Slashdot Mirror
Melting Arctic Ice Has Consequences
OriginalArlen writes to tell us about some compelling global warming coverage in the Washington Post. First there is an article about a study indicating that melting Arctic ice is threatening polar bears with extinction. The article quotes an environmentalist: "This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one." And the polar melting is opening new shipping lanes. The second article details a trip late in October through the Northwest Passage by a Canadian icebreaker. Never before in history could this trip have been accomplished so late in the year; ice would have choked off the passage. Estimates of when the passage might be navigable by commercial shipping range from 2020 to the end of the century. The indigeneous people are not looking forward to this development.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've been frozen in arctic ice the past 6 years, were recently thawed out as a result of the melting ice, and have no knowledge of Bush's presidency or how powerful corporations are.
Welcome to the world of 2006!!
Then it is time to sign the Kyoto accords, which actually have some major nations such as China increase greenhouse-gas emissions. Since Kyoto is all about the environment, I can only assume that requiring increased greenhouse-gas emissions is part of a strategy to stop global warming.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Why?
How dare they question the Holy Religion of America, as revealed by our Almighty God the Dollar!
Repeat after me: There is no global warming!
And even if there is, it's not caused by humans!
And even if it is, there's no need to do anything about it!
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
The official line of the US government may be that nothing is happening up there, but let me tell you, they're surveying the crap out of the Arctic Ocean right now, making sure the US's Exclusive Economic Zone is defined and that they have proper control of oil and gas up there...
Just like the governments of the world didn't already know this. NOBODY GIVES A SHIT, don't you know? Its so far into the future nobody cares, nobody thinks of the children so stop posting all this shit on slashdot. I gladly await our deserved destruction.
Jonathanjk.com
Polar bears ? What did they ever do for us ? Except eat us!!!
No more polar bears roaming the streets of Helsinki?
Darn.
"Baked Alaska" a whole new meaning.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
"Wal-Mart greeters are more dangerous than a hungry polar bear."
I know they are usually huge and white, but other than that....?
Where were you when the voynix came?
I mean, didn't we send those polar bears the memo about global warming? Oh wait... it wasn't congressionally approved.... =P
Although Bush has done much to harm the environment, denying anthropogenic global warming is not in his toolbox. I mean, as much as I hate to defend the man, we should be clear about the few things he hasn't done wrong. :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
On both sides.
This has been presented before, and debunked before. This study shows that while ice is thinning in some parts of the arctic, it is thickening in others and the temperature change isn't uniform.
It also shows that the majority of polar bear populations are steady, with an equal number on the increase and decrease.
That shipping lane has been there before, and guess what -- there were polar bears around back then. Amazingly enough, polar bears aren't the hot-house flowers these people are making them out to be.
The climate is changing, that is for certain. The only thing more certain is that politicos and people who want gov't grants are going to exaggerate and hype every little anomaly beyond belief in order to garner attention and eventually money. What they hell ever happened to science for the sake of actual knowledge?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
OriginalArlen writes to tell us about some compelling global warming coverage in the Washington Post.
Send some of that global warming up here to Canada will ya? It is fracking cold up here at this time of year. Could use it right about now. Natural gas/taxes are lower when it is warmer too.
With temperatures increasing and ice melting in the Arctic, drilling in Alaska will be way easier than it is now, in less harsh conditions. I am sure the current administration is thinking to reconsider their position on Global warming. Not only it exists, but it may be a good thing!!!!
I beleive this is like the 3rd article on /. that covers the global warming problem, yet I don't remember reading a solution for the the problem yet. So what are the solutions?
No, it's just hidden somewhere in the TPS reports, didn't you get the memo?
This details how China and India get to increase greenhouse gasses. In reality, the Kyoto Protocols are all about politics, and not about science. Why else would they be written so a CO2 molecule from the US is evil and one from China or India is good?
Where were you when the voynix came?
Some of us are trying to figure out what to do about this. Questions like "how long do we have?" and "how much ice is there" and even "how fast is the ice melting" are all questions that researchers at the Center for the Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets (CReSIS) are trying to answer. They've done a huge amount of work and have even more coming. Not all of us Americans are backwards and ignorant of our environment.
The current administration does not deny anthropogenic global warming. Many other conservative think tanks do, but not the Bush administration.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"I beleive this is like the 3rd article on /. that covers the global warming problem, yet I don't remember reading a solution for the the problem yet. So what are the solutions?"
How about the Kyoto protocols?. A dandy solution. To stop global warming caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, the protocols have countries like India and China increase such emissions. That should solve the problem, right?
Where were you when the voynix came?
...to go watch The Inconvenient Truth.
Part of the documentary deals with the disappearing/melting ice on the polar ice caps and at Greenland.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Blame Newsom for the loss of the polar bears. He started issuing gay marriage certificates outside of the law in early 2004. He could have waited until Kerry was elected to do this, but in his own hubris he did not.
This in turn activated the "value base voters" into action. There was a large church in Ohio that installed a phone bank in the basement and made 300,000 "get out the vote" calls to people to vote for Bush.
Kerry lost Ohio by 100,000 votes. Kerry most likely would have signed the kyoto treaty that would have curbed global warming.
So from this, you can see how gay marriage did indeed kill the polar bears.
The one who confuses "get to" with "makes", or the one who calls him on it? The GP clearly emphasized that no one is forcing China to increase its greenhouse gases. The GGP post (yours) implied that increasing greenhouse gases for China was somehow part of the plan of Kyoto. That's silly. No one wants China to increase its greenhouse gases. However, since they have much lower per capita greenhouse emissions than developed nations, Kyoto acknowledges that it would be very difficult for them to acheive modernization without modest increases in greenhouse emissions. No one expects them to increase their per capita emissions beyond ours, however.
Having said that, the Kyoto Protocol IS flawed. Pointing that out whenever a discussion of global warming comes up is as useful as pointing out that Mark Foley is a pervert whenever discussing whether to vote for Republican candidate X. It seems to be a new flavor of Godwin's law. (As with Godwin's law, there are a few discussions where it's relevant, but not very many - and when it is relevant, having brought it up over and over again lessens its power as an argument.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I think mass extinction from water tables rising would be a bigger concern... just a thought. -Rob
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
So .. less man-killing polar bears... and more new trade routes.
Hell, I might go set a few gallons of crude oil on fire just to help out the cause!
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
According the Canadian Ice Service, the amount of ice in Canada's eastern Arctic Archipelago decreased by 15% between 1969 and 2004.
Here's a pretty picture for your convenience.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
That's because the only solution that the wackos spouting this want is for everybody to get rid of their cars and electricity and go live in the woods like bears. The way that humanity was supposed to.
"Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one."
Wanna bet?
