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!!
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.
Wal-Mart greeters are more dangerous than a hungry polar bear.
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
Um, how the hell does Kyoto make China increase emissions? Oh wait, you're full of shit here. (And America is still the world's largest polluter.)
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
"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?
The free market economy approach first used by Poppa Bush in America for other pollutions has been successful, but it has worked very poorly WRT Kyoto. As it is, they are all trying to cheat past the accords and point fingers elsewhere. Instead, each nation (including China, India, etc) should sign a new accord to state that they will hold steady at current levels of emissions and will then decrease over a period of time. The simple answer is that all nations have it in their ability to increase energy via alternative as well as nukes. This will lower emissions. More importantly, this will bring to bear on ALL of industry to move away from oil based transportation to electrical based (which can then be powered via other mechanisms).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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?
It doesn't, but it puts no restrictions on China because they are classed as a developing nation, even though they are the second largest producer of carbon emissions. Their emission levels are also increasing about three times as fast as in the US.
...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
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.
Presidents don't put treaties into practise. Bill Clinton already signed the Kyoto protocols, but without Congress agreeing to it, it was just for show. Kerry wouldn't have been able to do anything climate-wise if he were president with a Republican-majority Congress.
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.
Thats it! i declare a war on the evil Polar Bears!!!
"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?
Are you on Crack? USA largest polluter in the world? Yeah when you look at numbers like per person polution. When you look at total polution out put china and India both top the US by a large margin May I suggest you at least google pollution. (or visit mexico city)
D =95098 0 06/jun/science/tw_chineseair.html
1 46,00.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemI
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=505
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2
but maybe this one is the most recent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1605
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
What happens when ice melts in a glass of water? The level stays the same.
To be fair, though, we (meaning the West) have already pumped a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as part of the industrialization of countries. The idea that we have already gotten to do this, and are now rich enough and have enough infrastructure to be able to start spending some money on being industrial in a cleaner way, while many less developed countries still need to spend invest a lot of money in the initial infrastructure that are needed to be industrial at all, is not outrageous. Of course, the details are always what matter, and I don't know the exact details of the Kyoto treaty, but it is wrong to dismiss it as being clearly unfair (rather than simply not in the US's interests) because China's greenhouse emission is treated differently than the US's is (which, I think, is what you are implying with your post.)
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!
More likely, the money would end up in undeveloped countries as most EU countries would be buying the credits as well.
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?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
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?
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.
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.
Interesting that the link you provide shows the United States as the #9 producer of CO2 per capita... Yeah Yeah, the virgin islands. Somehow I am not sure even I can believe that number. Now to the second point - where are these numbers backed and where are numbers that are a little more recent than 2002.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
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.
The US is only #10th because there are some very small countries insignificant to the global economy that outdo the country per capita. The US is the first if you compare countries of economic significance.
The source can be found at the bottom of the page, which you would have found by very little effort.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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
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?
Then again - why not trust Wiki with everything... even given prior articles on Slashdot today
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
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
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
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
In 1997, the Senate, including John Kerry, voted 95-0 against the US participating in what Kyoto was at that time. A year later, Al Gore signed it anyway (a completely meaningless act). Al Gore and Bill Clinton knew it wouldn't pass the Senate so they didn't even bother submitting it to ask for a vote in their remaining 2.5 years in office. GWB still hasn't submitted it to the Senate but he doesn't have to - any Senator can introduce it to force a vote to put people on the record of where they actually stand even if they know its going to get shot down. Still, there's not a single Senator who wants us to participate enough to actually submit it.
So... before you accuse THIS administration of being the one who killed it, look at the administration who participated in the creation of the protocol and then shelved it for three years before this administration came into office.
More facts, less dogma. Wait, its an environmental story. Everything is dogma.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
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?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
It's kind of like sitting back after gorging yourself on multiple plates heaped with food at a huge banquet, and then complaining when someone who arrived late for the feast gets up from the table for their first plate.
That would be true if you hadn't built the table, grown and prepared the food, and a bunch of guys strolled in to say thanks for the food, but then complained about the sauce. See without the West's help most of the developing nations would still be at a feudal stage.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
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.
