Slashdot Mirror


Study Finds World Warmth Edging to Ancient Levels

Krishna Dagli writes to mention a decades-long study by NASA scientists. According to the research, global temperatures are reaching highs not seen in thousands of years. From the article: "One of the findings from this collaboration is that the Western Equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans are now as warm as, or warmer than, at any prior time in the Holocene. The Holocene is the relatively warm period that has existed for almost 12,000 years, since the end of the last major ice age. The Western Pacific and Indian Oceans are important because, as these researchers show, temperature change there is indicative of global temperature change. Therefore, by inference, the world as a whole is now as warm as, or warmer than, at any time in the Holocene. According to Lea, 'The Western Pacific is important for another reason, too: it is a major source of heat for the world's oceans and for the global atmosphere.'"

6 of 534 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Historical Data Readings by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of _the_past_1000_years#General_techniques

    It probably took you longer to post that question than it took me to find that answer.
    =Smidge=

  2. Enough is enough /.! We are better than this! by arcite · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I have yet to see a credible answer as to why the majority of the best scientific minds in the world would somehow be involved in a conspiracy of inventing climate change. Why? Most scientists aren't millionaires. Have we lost faith in the scientific process? Do we disbelieve that it is possible to make hypotheses and discover through investigation the nature of our reality? Are *some* people so afraid of what the real *truth* is?

    People who keep repeating that climate change is a conspiracy remind me of someone who has just been told they have a cancer and are in denial. WAKE UP! Ugh.

    And another thing, how have we come to such a situation where these anti-evolutionist climate change deniers congregate to /.? Not only do their numbers seem to be increasing, but I see people after all this time still engaging their mindless trolls!

    This is the 21st century, we are a global society and as such I am personally confident that it is not a forgone conclusion that the human race is destined for a 'Bladerunner' future dystopia. However, the first step in avoiding such a fate is to acknowledge the true state of our reality. (...cue the trolls to say I'm somehow advocating the downfall of western civilization) ugh...

  3. Re:Time Warp by Random+Utinni · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The earth has had some really hot periods - it hs also had some really cold periods - all BEFORE mankind started to add their marginal extra amount of pollutants into the air.


    This is true... there have been hot periods and cold periods in Earth's past. However, what many of these new findings are suggesting is that the current rate of change exceeds what happened previously. It's that things are heating up *really fast* that is being blamed on human intervention. Further, TFA notes that we are reaching the warmest Holocene temperatures... and we're *not slowing down* yet. That's a bit frightening.

    And whether any of this is due to human action or not is, to a large extent, irrelevant. If you're sitting around the house with some friends and one of them points out that the drapes in the living room just caught fire, you don't sit there and argue over whether they caught fire because of faulty electrical, errant ashes from the fireplace, or the cat knocking over a candle. You do what you can to put out the #$(*#& fire! If valid science is suggesting serious problems ahead because of global warming, let's stop arguing and do something, anything, to try and stop it.
  4. Re:Historical Data Readings by dalerb · · Score: 5, Informative
    FTFA:
    Reference
    Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade 2006. Global temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 14288-14293, doi:10.1073/pnas.0606291103.
    These are scientists from NASA and the University of California at Santa Barbara. It doesn't look like they were funded by Exxon or Greenpeace. If you've got the climatological cojones to criticize their findings, please do so. But don't whine and denigrate the report as "quote-scientific-unquote" just because some groups do choose to politicize the study of climate change.
  5. There's more to it than just hot weather: WAR by writerjosh · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We have more to worry about than just hot weather. The Department of Defense did this "thought" exercise to determine the consequences of global warming in respect to national security. They took it seriously, and so should we (it's a few years old, but I think most people still haven't heard about it):

    http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.p df

    "There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. Because changes have been gradual so far, and are projected to be similarly gradual in the future, the effects of global warming have the potential to be manageable for most nations...

    ...The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:

    1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production
    2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts
    3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess

    As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor.

    This scenario poses new challenges for the United States, and suggests several steps to be taken:
    • Improve predictive climate models to allow investigation of a wider range of scenarios and to anticipate how and where changes could occur
    • Assemble comprehensive predictive models of the potential impacts of abrupt climate change to improve projections of how climate could influence food, water, and energy
    • Create vulnerability metrics to anticipate which countries are most vulnerable to climate change and therefore, could contribute materially to an increasingly disorderly and potentially violent world.
    • Identify no-regrets strategies such as enhancing capabilities for water management
    • Rehearse adaptive responses
    • Explore local implications
    • Explore geo-engineering options that control the climate."
  6. Re:Enough is enough /.! We are better than this! by ambivalentduck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Scientists can lie just like anybody else. The key lies in the level of punishment that results from lying:

    When a politician lies, they get elected. And *maybe* impeached later on. (Bill Clinton)
    When a corporation lies, they lose a tiny fraction of the income generated by the lie. (Enron, Big Tobacco, Microsoft)
    When a scientist lies, they get about a year or two before they're caught. At which point they lose all standing among fellow scientists, get barred from all reputable journals, and often lose their university/institute jobs.

    Summarized: when a scientist gets caught in a lie, their life is over. When a corporation is caught in a lie, they lose a small part of their illegitimate gains. Who has more incentive to lie?