The poor practices of landowners led the way to the dust bowl, and to the local increases in temperatures here in the US.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one." Just because a scientific study says one thing or another about nature doesn't mean that it says anything at all about public policy. Maybe if environmentalists would stop playing for complete control over our lives and learn how to compromise, some rational discussion could ensue about how science applies to policy. Admitting that the Kyoto protocols are somewhere between a complete failure and a con job would be a start. Environmentalists tried to foist a treaty on us that would (a) cost us somewhere in the trillions of dollars, (b) have no noticeable effect on global warming (ie- less than a tenth of a degree Celsius reduction over the next century), and (c) let some of the worlds biggest polluters continue to poison the atmosphere (ie- China). Doesn't the fact that they pushed it so hard for so long means that it is environmentalists who are ignoring science? Or perhaps science speaks only to the left side of the issues?
another reason for you liberals to hate yourselves.
What happens when ice melts in a glass of water? The level stays the same.
Who knows? Maybe that's the reason he hasn't denied it.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I recently had the pleasure of attending a conference in Minnesota where Will Steger gave a talk. Some of the pencil necked may not know it, but his outward personna is that of the explorer that has crossed both poles by dogsled...the long way. Not the short trips across, just to say it was done, but the long way.
...." but rather he will be noted as "The last man to cross ..." as those locations no longer exist.
Actually, Steger impresses me as a scientist first, with unsurpassed real leadership and planning ability for the great outdoors. He made the comment that in the future he will not be remembered in history books for being "The first man to cross
Of his sharing, he talked about his trip across antarctica - the long way naturally. Those ice shelves that have fallen off and gone into the sea? Yeah...those were bigger than the state of Minnesota. Thats a pretty big hunk of ice. And now that the large part is gone, the warm air/water can now lap up farther inland and is melting those ice shelfs at an incredible rate. The long journey he took across antarctica doesn't exist anymore...its melted into the sea - HUNDREDS OF MILES OF IT.
On the Northern side...the polar bears are capable of swimming (don't quote me - examples only) up to 30 miles in the polar seas. They always feed close to land, and when it comes time they jump into the ocean and swim out to the ice...usually only 5-12 miles away. Now the ice shelves they are looking to swim to are over 60 miles away, so untold numbers of bears have plunged into the ocean as they always do...but this time they are simply drowning in it as there 'is no other side'.
He had a picture of a polar bear - you know...the coka-cola bears - that healthy and by bone structure should have weighed over 1200 pounds. It was dead - starved to death. It only weighed 70 pounds.
He had a video too...but didnt' show it as it was a bit gruesome. That hunger factor came in again...this time a full grown and hungry polar bear was eating one of the cubs since there was no other food around. Just picked it up and ate its own baby...which I guess they usually care for during a significant time period.
Pretty icky things from a man that has been there. A man that is more than qualified regardless of his political views to make sound decisions and observations on such matters.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
I bet neither Clinton or even TR could run away from a Polar bear either. Those fuckers are nasty.
The polar bears just need to adapt to their changing environment. Instead of roaming around on the ice, looking for people to eat, they should go back to school, and try to find a way to get some of the new jobs with the shipping industry that will presumably be opening up there. We should let the bears know that these guys have been successful, and that the rest of them can be too
Are you actually claiming that China and India would be in violoation of the Kyoto protocols if they decreased their emissions? Or, are you simply complaining that they're not forced to decrease them? There is a difference, you know. It reminds me of the time when an apartment complex claimed that the city was forcing them to raise the rates of their lowest priced units, when the reality was that the city was allowing them to raise the rates. A letter from the apartment complex actually blamed the city for the increased rates.
Again, as I said elsewhere, the Kyoto protocols are flawed. Misrepresenting them does not help explain why they're flawed..
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I don't like Bush, I didn't vote for him. I don't like the war in Iraq.
But my understanding is that this global warming thing has been known for decades. Besides, what is Bush supposed to do? Tax gasoline up to $20 a gallon?
the pseudo-science section.
You polar bears better study hard or you'll end up in Iraq.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
So.. in 50 years, there will be no Ice in the arctic, no oil in the middle east, and no fish in the oceans... I'm glad I'll most likely be dead by then. I'm also glad I'll probably never have children.
Who has time to worry about it when we have Presidental elections in the next two years. This of course the reason why no one in the industralized democratic world will ever do anything abut it because it will take a long term commitment. Which as you know modern democratic states cannot impliment because they only last a few years and spend most of their time in power pandering to the electorat to get re elected rather than actualy govern.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
They can sell carbon credits to the USA, etc.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
What about the medieval warm period? From Climate chaos? Don't believe it by Christopher Monckton:
So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.
Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "
So they did...
It's not that we're discounting the possibility of global warming, we're just skeptical of the idea of man-made global warming. Especially when it's elevated to the status of a pseudo-religion.
Here's another one! What happens to the temperature of the water if you put a pot of ice water over a flame?
(Answer: the average temperature barely changes until all the ice melts. Then, it skyrockets! Luckily, we're not in a pot of ice water over a flame. Of course, neither are we in a glass of ice.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
So what, big deal, anyone can do a huge amount of work, what has CReSIS learned? I want to know so I can start buying up real estate that is worthless now but will be primo waterfront property in the future. Like you said, not all of us Americans are ignorant.
First of all, let me say this: could such natural changes really occur within a century? Planet-wide changes in mere centuries would be enough to wipe out all life on a planet. The life can't naturally adapt in such a short time. But still, let's even skip that fact completely.
Is it us? Is it natural? Why even care, why ask the damn question at all.
Let's imagine we're on a sinking ship:
- we assume we're responsible and we try to survive the sinking
- we assume it's a normal occurence and we try to survive the sinking
Except that so far all we've done is try to find out why we're sinking. It doesn't matter if it's us or if it's normal. The only really important part is that we're sinking and we need to survive.
Who cares why it's getting hotter, our very survival depends on combatting this. It may seem impossible, but mankind's very survival depends on it.
That LA air is getting cleaner and that we no longer have air quality like that. In fact we used to to! But we wised up. Now we need to find practicle ways to get others to see the light.
China is huge because it has a huge population. Ditto for India. Can you imagine how bad it would be if thay all approached the US's production of pollution per capita. Your article references just makes the case for global agreements that much stronger.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
OK now put a sieve on top of the class and put a couple of ice cubes in it to simulate the ice caps on Greenland, the Artic Islands and Antartica. Now watch what happens when that ice melts. See the level in the glass rises. InfacT this is wat will cause the oceans to rise about 200 meters. The melting "Ice Caps" that are sitting on the land not the sea ice.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The Antarctic? Nope. Canada's eastern Arctic Archipelago? Nope. The Western Arctic? Nope. (See previous link) Greenland? Nope.
So, I ask you: where is it gaining?Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Jesus is coming! and in fact wants us all to get rich and consume more!
So just ignore those pinko hippie, gay marriage loving, America hating enviromentalists! They all will be thrown in the lake of fire anyway!
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
It's spring now, but we had our coldest June on record this year. It is pretty difficult to equate that with global warming.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Polar Bears raze Seal colonies in a manner reminiscent of Ghengis Khan.Rape torture cut off Flippers etc.
I think they disrespect Muslim female seals too-a job for Iraqi predatory arctic ursines.
The highest global temperatures of the 20th century were in the 1990's, not the 1930's. I'm definitely no expert on the dust bowl, however, and I could easily have some of my facts wrong.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
the memo about the memo... I had it underneath the memo about checking memos....
I rather enjoy my delusion.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
For the first link, I didn't realize it was password protected. As I have a University proxy account, I evidently got past the password protection without even realizing it was there. The second link was an copy-and-paste error.
Here's the most salient quote from the article: "President Bush concedes that humans are warming Earth but sees more research and better technology as the solution." Unfortunately, that's most likely doublespeak for "do nothing". Still, admitting you have a problem is an important first step.
If you Google on "Bush anthropogenic global warming", you'll probably be able to find articles that aren't password protected that back up what I'm saying.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Has anyone stopped to think that the SUN output is HOTTER? Hello? If you turn up the furnace it gets hotter. What a concept. I remember back in the mid 70's, in my teen years, everyone was so worried that we were entering a new ice age. Scientist, what a bunch of dopes. 2/3 of them are just spouting crap, to further their sucking at the trough of the government nipple. They have nice research grants for crap science. Any idiot knows that even 50 years of research is like a few seconds in the history of the earth.
There is only one solution to Global Warming and that is we must increase the number of pirates immediately! I mean just look at this graph, it obviously shows the correlation.
Maybe I need to put together a power point presentation, or something...
Wasn't that in a movie or something?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I've just done a google and found this new relevant article:
= 776
http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id
It talks about Viking farming on Greenland around AD900. I'm not doubting Global Warming - something funny is definitely happening to our weather, and it scares me - but HTH did they farm there?
I call bullshit here.
You are telling me that there is enough ICE in places like antartica/greenland to raise the total volume of the ocean 200 METERS + the additional land area? I can believe a few meters, maybe 200 cm. Woooooo very scary. But 200 METERs... Go back and tell me where all this ice is now
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Another smoking gun? It is almost worth it to give these yahoos $1000 in extra taxes per year to stop using the term. One wonders how polar bears survived 15000 years ago when the arctic ocean was permanantly frozen to great depth. They'll adapt.
One wonders what role the technological improvement of ships has to play? As for the indigenous folks, they should consider opening a casino for the new tourists.
an ill wind that blows no good
Tell them to get the fuck off our planet and everything will stabilize. They'll stop wasting all their "Hot Air" on this planet and bother someone else.
And I'm not talking about the bears. They can stay. Bears are cool and eat humans thus protecting the environment.
Should we see about rehabilitating the gay polar bears? They have a responsibility to reproduce!!!
I've always suspected there was a connection between creation science and anthropogenic global warming denial...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"What happens when ice melts in a glass of water? The level stays the same."
Are you being +1 funny, or -1 retarded?
Springs to mind, unfortunately not everyone else agrees with your assessment.
rgds
Typo, not meters but feet. Forgot to transpose for US audience. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/ 2004-11-21-melting-polar-ice_x.htm
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
200 meters is way too much, if the Antarctic would melt today it would only rise the sea level by 60 meters.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Nuclear power plants. Wind power. Solar power. Electric cars charged from these sources. CO2 sequestering. Fuel efficiency mandates for new vehicles. There are many potential ways which may have promise if developed.
The US government currently gives away about $10 billion dollars to energy companies to do things such as oil exploration. We could easily shift a lot of that to research or nuclear plant incentives and potentially end up solving the problem with no net cost to your average business or citizen. The oil companies will never let this happen, as a cost/benefit analysis would tell them to lobby against it, even if the lobbying cost them $5 billion dollars.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
And think of all the oil that'll be saved if ships don't have to go the long way around. And all the forests of trees than can be planted in a formerly frozen tundra. And since polar bears have been increasing in numbers in recent years, there's no reason why they can't adjust to an almost year-round climate that's no different from their summers. It's not like there are any predators waiting to take them out the moment winters become milder.
And we should never forget that the Medieval Warming Period from 1000 to 1300 AD was a marvelous time for Europe.
The more I hear about global warming, the better it sounds. Bring it on!
No, but if they explained to me how it was happening, I'd definitely listen to them. If I were capable of understanding what they said (which in this case, I am) I'd examine their explanations to see if they make sense (and they do). If I were incapable of understanding what they said, the only option would be to figure out who to trust. If the option were either the food scientists (who explained why the alteration was happening) or those selling the food (who at first denied it was toxic at all), I'd trust the food scientists.
Very good question. Can you find one such person with respect to anthropogenic global warming? All the scientists that I know of cited by ExxonMobil and friends actually believe that AGW is real, just not as serious as most climatologists believe it is. For example, Dr. Michaels believes that technology will automagically appear that fixes the problem (akin to believing that doctors will find a cure for the toxicity), but does not deny AGW itself.
No. However, he is a fool if after pointing this out he discovers that every food scientist on the planet is aware of this, and are quite certain that it's something man does that is causing the current toxicity, and he still believes that it's just natural because those selling him the food tell him so. (After all, pointing out that they're the ones selling the food is just an ad hominem attack, right?)
P.S.: Your analogy isn't that bad considering many of those behind the disinformation campaign on AGW were also behind denying that smoking is bad for you.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You know, it gets to me when Americans think it's cute or right to stick these people back in igloos or teepees (depending on the climate) and telling them to suffer through life the same as their ancestors did.
You're not suffering like your ancestors did. So, why should they?
A lot of these indigenous people have snowmobiles now...they're a vast improvement over sled dogs. They have heaters and all the luxuries of home. You know what? THEY LIKE IT.
I heard...I think on NPR...the other day about these indigenous people and global warming. They were like "Hey! We're looking forward to it! We all need jobs and this would allow money to come into our area"
I don't think you read what I posted. 1996 was the hottest year in the 20th century for the entire earth (the 1930's weren't even close). That the arctic had a warmer year than this does not change that fact.
I don't know much more about polar bears than I do about the dust bowl. However, in doing a little background reading, I researched Polyakov. It seems figure 2 from Polyakov disagrees with the one you posted. So, it seems that someone is misrepresenting Polyakov. So, I went looking around TCS and found the article from which the plot came. If you want more from Polyakov (without the TCS filter telling you what to believe), here's an article he actually wrote: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/am plif/amplif_jul02_2.pdf
That's the funny thing about those denying global warming. If you actually read the few scientific articles they say support their position, you usually find out that those articles do NOT support their position.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
They have similar-sized grains of truth, and equally-large alleged effects.
OMG Stop teh study! It is killing polar bears! Oh wait...what was that? Ice is threatening polar bears now? Ooh the humanity! Indigenous Bob says that he will be sad to move to a place where his balls don't freeze. President Bush has been seen trying to run away but has been closely followed by men in black suits, cheap black glasses and Armani earpieces. On a lighter note, Boston Strangler turned into water, froze and moved to the Northwest Passage. More news at 10.
Calling out Bush specifically like that just reeks of an agenda to push. "Yeah, now we're really gonna stick it to that guy!" If your work is good enough then let it speak for itself; you don't need to poltically charge it like that before anyone has even seen it. This just gives credibility to the argument that global warming is all about politics. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but I think it will be interesting to see if all this fuss over global warming continues if the opposition regains a majority in the near future.
There could be other possible causes of global warming.
1. The sun is getting hotter.
2. Magnetic Pole reversal, as we are in the midst of one right now.
3. Part of a natural cycle caused by the Earth
Whoever states that it is definately manmade is ignorant for sure, as there is only ~200 years of reliable data to go by.
(A) I've linked to that page twice (not several times) to show that the president believes in AGW.
(B) I did admit it was a copy/paste error for the first one, and it is also a copy/paste error here, because I didn't realize the error for the first one yet. This should be obvious if you look at the date/time stamps of the aforementioned post.
(C) I have since done a little more due diligence to find out that although the president has admitted to believe in AGW, he has also virtually denied it. So, whether or not he believes it right now, I don't know.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Are your cars Hybrids or some alternative fuel thing like BioDiesel?
Do you bike to work?
Have move moved close enough to work/school to make Biking practical?
Have you replaced at least half of the lights in your house with LED or compact florescent bulbs? If you haven't done all or most of those things then I really wish you'd get off of "Bush", "The Democrats", "The Republicans", and Fox news and go save a baby seal or something. If you have done all or most of those things, then great job. Keep it up and encourage your friends to do the same. Either way, stop waiting for "someone to do something" and do something yourself.
By the way, I do all of those things, am not a supporter of Kyoto and not at all a fan of computer climate models (Software sucks).
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
I agree that there are wackos on both sides of the debate. I'll also admit to being evangelical myself. To me, the environment is the single most important cause in the current political debate. More important than terrorism, more important than CCTV, and yes, even more important than what John Kerry said or Mark Foley did. :P
And, thank you for not providing the laundry list, because then I might be tempted to bring out my laundry list of wackos on the other side, and it's quite a long list, and it's already getting late... :)
P.S. I'm not unilaterally against GM foods, although I think caution is appropriate. I also support nuclear power as the most pragmatic option to coal - although I hope it goes without saying that caution is appropriate here, too!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
indicating that melting Arctic ice is threatening polar bears with extinction.
Now that they have warning, why not evolve into white, fuzzy dolphins?
Table-ized A.I.
Now, I like polar bears as much as the next guy, and I'm happy to use them as an excuse to stop everything just in case, but my scientific skeptic side comes in and has to ask: during the warm period from AD900-1200, the Earth was as warm, or warmer, than it is now. As everyone knows, Greenland was actually "green" then (well, at least around the southern edges), and as warm as it is today, it's still not "green" yet.
If Greenland was green then, why didn't the polar bears die off a thousand years ago?
Really, I want to know.
Actually, polar bears are a distinct species from the grizzly/brown bear. Note: the grizzly bear and the brown bear ARE the same species, and there is debate as to whether the grizzly bear is even a proper sub-species of the brown bear. Perhaps you're confusing the Polar Bear with the Kodiak Bear (which is also a Brown Bear)?
P.S.: We can do a lot more about global warming than pole reversals or the Yellowstone caldera. Also, global warming is far more likely to have a significant impact during our lifetime (assuming you're younger than I am, or at least not much older) than either of those issues.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
Which would be pretty bad anyway.
Mod the artical as a troll. Global warming is a political creation by the same people who brought us Original Sin. Its meant to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy and guilty.
Check this out: http://www.friendsofscience.org/
Watch the video here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
A number of top scientists - some from the UofC - have spoken out and are starting to debunk the crap we've been fed by the media.
I just love segment #4 of the video - its on CO2. When CO2 levels were more than 10 times higher than now, about 400 million years ago, the planet plunged into the coldest ice age of the last 1/2 billion years.
So speaking of Cape Wind... I couldnt quite make up my mind on which side to back. The economics of the project really did sound questionable without the massive government subsidies, although you cant really trust any numbers from either side. On the other hand, I giggle every time I think of plopping an eyesore onto the Kennedy mansion's horizon. I can believe wind power can provide some percentage of our power needs cost-effectively, but I dont think Nantucket Sound is a cost-effective place. Being only 4 miles offshore, Teddy could still hit one while driving.
Horrible slashdot moderation in action again.
Since when should the work of well respected geologists and paleoclimatologists be considered a "troll"?
Uggh. Ignorance still wants to reign supreme.
*snickerfits* Well this certainly clears up the objections he has toward the project.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
If you want to call the people who did the video incompetant or suggest they are lying, then may I suggest you contact them?
If you are a student you might want to take this up with your own professors. If not you might want to contact your closest university. You are going to have to get some cedible people on your side because you are looking very lonely at the moment.
Personally I find them far more credible than the people who flame away with the global warming tripe. One reason is that I don't see them doing credible science.
Your comment for instance: carbon levels 450 million years ago to today is inane .
How are you planning on backing up that statment? Are you next planning on suggesting that geology is inane or that paleontology is inane or that paleoclimatology is inane. Are these disiplines inane because they happen to conflict with your closely held religeous beliefs? Or are they inane because you need something to feel guilty about?
Since Polar Bears are one of the few species that actively hunt humans, shouldn't we celebrate?
Or at least round up the survivors, tattoo their heads w/ flurescent bar codes and train them to use firearms?
[o]_O
They must be new here...
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
You just proved you can't read a graph. The Ordovician ice age was pretty severe. Our present ice age is really only since the Eocene and the interglacial we are enjoying now eneded only about 10,000 years ago.
/ image277.gif
In fact the plunge into our current cold phase is about the same shape as the plunge during the Ordovician. We can come out of the present cold phase just as quickly... but it might last another 5 million years before this happens.
The Ordovician cooling correlates with the Taconic orogeny.
Our present cooling corrlelate with the upthrust of the Himalayn mountains, the Colorado and Tibetian plateaus, the Pyrannes, Rockies, Andies and hellenic mountain ranges.
The graph you referenced is excellent.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images
Too bad you can't read what it says. I'm sure TIm Patterson can read it but it you think not you can ask him. You might not be able to pass his courses mind you - but I am sure he has an open mind even for closed minds.
JunkScience is run by a former member of the tobacco industry lobby. I'd suggest finding a different source.
And you'd be surprised how much a fraction of a degree C can matter. An increase 1 degree C would have a huge impact on the environment.
And yes, I don't have a car. I walk or bike. Most people don't have that option -- after all, only so many people can live within biking distance -- which is why we actually need fuel and emissions standards for cars.
Tossing a soda can into the recycling bin is not going to change the world. Sadly, in this day and age, it's not good enough to just do your part -- you need to make sure everyone else does too. And that's where politics gets involved.
Some people think we should dump massive amounts of iron into the ocean. But the rest of us think that's short sighted.
Greenland was relatively de-iced about a thousand years ago, too ... that's when a certain bunch of Viking types briefly settled it. As I recall, they were eventually defeated by the worsening climate.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Yes they did. As a result of deforestation caused by the Mayan empire, the Gulf Stream did change its path dramatically to what it is today. The Mayan empire collapsed around 900AD but before this collapse occurred, the Yucatan pennisula was deforested at an alarming rate. This change in the Gulf stream was also partially responsible for the formation of the Sahara desert in Africa as weather patterns were dramatically disrupted by this change in the path of the Gulf stream.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Are you a troll? Or maybe flame bait? Well regardless of that, just matching temperatures and CO2 from the past to now doesn't work well, because since a half billion years ago Solar Energy output has increased a few percent. This has to do with all kind of technical details of how stars age, but it basically comes down to, how older they get how brighter they shine. Another issues is different continental alignments which change the probability of ice formation, which obviously seriously changes the amount of sunlight transformed into heat on this planet. Due to issues like this CO2 levels in the past for ice ages has varied, the current ones require in fact exceedingly low CO2 levels indeed and some scientists have worried that our planet might be running out of adaptation space for further solar output increases from our sun as it continues to age.
Polar bears have survived worse. In fact, Polar Bears have survived for a ridiculously long time, through multiple climate changes.
The environmentalist quoted isn't helping. He believes that climate is a steady-state phenomenon, which is true - for certain periods of time. For other periods of time, climate is far from steady-state. It just so happened that from sometime in the 1800s to sometime to the late 1900s the climate was in a steady-state period.
For example: in the 1800s, large parts of the midwest of the US were basically deserts, if you believe the railroad surveyors. Now those areas are rich farmland. That change occurred in less than a generation.
That's no to say that climate change isn't happening. It does, all the time. The question these days is if that change is due to human activity, but that's probably the wrong question. Correlation does not equal causation, after all. Exacerbating the situation is the fact that climate change is ridiculously politicized, given that it was co-opted by groups that have a tendency to be anti-business, anti-development, or professional Cassandras.
So what can you believe? That parts of the globe are warming, and parts of the earth are cooling. Science can't predict next week's weather with any accuracy, so why would anyone think science could predict the weather 100 years from now?
The US government currently gives away about $10 billion dollars to energy companies to do things such as oil exploration.
Yeah, and US consumers give away a lot more than that. How about we address the REAL cashcow for the oil companies first?
And why is it that if the US is so evil and GWB just wants to destroy the planet that the world's eyes turn to us for a solution?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
You don't know how right you are! (Maybe)
:-)
Global Climate Models can't yet simulate what causes glaciation cycles to commence, and we're due for one right now (or overdue even), as we're right at the very end of the current inter-glacial period of 18,000 years or so.
So, for all we know, the melting of all that ice in the North Atlantic could trigger glaciation, and Alaska would go from baking to sub-Alaskan rather quickly. Glaciers covering 40% of the globe wouldn't really be much fun.
There would be one funny aspect to it though: we'd have to switch from cutting down CO2 emissions to pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible, to try to keep deep glaciation at bay. The U-turn by environmentalists would be priceless.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
It's just that if a huge major catastrophe is well short of extinction, then extinction is not the best word to use. Pointing out exaggerations does not mean that the deadly catastrophe is "OK".
Where were you when the voynix came?
Nice that you reference Dr. Tim Patterson to support your argument and at the same time suggest he and his peers are mostly "kooks".
If you don't believe his message - then why don't you call him up and take his course. He is an excellent prof. His paleo-climatolgy course has also been taped. You might be able to organise something through your favorite university.
At least you are not posting anonymously like many who are asking if I'm a troll!
Now your comment: Comparing carbon levels with temperature only makes sense when all other relevant factors are held constant
This is simply a weak understanding of the issue. It is rare that we can hold all aspects of an experiment "constant". This is certainly true of the geological and paleo record of the earth.
The issue is this. Presuming Dr. Tim Patterson and his collegues know what they are doing (and I rather think they do), then if the CO2 concentrations and temperatures of the planet have not been correlated for the last 500 million years, then why should they suddenly correlate now?
Because there are people around? I think a better explanation is because there are alarmist people around who can't understand the science... and this is partly why they are alarmed.
I'm one of those people who think if there is global warming then good. If people think sea levels are going to suddenly start to climb then good. I want to buy some land on the coast and if some dummy wants to sell his ocean front property because he or she is all conserned about global warming and sea levels rising then I'm in the market and I will vote with my money!
It's unfortunate that some species do not survive, but that's natural selection for you. To say the climate changes are unnatural is to say that man is unnatural, which is either folly or hubris.
But "global warming" isn't all bad news. For example, the climate changes have spurred the growth of other species, such as African Elephants, which have tripled in numbers over the past 6 months.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
This fits in well with the widely acknowledged past cycles of ice ages vs greenhouse eras. By some mechanism, (probably Life on Earth), greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere faster than they are removed by natural processes. Eventually, temperatures rise and the icecaps and glaciers melt. The crust adjusts to the loss of lots of pressure on it, causing widespread adjustments in the crust, accompanied by the release of volcanoes that have been corked up for a very long time.
Take the Yellowstone caldera, for instance -- a mega-volcano that has erupted in the past on a roughly 650,000 year cycle (last eruption was 640,000 years ago, the previous 1.3 million years ago, and the one before that 2.1 million years ago). Such an eruption would spew enough dust into the upper atmosphere to block the Sun for a long time, plunging the planet into an ice age as the accumulated atmospheric carbon leaves the atmosphere over several decades and most of the Life on Earth dies off. That would, of course, include me and thee.
Eventually, Life reasserts itself and starts putting carbon back into the atmosphere, after the dust has fallen back onto the planet, and the cycle begins anew.
Just an idea, but it seems to fit the current circumstances. And while we may or may not be responsible for the latest increases in atmospheric carbon (the current warming cycle began 30,000 years ago), we are most certainly contributing to it.
The question is, does this represent a credible notion of what is happening, and if not, what's a better story that fits the historical record?
And if this IS a credible story, what can we do to interrupt the cycle? Greg Benford seems to have several reasonable notions.
And as for Consequences -- consider the incineration of most of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, with surrounding states including the agricultural areas in the mid-US covered with a meter or so of ash. And with an instant Ice Age in the wings -- now THAT's consequences!
Of course, as a democratic nation, it's our Right to sit around and blather over whether there is a problem of not, and who's to blame, and what SINGLE SOLUTION must be taken to deal with it, or if we should do anything at all, since we cannot prove (until the balloon goes up) whether or not there is anything to this.
Sentient beings would not approach this situation in that manner. Maybe in the next spin of the great wheel of Darwin, some actual sentient beings will come to exist on this planet.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that global warming is not happening. I'm saying that I don't know. If I did know, there wouldn't be a damn thing I could do about it and certainly nothing at all that I should do.
You see, about 10,000 years ago, the world was very cold. Today, we call it the "ICE AGE" (Austin Powers Finger-Quotes here). It was much colder during this "ICE AGE" than it is today. However, sometime between now and then, the earth warmed up and the "ICE AGE" ended. So if we lived 10,000 years ago, would we be freaking out about global warming? Would we be assuming that we were the cause? Absolutely. Would we be correct? NO, just like we are probably not correct today. The earth warms, the earth cools all on its own with no help from us. It's called weather. There's not a damn thing we can do to change it on purpose, so it's highly unlikely that we are doing it on accident. Changing weather patterns are 100% natural and normal. However, we should at freak out if the weather stops changing. Now THAT would be unusual.
Spring would be a dreary season, were there nothing else but spring.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
US consumers do not give away their money to oil companies, they purchase services. Very different situation from corporate welfare created by a system which frequently makes decisions against the will of the people. I'm not personally forced to buy gas from the oil companies, but I am forced to pay taxes and have those taxes given to an entity. My suggestion was that we can keep all of this the same, but instead reallocate those funds in a way which benefits the people better
The reason why the US has to be involved with any solution is that we're currently the largest source of the problem. Without the involvement of the US, the goals achievable are drastically reduced. Additionally, the investments made in these technologies (potentially without even increasing government expenditures if we merely shift our incentives) could help private industry maintain its position as top notch.
You are totally correct that solar output was less a billion years ago.
This explains why we have tilites covered with limestones. CO2 levels back in the preCambrian did drive global climate. When the earth totally froze over - right down to the equator - CO2 could not be absorbed and the concentrations increased. They increased above the 7,000 ppm levels. Currently they are at 379 ppm.
Note the numbers please.
Some estimates put the concentrations of CO2 up to 20,000 ppm. At these levels the CO2 is fatal to everything but plant life and its probably fatal to plant life as well. The issue is the resperatory chemistry simply doesn't work.
But you are correct that solar output was less and we have tilites at the equator to prove you are right. Then we have limestones overlaying the titlites. What this means is that the earth flipped from frozen to melted and did so rather quickly... like a few million years.
How? CO2 did it. This process operated over a billion years ago and it is entirely consistant with the paleoclimatology models of the last 500 million years. These models say that CO2 at levels below 1000 ppm are not relevant.
Water vapour is relevant. Water vapour is the green house gas that keeps the earth warm - not CO2.
I can do without combustion engines tomorrow quite well thanks.r enewablegreenenergysources.htm i newow.htm &
My engines can run your SUV all day and all night and all next week.
Where's th' beef? Got sumthin' against PROGRESS have you?
What's wrong with fixing global warming tomorrow?
http://www.newpath4.com/friendlyplanetalternative
http://www.newpath4.com/roadbumpenergyusingcareng
http://www.newpath4.com/imitationenergy.htm .
Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
Hopefully a few folks here watch PBS TV. And hopefully a few here watch PBS's NOVA. If they do watch NOVA they would know - that the EARTH gets warmer every so often - and has been doing so - of and on - for several billion years. Why? Because the EARTH's Magentic Field diminishes - which causes the EARTH's MAGNETIC Shield to diminish (while the NORTH POLE rotates to the SOUTH POLE) - which lets in more and more energy/solar flares etc. from the SUN - which of course makes the EARTH..... VERY WARM....that is, VERY VERY WARM.
So if you are interested in REALITY (for a change) then check out PBS web site below. On the other hand you can continue to believe in FAIRY TALES and the SPIN put out by folks who can't get a 50 day weather forecast right more than 50% of the time (by throwing darts at a weather map?).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3016_ma gnetic.html
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
Give yourself a pat on the back.
Hey - there are many factors. See if you can track down Dr. Tim Patterson's course on paleo-climatology. Comes from Carleton university and is on tape and he is excellent.
Magnetic reversals occur very frequently. Some estimates suggest it can flip in under 100 years.
The magnetic pole flips are not correlated with climate change. Mountains are. Its a very complex picture.
CO2 is not correlated.
Moo-olent Green
Also of note is the CGFI Science Fellow: Spongiform Bob.
Yes, those greenie terrorists, along with their co-conspirators, the liberal press, inflame public opinions with the specious allegation that forcing cannibalism upon herds of domesticated grass-eating cud-chewers by adding rendered cow carcasses to their feed is an obscene act.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
oh fucking PLEASE. you should know by now to link to proof before making such claims here on slashdot. how exactly do they KNOW the gulf stream changed as the result of some small deforestation, because let me make it clear - the mayans could did not have the technology to deforest anything near what would be required to effect climate even on a local level.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Buried somewhere else in the comments is (hopefully) a helpful link to important REAL data on historical temperature data. But if not, here is a timely update on the Stern report and the falsification of evidence by the UN in the climate change debate:
e ws/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_051 12006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
Bottom line: it was far warmer in the middle ages. No ice at the North pole - the Chinese sailed around it in 1421. Haven't heard this before? Maybe that's because a few 'concerned' scientists decided to edit the climatological record to remove a few 'inconvenient truths'. What? Highly-regarded researchers abandon the impartiality of the scientific method for a powerful political agenda? Surely it's not possible! I don't know about you, but it's still pretty chilly where I am. I think a little global warming sounds just fine.
This is the point.
You are 100% correct.
Type of biomass? Angeosperms?
Evolved during the Creataceous. Almost 100% of the food sources of mammals comes from Angeosperms.
Tied in with the consumption of CO2 is the production. Most CO2 comes from fungus.
To me the articles are both more or less deceptive on some of their key points and indicate the questionable state of science reporting even from organizations claiming to be reputable. The other possibility is that coming from the Washington Post with it's overwhelmingly Democratic demographic, that critical facilities are dulled if the subject seems to make Democrats seem righteous and the republicans seem evil. I mean, the paper needs to sell into its demographic, right?
Be that as it may, consider the article "Study Says Polar Bears Could Face Extinction."
The Slashdot post says;
OriginalArlen writes to tell us about some compelling global warming coverage in the Washington Post. First there is an article about a study indicating that melting Arctic ice is threatening polar bears with extinction. The article quotes an environmentalist: "This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one."
The first thing you find when you go to the cited article is that it was written November 9, 2004, just shy of two years ago! Thanks for bringing up the latest!!
The title is really an exercise in creative titling since the subject turns out to be the "Arctic Climate Impact Assessment." (It's available at www.acia.uaf.edu) Polar bears are brought up to make it interesting to the reader. That's OK. The issue is that the arctic-wide population of polar bears is discussed in terms of the population of Hudson's Bay. That is deceptive because the self proclaimed "Polar Bear Capitol of the World," Churchill, Manitoba, is at N 58 44' 24". This about 8 degrees south of the arctic circle. It is also south of the southern tip of Greenland, and south of the bulk of Alaska. The reporter's sources claim that polar bear are in decline there. The question is how representative are the changes there compared to the rest of the arctic. Not representative in my view. Churchill, far north as it is, is at the southern end of the range for polar bears. So, yes, if there is very much further warming, polar bears might disappear from Churchill. That is a long, long way from the world population of polar bears being threatened. One really needs to consider how far north the Canadian arctic islands actually extend. Believe me, it will be a very long time before the sea and land at 82N warms enough to threaten the extinction of the polar bear. Overall, the article left me feeling that knowledge and understanding had been abused in the push for politics.
At least the second article mentioned in the Slashdot post was just published today. This article and voyage are of considerable interest and the article contains a useful polar map which can help one understand some of the points made in the preceding paragraph. The writer of the article makes a lot about how remarkable it is to be able to make this voyage so "late" in the year. This is deceptive. The voyage began a month before the end of summer. It reached its westernmost point less that a month after the beginning of Fall. And, in early November, a month and a half before Winter, it is in open water. Big whoop. Yes, if one were selecting the optimal time for completing such a voyage with the most open water one might select to begin somewhat earlier. Point: this is early (not late) in the ice season. When the same ship makes the same voyage beginning in March and completing it May, it would be highly warranted that the writer prepare another article. I don't regard this as likely in the lifetime of writer or of anyone reading this post.
All of the foregoing is not to say that don't believe the Arctic is warming. I do believe the Arctic is warming. I tend to doubt that the reason that the arctic is warming is the emission of greenhouse gasses. I suspect that it has more to do with man's injection of tremendous amounts of water vapor very high in the atmosphere by means of aircraft engine operation. It is beyond the topic of this discussion to explain the basis for this s
US consumers do not give away their money to oil companies, they purchase services. Very different situation from corporate welfare created by a system which frequently makes decisions against the will of the people.
Not when it's money in the oil companies pocket. You're neglecting the FACT that US oil consumption is higher than US "corporate welfare"
I'm not personally forced to buy gas from the oil companies, but I am forced to pay taxes and have those taxes given to an entity.
Ha! On average the taxes paid are much much less than what the average consumer doles out to the oil companies themselves. Don't act like this isn't a basic truth of today's market.
My suggestion was that we can keep all of this the same, but instead reallocate those funds in a way which benefits the people better
Since when is making things better considered a valid suggestion? This is one step above "do something different". People want a real solution, not new-age-feel-good foolery.
The reason why the US has to be involved with any solution is that we're currently the largest source of the problem.
Straw man, nothing more, nothing less. That still doesn't explain away why the 6 billion other people on the face of this planet that constantly bitches about the US isn't working on their own solution. your apologist remarks, infact, only prove my point.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
According to notes of Chinese explorers who sailed ships through the area. The world didn't end then, and it won't end now. This is natural folks, stop reading all that stupid junk science.
Fungus are very significant. There are perhaps 50 million species. We maybe know something about 50,000 species and perhaps a significant amount about less than 5.000.
Other than making bread and beer and wines and such - Fungus provide many meds. They are very closely associated biologically with mammals.
Fungus also digest the detrital biological mass of the earth and as such they release all the Carbon trapped up by plants.
How noble it was to start a war with a country that was no threat to us. How noble of the current administration to illegaly spy on innocent U.S. citizens who aren't even suspected of a crime. How noble to ship un-tried prisoners to secret prisons to be tortured. How noble to pass legislation to allow the indefinite imprisonment of un-tried people who are defined as enemy combatants by the president. HOW...FUCKING...NOBLE. If we were any more noble, I just don't know what we would do with ourselves.
I normally try to avoid ranting, but these last few years have just been eating away at me--and I was once a pretty staunch Republican. I just don't understand how a country that was founded on such great principles could fall so far. What have we allowed to be done in our names?
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
I thought most industries have been moved offshore to likes of India, China etc. When Greenpeace has no chance. Beside industry is more or less steady in United states, it is the "developing countries" that we have to worry about. Annual increase of say (pull number out of my head), 20000 motorists every year in North america, isn't anything compared to nation of 1.6 billion + whatever huge number india is... as in growing numbers. Plus pollution controls in such countries are corrupt and/or non-existent.
In the end what is this kufuffle about white collar jobs moving offshore? I thought, thats the reason people are worried, that once you pull the air out of the economy , which is "white collar jobs" at this time, economy will suffer. At this time no one can control china, and no one wants prices to rise, because china would implement some sort of environmental control.(but i think you have to look from enterprenuer's side, where he won't get contracts if he will be green, because it might cost more).
I know there are some businesses that are prone performance improvements , but that would be a fraction, not a large one of the industrial sector.
Thought if we do that, there must be a concensus worldwide, including most populated country in the world, should be in the ranks, because before you blink there will be some 1 billion internal combustion engines on the street, and whatever you do to improve the situation, it won't help.
We're sinking and we got to plan ahead on which holes will be bigger.
2c.
Oh, I don't know. Give them some guns too, per the constitutional right to arm bears, and I think we'll get some action pretty quickly.
The look different, act different and have different abilities. They are a separate species but closely related. Like coyotes and wolves.
So there is global warming. In what way does that prove HOW global warming is caused, maybe by the earth itself?
How does that give us any scientific clue about pollution etc.?
Right.
Polar bear are nothing but grizzly bears whose coats have turned white to adapt to their environment.
Grizzly and polar bears are different species of bears, though they have found hybrid bears, bears having both a grizzly and a polar bear as parents. Several months ago there was an article about one hybrid bear that was found by Inuits near Hudson Bay if I recall right.
Now, if you really want something to worry about, consider the impending erruption of the Yellow Stone Cauldron volcano
Oh, you mean the Supervolcano Bush wants to allow drilling in? Yes, if Yellowstone erupts it will put out much more Greenhouse Gases than humans have.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I can't see anything here which hasn't been known for some time now and debated to death elsewhere. The only difference is this time a US paper has actually bothered to print something about it. And people wonder why the US is viewed as insuler.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I would just say that he was for fighting global warming before he was against it. ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The smoking gun normally is the evidence that ties the perpetrator to the crime. I don't see how the polar bears are in any way a smoking gun. That would mean they had somehow been used to *cause* global warming.
If that's what the author of this article really means to say, it's one of the most bizzarre harebrained environmentalists theories I've heard yet, right up there with the Gaia Hypothesis. It could hardly be further "out there" if it claimed space aliens are plotting to assasinate Arnold Schwartzeneggar and take control of California.
I suspect what the author actually meant is that the polar bear thing constitutes a dead body, not a smoking gun.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Rush Limbaugh once made the claim that we have satellites that can detect the effect of the moon on global temperatures yet can't actually detect the supposed global warming. So, your statement that "no skeptic has ever claimed that climate is not currently warmer" does not hold up. Furthermore, your claim about the 30's being the hottest in the 20th century was what I was directly addressing.
Secondly, "polar amplification of global warming" and "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming" are not the same thing.
Finally, if you're calling me an "alarmist", then you either haven't read what I've posted very carefully, or you have a very weak definition of "alarmist" - something akin to "realist", I reckon. I do believe that global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, but that's more because I'm not a terrorism "alarmist" than it is because I'm exaggerating the threat of global warming.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-22-04.html
One of the big headlines that it generated was that polar bears are going to go extinct because of climate change. the Washington Post quoted Lara Hansen of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), who expressed serious concern that populations will stop reproducing as climate warms.
In 2002, the WWF published a huge report on polar bears and global warming, called "Polar Bears at Risk." The organization found 22,000 polar bears scattered in 20 somewhat distinct populations around the Arctic. According to the WWF, 46 percent of the populations were stable, 17 percent were in decline, 14 percent were increasing, and the status of 23 percent was unknown.
Red flags waving on bad math! Any number divided by 20 yields a multiple of 5 -- 5, 10, 15, etc... An accompanying map only showed 19 populations, but no whole number divided by 19 yields 46, 17, 14, or 23.
The WWF did not map out the regions where the polar bear populations were changing. They left that to enviro-curmudgeons like me. And what I found was this: Where the polar bear populations are in decline -- around Baffin Bay (the region between Canada and Greenland), temperatures are also going down, big time. And the area where temperatures are rising the most -- in the Pacific region bordering on Alaska and Siberia, polar bear populations are increasing.
Not even CLOSE to what was reported.
And environmentalists wonder why people don't believe the nonsense they spew?
-Styopa
It has been suggested that the globe and the human experience are linked.
There are a lot of people pointing fingers using poor data, and there are an equal number of septics living in states of deep denial. Both are silly positions.
One thing which most people can agree upon is that the environment is changing.
We're all here for the ride regardless of our chosen mental position. Maybe it's best to look around and experience it for all it's worth. That's why we're here after all; to experience life. Keeping your nose to the ground is opting to not do anything daring in your life; to always do the safe thing, to only buy from respectable department stores and only think in terms of the government prescribed Discovery Channel version of reality is to miss out on, well, almost everything unfiltered by those driven by greed and fear and the desire to make you sit quietly in rows.
-FL
Am I somehow taking THESE out of context?!? (Btw, it's also currently warmer than the Medieval Warm Period.)
No, but you strongly implied it when you started off with "That's the funny thing about climate change alarmists: they don't even bother to read the citations they've given." Speaking of making "claims about things I have not said":
Can you post a URL to the post where I claimed that?
First of all, I don't even know who David King is. It's a comparison I came up with because many of the same people who like to label climatologists as "alarmist" like to shout "Boo! Terrorist!" quite frequently as well. I will qualify my statement somewhat, however. If we did as little about terrorism as we do about global warming, then it would be a bigger threat - at least in the short run. As for past global warmings being beneficial, are you aware of the distinction between vitamin and poison? Too much of a vitamin makes it a poison.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Let the ice packs melt. When the sea level rises and floods all the coastline cities, where the vast majority of the pollution is coming from, the problem will be solved. Emissions will drop dramatically. Civilization is saved. Of course, cities like New York City, Newark, and many others around the world are gone, but if it saves civilization it is worth it right? Heck with Kyoto. Let the ice packs melt. (Removes tongue from cheek). Face it - the environmentalists were talking about global cooling in the 70's and now they are talking about global warming. Which is it guys? Honestly, you people can't make up your minds from one decade to the next. The next thing you'll be telling me is the sky is falling. Oops. Here comes an asteroid. Everyone duck. (Breaks out asbestos suit).
Vitamin A. Lethal levels of Vitamin A. Sheesh, doesn't anybody on Slashdot do any fact checking any more?
How do you mod him?
/. comment.
As for the volcanoes, you need to read more. That fallacy has been debunked unconuntable times, you should be able to find rebuttals better than I can write in a
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
1. CAFE is the ultimate Washinton boondoggle. Rather than simply raise fuel taxes by 300% and offset that by eliminating or reducing other taxes to achieve the desired result, politicians elect to create a fuel economy mandate that requires endless hidden costs, and a maze of rules and regulations that only serve to employ lawyers that produce nothing of value for society. Don't get me wrong, lawyers and laws are a necessary part of civilized society because we need to protect individuals from the dangerous and predatory behavior of others, but why invoke the complex and expensive legal system when a far simpler carrot and stick will do. (You can boil this whole paragraph down to Occams Razor for fuel economy.)
2. The clean skies act analysis at Wikipedia isn't entirely wrong, it's just misleading. The comparisions aren't to present law. They are to even stricter rules that the EPA was proposing. It's all about frame of reference. The bottom line is that the levels of NOx and SO2 were reduced, just not by as much as some groups were lobbying for.
3. The "New Source Review" was written to allow much stricter rules for new plants by allowing old plants to be grandfathered in. Thus the rules for new contruction were much tougher than the rules for old plants. The EPA was interpreting "New Source" so strictly that it was considering things that were routine maintenence of existing structures to be things that fell under the much stricter standards for "new sources" of pollution. This lead to a court challenge in which the EPA was rebuked IIRC. The language for new source review in the clean skies act was ment to give the EPA much less administrative lattitude by codifying the more reasonable interpretation directly into the law. The result is that the intent of the "New Source" provision was never changed from the lawmakers point of view, but the EPA's behavior was changed because of how the EPA chose to interpret the law more and more strictly, until they exceeded the original intent of the law. The result of the previous enforcement regime acually resulted in incentives to avoid making incremental upgrades that would be cleaner than the existing structure for fear that they would trigger a review that would result in mandates that would be orders of magnitude more expensive. Of course this kind of perverse incentive actually resulted in more, not less, pollution.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Are cars natural?
You will say yes of course.
ALthough it is patently obvious that car development does not follow any of the unintentional laws of nature.
Cars are build with a very specific purpose.
Ants nests are alos not natural. They are artificial constructions built by ants.
I hope that mkes you understnd how idiotic is the stand you are taking.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Here is a suggestion. Get out of your chair in your mother's basement and go to the library and look it up.
I traveled to the Yucatan peninsula this past summer to discover first hand what happened to the Mayan civilization. The Yucatan peninsula has an average soil depth of less than 25 cm and underneath that soil there is a thick layer of limestone throughout most of the peninsula. The Mayan traditional agricultural process involved first slashing and burning the forest in preparation of the soil for growing their traditional crops of Agave, Corn and a third crop that I cannot recall. This process was seen as necessary due to the poor soil conditions and because they were not aware of crop rotation theories which the Europeans discovered in the middle ages.
If you are too lazy to go out into the world yourself, you could at least make the effort to Google it yourself to verify or disprove my claims instead of resorting to expletives and dismissing what I said out of hand.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.