Polar bear are nothing but grizzly bears whose coats have turned white to adapt to their environment. There is no real separate and distinct species. Not like grizzlies and Brown bears. Polar bears *are* grizzles with white fur. They will most likely migrate south, learn to eat salmon once again and continue just fine with the *rest* of the grizzlies. I do not fear global warming. It will correct itself as it has in the past. Now, if you really want something to worry about, consider the impending erruption of the Yellow Stone Cauldron volcano or the cyclic pole reversal that is nearly over due. You wanna worry about the end of the world? Those ought to do it for ya. And nothing we do or didn't do can cause nor prevent it. Those, like cyclic global warming just are. No grand conspiracy. Nothing the democrats mor republicans can do to hasten nor prevent it. It just is. Not only is there "no spoon" but it will bend, in it's own time, with or without your willing it.
This sig. intentionally left blank.
could such natural changes really occur within a century?
... wipe out all life on a planet.
It can. You're living it.
would
Nope. It would only wipe out the life that can't adapt. I'm sure some organisms can. That's the whole point of diversity really. But yeah, a lot of shit is gonna die.
our very survival depends on combatting this.
We will. It's called nuclear power, air conditioning and irrigation. You know, a lot of plants actually thrive in hot conditions. Provided there's enough water. I doubt the oceans are going to evaporate all of a sudden.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
(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
And without the west's colonialism and imperialism most of the developing nation would be developing finely at their own pace.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
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?
The death of their main food sources may have a role in it.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
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.
The death of their main food sources may have a role in it.
What, they killed the grocery store?
Oh hang on you think they still live in Igloos and hunt whales and seals with spears and bows, right?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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?
Which would be pretty bad anyway.
Environmentalists don't have much room to complain about starving children dying of malaria. They are the ones who completely banned DDT thus removing the most effective anti malaria efforts. Do you have any solutions that won't destroy the economy and create more poor starving people to die from the malaria?
The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
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.
Actually, there are many many thousands of years of reliable data to go on.
No, I think my statement would still be true, just grotesquely irrelevant. The US wouldn't be able to object to a treaty that allowed other countries to "build themselves up" with slaves because it was unfair to the US; rather, it would be able to object out of moral outrage that slavery still be allowed at all. However, I am personally of the opinion that emitting CO2 and slavery are very different in that slavery is evil in and of itself, while CO2 emission is only produces immoral, or at least unwanted, results when done in sufficient quantities.
*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
Interesting. I see they didn't include any temperature data since 1985 on their 'causes of climate change' figure. Any reason for that?
I watched part 4 of the video. I saw a whole bunch of out-of-context quotes, and some outright lies. The Antarctic ice sheets are retreating, fast. That is not in dispute, and clearly contradicts the assertion from some paid shill on that video, that the temperature in the Antarctic is decreasing.
Comparing carbon levels 450 million years ago to today is inane, going back that far the atmosphere different enough that comparing a single quantity (cabon versus temperature) is not meaningful. You might as well compare carbon versus temperature on Earth versus Mars!
A bear from the Smokey Mountains and a bear from the Arctic are dropped into the water. Which one dissolves first? The one in the arctic, because it is POLAR
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?
Did you look at the source of the data? It is your own freedom-loving Republican Capitalist Government!
The Earth is indeed 5 billion years old. For most of that time, the atmosphere was sufficiently different from today that comparing carbon levels with temperature, ignoring all other factors, is silly.
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
Of course global warming will correct itself as it has in the past. It will effectively wipe out the cause of the disturbance, and the Earth will settle back into its normal cycle.
The only real problem I can see, is that intelligent life seems to be the disturbance.
Slashdot is powered by your submission.
And do you know what the net effect of the treaty is estimated to be? If signed, and complied with, and if the computer models are correct, and if the assumptions about C02 effecting climate these models are based on are correct... Then Kyoto will reduce the temp 0.04 C in 100 years. Woo wee... It is nothing but a political stunt, not a real attempt to do anything but buy votes.
--- Just another Code-Monkey
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.
Of course, if it is indeed intelligent life that is the disturbance, then it isn't very intelligent, is it?
RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
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.
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?
Envrionmentalists don't actually care about anything except the environment. They only complain about starving children when it helps their one dimensional envionmentalism. They couldn't care less how many people are starving in the world, it's not part of their philosophy to *help* other human beings in any realistic sense.
God forbid we should lose our precious polar bears! God almighty what will become of Churchill Manitoba?!
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
Yes the liver contains a lethal dose of Vitamin E. And the meat always contains trichonosis, so make sure it is well cooked.
And can we please stay on topic about the upcoming evil polar bear invasion ?
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.
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.
DDT is still in use for malaria control in tropical countries. These days it's more likely to be used indoors and less likely to be part of a massive, resistance-inducing (spraying was already getting less popular due to ineffectiveness even before the publication of "Silent Spring"), corruption-prone spraying campaign.
Without a ban, there is still the issue of whether aid agencies apply pressure. USAID does prefer insecticide-treated netting over area-wide application, but that's a very different thing from "completely banned".
The factual criticism of environmentalists over this is that at the 2001 Stockholm Convention they did *try* to eliminate the public health exception. They don't deserve to get off the hook for that just because they failed.
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.
You must live somewhere high. I live in the Netherlands, and with the water levels rising half our country is threatened by flooding. I do fear the global warming.
-- Cheers!
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 US doesn't fear global warming because it isn't caused by terrorists but by SUVs.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
The look different, act different and have different abilities. They are a separate species but closely related. Like coyotes and wolves.
Since it's polar, would it reverse when the poles get inverted ?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
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
Last time I heard DDT was seriously bad for people too (I school it was one of the examples of the fallacies of concentrating on immediate toxicity when evaluating chemicals, as opposed to prolonged exposure experiments.). Although it looks like the teratogenic and carcinogenic effect of DDT are both disputed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Impact_on_human_h ealth
I would just say that he was for fighting global warming before he was against it. ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
> You must live somewhere high.
High is relative. There are people living as little as 100 feet above sea level who are not terribly afraid of global warming. Galion (where I currently live) sits at around 1100 feet (give or take a bit), and that is relatively low. Places that are known for being high (e.g., Denver) have got to be rather higher. Many people live at elevations of several thousand feet.
> I live in the Netherlands, and with the water levels rising half our
> country is threatened by flooding. I do fear the global warming.
Half your country is threatened by flooding even if the water levels *don't* rise. You don't need global warming to drown you: wouldn't a couple of broken dikes do just about as well?
Indeed, a couple of broken dikes would cause a sudden, unexpected flood, which could cost many lives, because people might not have enough hours to evacuate. Global warming is so gradual, the people have plenty of time to move to higher ground. Indeed, it's so gradual that there are a lot of people who aren't convinced it's even happening.
You've got *lots* of time -- not just hours or days, but weeks, months, possibly years, potentially even decades. That's not just enough time to escape with your life -- it's quite likely enough time to make arrangements to sell your house to somebody who's less afraid of global warming than you are and so get away with not just your life but most of your possessions as well. (There's always somebody less afraid. Your house could be on the lee side of a geyser next door to a toxic waste dump below sea level on a major fault line in the caldera of an active stratovolcano in a country with political unrest, perpetual ethnic violence, and an ongoing military coup, and somebody would buy it.)
Well, *maybe* you've got enough time to do all that. If the dikes don't break.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
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?
So if you agree with the media touted version of the global warming debate, you're modded up? And if you agree with the skeptics that believe global warming is primarily a natural cycle, you're modded down? Seems pretty clear to me that this is a political issue first and a scientific debate second. Whatever, either way, both sides are protected by freedom of religion!
Now if you really want to fight global warming, we gotta plug those active volcanoes! Man those things spew out enough greenhouse gases to account for millions of cars, or at least three Hummers.
How would a Slashdotter make children in first place?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
What's there to say about the invasion? This is Slashdot, we're more welcoming towards any new overlords than the French in WW2!
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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?
not sure if you are being funny or just plain innocent (in the wrong way)
The only creature on earth that is not needed is the human race,we contribute nothing to nature and nature has no use of us but it cant be said for all the other creatures, balance is needed.
And whatever, even if you don't want to think about polar bears, just melting our Water reserve to let boats go through is totally crazy and irresponsible but again, money making people have shortsighted minds and live only for profit even if it destroys the plane.
Oh and one other thing,,,,,What do you think caring about the environemnt means? It means someon is actually thinking about the future of the human race and it's inhabitants great and small so we have a living planet for the next generations.
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).
Nice post, shame it was not based on any facts tho.
DDT is only banned in the states, the rest of the world still uses it. I actually have some sitting around from when I had headlice a few years ago. I think it is also acceptable to use it on crops in Europe too. The rest of the world still has Malaria though, even thought they are alowed to use DDT.
The real reason DDT was not completely effective against Malaria is that eventually the mosquitos become immune to DDT.
I dont read
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.
>They are the ones who completely banned DDT.
DDT was banned in America in 1972 largely due to "large public outcry". However, "DDT continued to be the insecticide of choice in the battle against malaria as recently as 1994". DDT is not "completely" banned; it continues to be used where it is the most effective and wise choice.
>it's not part of their philosophy to *help* other human beings in any realistic sense
>Environmentalists don't have much room to complain about starving children dying of malaria
Regarding DDT, is is largely not debatable that DDT is fat-soluble, so as long as you are a vertebrate animal with greater than 0% body fat, being exposed to DDT either by inhalation or ingestion means it will be digested and settle in your body fat and is not flushed out by most any natural body cleansing process (studies in the US taken 10 years after the ban on DDT was enacted showed that there were still traces of DDT detectable in human subjects). Whether or not this has long term ill effects is still debatable, but wouldn't you rather know to be cautious about a compound that is very hard to get out of your system?
Additionally, with the recent publicity about the global climate issues, a large portion of environmentalists are not solely looking out for animal rights and well treatment. Instead they are concerned for those poverty-stricken and victims of epidemics such as malaria, and realize that finding a cure for malaria will doubtless please many people who are afflicted with it currently, but it will be of no use if those same people die of a water-borne illness from polluted rivers or from toxins obtained by eating the meat and fat of an animal exposed to a fat-soluble carcinogen (not saying DDT is this, but it or others could be) before the malaria cure is found.
>God forbid we should lose our precious polar bears! God almighty what will become of Churchill Manitoba?!
Yes, Churchill Manitoba, the "Polar Bear capital of the world" will lose its tourist trade. Additionally, without Polar Bears, they won't be around to predate upon the ringed seals (one of their more popular food choices), nor scavenge upon the carrion of beached whales and other carcasses. Meaning, the elderly, sick and diseased of the seal population will not be weeded out and lead to an increased population for the seals, leading to likely overcrowding and a greater chance of spreading disease around the population of seals, which will have a direct impact on the Inuits who hunt those seals as well. So, by assisting the Polar Bears, environmentalists are also preventing causing more 'starving children' in another portion of the world. Yes, preventative thinking (rather than reactionary) requires more speculation and time to come to fruition, but just because someone's paying attention to polar bears rather than the people starving right now doesn't mean they're not concerned about human starvation issues, nor are they simply not thinking.
As was mentioned by Ash Vince, the above posts by Dravik and Asrynachs were not based on serious facts (and indeed don't cite any references for their claims), and (hopefully) were intending to be more humorous than serious (Mod them Humorous rather than Insightful, please...). For those reading these threads who are still forming an opinion on the matter, hopefully the links I've pulled together here will help you make a more informed decision on the issues.
They've got more people than North America and Europe combined so of course they're going to pollute a lot despite being still in development.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
"Their [China's] emission levels are also increasing about three times as fast as in the US."
Thank you so much, Kyoto Protocols. China is striving hard to meet reach the higher levels of emmissions that you mandate for it! Success is around the corner!
Where were you when the voynix came?
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.
Seems pretty clear to me that this is a political issue first and a scientific debate second.
You're absolutely right about that at least, the debate is political. If you defer to the currently accepted scientific view, you accept that global warming is happening and that anthropogenic causes are most likely a significant contributor. There really is no debate among scientists about these basics anymore. To find the debate, (and to find the denialists), you have to enter the poltical arena, where the clear science suddenly becomes a "controversial issue." It's pretty much the Evolution 'debate' all over.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke