lots of different, changing definitions about what constitutes conservatism and liberalism. The important thing is none of these definitions stop changing.
Also it's important to note that the spectrum is not a line - it's more like an ellipse or a circle. In practice at some point beyond communism radical leftist ideology begins to resemble something like fascism, and far far right ideology (in some sense) begins to resemble communism beyond fascism. The diffferences aren't that great - once the national government starts exerting that much control over the means of production and vice versa, it becomes a moot point whether the production is distinct from the government. You may disagree, but that's a different discussion.
I think neoconservatives and the religious right have changed the definition of what a conservative is in this country, but that just means that we have to change our definition of conservative. These labels are only there because it is an effective way of indicating where a person in relation to other people on the spectrum - they are not there to indicate that people have to adopt a specific set of beliefs, although many people, indeed, see it that way.
However, the specific beliefs that they have is a matter of individual choosing. When you say "aligned" I guess you mean a hard alignment - the kind you see when people tow the party line and recite all the talking points that their party leaders give them. This may be how it is. But those talking points change with popular sentiment, and are meant to represent the kind of consensus that occurs in a party when people agree on many issues.
In short, when I say I'm "aligned" with the Democrats I only say that I'm more likely to vote with the Democrats.
I think you are correct that, unfortunately, too many people in our government recite the party platform whenever they are asked to explain their positions on the issues. And too many people fail to think about or learn about the issues simply because they think "liberal" is as far as they have to go in explaining or thinking about their beliefs.
This is why all these false choices are laid out before us - the parties and the pundits are talking past each other, and not to the American people.
Quite understandable given that poison from a stingray barb causes necroticism. It's quite interesting that video was rolling the entire time and was able to capture his death on tape. He seems aware of his plight but remains brave until slipping into unconsciousness.
I believe we speak the same, yet use different words, on your second statement about CO2 as it is definitely a byproduct of all ethanol - oxygen reactions (along with water vapor) but this could be a semantic issue. I think we will agree that we are both correct with our chemistry sets in mind (Hee!)
Since we have collectively in our civilization nearly doubled the CO2 portion of the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, not to mention the other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, I think instead of consideration of combustion processes, which nearly all yield some CO2 in the process, that consideration of non-combustion energy process be exploited. Like solar, wind, water and then storage of the converted energy in technologies that already exist. Like for instance nickel hydride batteries or even old lead acid technology storage cells can be utilized. This way the slow process of sequestration of CO2 could maybe start the process of lowering the fraction of CO2 that is threatening this place we live on whether it be by more carbohydrates in plant tissues or shells of marine biota as limestone.
At this point in time anything to sequester the atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial revolution fractions would be wise to put resources hard at work on for solutions. We have many climatologists that think we have bypassed the point of no return. Like an ocean liner going to fast trying to stop in a short distance there is a huge amount of inertia in the climate processes.
Consider that we have already warmed the planet due to anthropogenic processes to the point that the glaciers have rolled way back, and now I read that the permafrost is warming up and releasing huge amounts of methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas. Since glaciers reflect much more light the albedo of Earth has been diminished and absorbs much more energy than is reflected exacerbating the process.
I hope you are free of thinking you have opened up an argument, I want you to know I enjoy a friendly discussion and exchange of ideas here.
Your getting things all confused, if holding Socialist ideals or applying such are deciding factors then most of Europe for the last 50 years would be considered "second world" states. The term "second world" referred primarily to Soviet Block nations and sometimes loosely to other communist states such as the non Soviet block Slavic states or China. Socialist != Communist just as Capitalist != Fascist even if the lines get blurred in some specific cases.
Brazil is simply making a trade of possible long term wealth held in the Amazon Rain Forest for the temporary gains necessary to lift itself out of "third world" conditions. The methods it uses for the control and distribution of these resources, Capitalist or Socialist, have very little to do with the basic nature of the actions. Either Capitalist or Socialist society's are capable of making responsible compromises or disastrous Faustian bargains.
Directly the opposite of what most people intuitively think, the soil of a tropical rain forest is actually very thin and poor. So the long term usefulness of such soil will depend on managing it from the start in a manner that returns organic matter. I don't know what the specifics of sugar cane are by my past experience farming have given me so insight on these issues. For instance corn harvested for grain, NOT silage(the whole plant) is much less damaging to the organic structure of the soil than soybeans even though it is more demanding fertility wise. It can actually improve the structure of a soil faster than leaving it aside in grasses. And even silage operations can have the impact softened by returning the silage fed animal waste to the soil. If the Brazilians are returning a large enough volume of the organic matter to the soil then they might have a long term sustainable situation, if not it will degrade the soil structure and cause loss of topsoil.
As for fertilizer and ph issues these are mostly mineral based issues. Phosphorus, potash and trace elements can be gotten from quarries or sources such as slaughterhouses, only nitrogen is derived mostly from hydrocarbons. Plus nitrogen can be supplied or at least supplemented by other methods such as green manuring or with nitrogen fixing bacteria and rotating crops like soybeans or peanuts.
As for water resources, unless they cut enough of the rain forest to alter weather patterns in a substantial way I doubt if they will even have water problems with the Amazon and rainfall they receive. It is possible that they could poison the thin poor initial soil very quickly with salts through bad fertilization and irrigation methods. It is also possible that they could build the cleared areas into some the richest in the world over time. Even possibly in the distant future allow it to return to the jungle, managed or wild.
If not for the issues of species losses from the clearing actions I would say this all could possibly be of very little long term concern, possibly a very good thing for the whole world. I think that very intensive management by relocation or preservation of wild species, or at least the DNA of such, occurring in advance of the clearing would be great idea. I think it would be or great benefit to the "first world" to be as proactive and helpful in this as the Brazilians allow. I suspect that the mid to long term ROI on such matters are sufficent enough that it even makes sense for big pharma, agri and chem industrys to assist in a substaintial manner, even without corporate welfare payments.
Wabi Sabi
Matthew
I honestly believe that abortion is the only killer issue. Because people take children so seriously (much too seriously), especially in the US.
Sorry to barge in a bit late on the discussion, but I have recently posted some pics about the Epica drilling project which is quoted by the article. I was part of the team working up at Concordia station in 2005 and I was there when the drilling reached bedrock (or almost) in december 2004. We celebrated by using some million-year old ice into our drinks ! (tastes like drill fluid)
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Um, right. Everybody agrees on gun control, gay marraige, religion in government, and countless other stupid issues.
But, what really got me was when I started looking at it this way: Civilizations sprang up for the first time all over the world simultaneously about the same time: 10,000 years ago and if you look at a graph of temperature with the scale showing recent ice ages but still showing the last 10k years as more than a line, you see what's unique about the last 10k years isn't hot or cold but stability. (Not the best but here's one: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age _Temperature_Rev.png)
I read once somewhere somebody had the theory that certain cultures have done very well (Europe, parts of Asia, not Africa) because the orientation of the continent they are on. Europe stretches east to west, Africa north to south. Small cultures who learned to domesticate the animals and crops in their climate were able to expand as far as the climate spread. If you live on a land mass that spreads north to south temperature and climate are much more likely to change than if it spreads east to west... so Europe had a big advantage over Africa. And to this day famines tend to strike those longitudinal areas (Africa, India)
If everything about us including the wheel, sliced bread, the steam engine, books, everything short of stone tools was actually a result of this stability in climate maybe this is a really really really big problem. We can't rely on breadbasket regions to be there from decade to decade and civilization will have to scale waaaaay down.
I'm a total layman so if somebody in the know can correct my misinterpretations please feel free to enlighten me.
I know that the conventional view of history says agriculture started 10,000 yrs ago, but is it possible that the desertification process was related to increase of human population density in North Africa (say 60,000 years ago) and whatever form of 'pre-agriculture' these folks may have practiced?
I realize it's an unlikely scenario; it's just that recently I've read this book, '1491', that argues that several landscapes in America (North and South) thought to be natural are actually remains of remaking of whole landscapes on very very large scales by the locals way before the arrival of Europeans.
Gore already is a hero. He destroyed Manbearpig, which is much worse than global warming. I'm totally serial.
Or should that be "Pull Up! Pull Up!"
.
I came to this item expecting, and hoping for, a serious discussion, but . .
There have been some funny posts, but folks, this is past funny.
May I verge on a lecture? I've only recently had this penny drop, so forgive me if you are well aware.
As we've know for years, the normal CO2 range for close to the last million years has been 200 - 300 ppm. Self regulating. Longe term stable, even if between fairly wide extremes.
CO2 is now 380 ppm
That level is increasing at the rate of 2 ppm/yr
Recent evidence strongly suggests that at 440 ppm the atmosphere will cease being controlled by the current negative feedback balance of factors, and will go to a positive feedback condition.
(This situation is currently referred to by the dumbed down term 'tipping point.')
Negative feed back good - positive feedback frightening - think what happens when the local meeting PA system goes into positive feedback - now think of that noise being the atmosphere boiling off. Very rapidly. Positive feedback is just that. Positive action builds to the physical limitations of the device in very very short time.
2 ppm/yr means we have at absolute maximum 30 years before we reach 440 ppm.
20 years must be considered to be the maximum time we have to fundamentally change *everything we have and do, in most societies on this still blue earth.
I am led to believe that it will take 1,000 years for the current CO2 load to be processed by the planet, but this may be extended significantly as the load being absorbed by the ocean's creatures is half of what was previously believed. There is no easy fall back there.
My mind curdles at the unbelievable social adjustments that are necessary from this point on. Not just planting some more trees. Not just driving a smaller car. Not just holding another meeting.
Instead, please think about this. You are nerds (it says on the web-head that we are, at least.) Nerds are smart, which is why after a sleepless night calculating our (the world's) options, that I came to this site first.
Ladies & gentlemen. Please really think this one through through, and work out yourselves what actions must occur, and occur in frighteningly little time.
What are the changes required to almost eliminate CO2 emissions from the entire world in 20 years, without the most appalling social turmoil. And even if we manage this, the CO2 level will still sit at well above the stable max of 300 ppm for close to a millenia. What will be the effects of that? All we're dealing with here is trying to stop the bleeding obvious runaway.
My personal view is that we should approach the Indian nation for advice on how to live relatively comfortably while using almost no energy, as was the case there until about 10 years ago.
One cow pat is all that is required to cook a meal for a whole family, and it is the ultimate low temp slow food - absolutely delicious. Don't laugh. Cow dung is just one thing we will have to learn to use, very soon. Dust off the bikes, there can not be any private cars, but instead limited public transport.
It seems to me that the only way we the people will be able to achieve a future for our children will be for us to somehow convince all the politicians in the world to join a war-time-like coalition government, as has frequently been done in individual countries in times of stress, only this time the entire population of the earth has to take part, and focus, and effect a mind-numbing degree of change in the almost zero time available.
While the US of A is the prime (but not only) cause of the extreme CO2 load, it is also probably the only nation that has the track record of extreme management skills required to do what needs doing in the time available.
We are at war.
With ourselves, and our gross habits.
I have said for 20 years that our grandchildren are going to rain curses on our/this generation.
I think you might be mistaken. I think that it is accepted that Mesopotamia has been a place of low rain fall, but of relatively high inundation for several millenia (which is not to say the region has been free from climate change over this time). At least this presumption figures in theories of why the first cities originated in this area (see for instance Gwendolyn Leick, Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City). The idea is that the irrigation requires a large concentrated labour force and extensive organisation, in other words the great potential of Mesopotamia was exploitable only by an urban culture.
This reliance on irrigation for plant growth is evidenced by a passage from the 2nd biblical creation myth (which displays its mesopotamian heritage in other ways too).
Which is why, in contradistinction to the 1st creation myth (Gen 1:1 - 2:3), plants could only be created after man.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke