Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Exposes New Islands in the Arctic
circletimessquare writes "The New York Times has a sobering article about the rapidly accelerating pace of glacial melting across the arctic, focusing on the discovery of new islands and the fact that this is occurring far faster than climate scientist's models predict. What were called Nunataks or 'lonely mountains' in Inuit, trapped in the ice, only a few years ago, are now in the open ocean by kilometers. Off of Greenland, what was known previously as peninsulas have been revealed to be islands as the ice retreats. Dennis Schmitt, a modern day explorer and discoverer of one of these new islands and fluent in Inuit, has named it Uunartoq Qeqertoq: the warming island."
Makes the case that the current warming trend is more closely related to a solar upswing (than greenhouse gas buildup) more persuasive.
What reputable scientist ever argued that it was one or the other? Every recent study I've seen not funded by oil companies includes solar cycles as one factor, but which is not sufficient to explain the trends on its own. We expect the temperatures to go up due to solar cycles, but they don't come close to explaining the aberrant rate of increase unless there have been developments I haven't heard about.
Either way, I think we need to start putting less thought into "how are we going to slow down our greenhouse gas emissions" and more thought into "what steps are we going to need to take to deal with the inevitable consequences of the current warming trend."
Accepting global warming as inevitable for a time is a thing of the past. We can't turn this around in a short time period. We need to be figuring out how to deal with warming, but we also need to be figuring out if there is anything we can do to deter it before we get drastic climate shifts or before we're committed to 1,000 years of climbing temperatures around the globe.
And now the inevitable analogy. We don't look at an incident of shooting in the inner city and say, "well people have been shot now, lets not worry about catching the shooter and focus on treating the wounds." We need to work on both.
Oh? Think so?
I'll bet you have a car or maybe even an SUV. I'll bet it runs on gasoline, too. And I'll bet you drive it every day. I'll bet you have a home and I'll bet you have a furnace, too.
You really do have a choice. You are at least, in part, responsible for global warming, like or not. It's not that d4 3v1l 01l c0mp4n13z are forcing you to use their products. You use their products because they are plentiful, available, and cheap. It's the fact that the oil companies have made it plentiful, available and cheap and that they have used their powerful PACs and lobby groups to make sure that oil remains the most used energy product that relieves you of at least some of the responsibility.
My blog
If you RTFWA, you'd prabably noticed Erik the Red called it 'Greenland' for the same reason Vista is called "The most secure OS in existance'.
Trust me, I work for the government.
Nobody I know denies that the planet has cooling and warming trends, and that we are probably in a warming trend, and even that mankind has had some kind of influence.
What we argue (not deny) is how much influence mankind has had, and we call bullshit on people who think the climate would, right now, be different if only Bush had signed the Kyoto Accords.
So here's a question: if we stopped emitting burning fossil fuels entirely, right now, would the earth start cooling?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The Medieval warm period was fairly regional, and GLOBAL temperatures at the time were fairly well-maintained. That is a red herring. You are either ignorant or shilling.
The thing is that many of mankind's effects are far outstripping some of nature's effects. For example we strongly suspect that volcanic CO2 is a significant force in climate, yet we (humans) put out several times as much CO2 as all volcanoes combined, every year. We also create numerous compounds which nature would probably never create, and which there has never been any sign that nature could create - so to argue that our impact is probably negligible is to deliberately ignore several important reasons why our impact is different and probably greater than any prior species.
In fact we have had such a dramatic effect on the planet's surface, especially through deforestation, that it would be extremely foolish to assume that we have not changed global weather significantly. We do things that we KNOW affect global weather - when a huge fire sweeps through and takes out a forest for a while, we know that makes changes. Yet when we wipe out forests so that we can grow food and raise cattle, we act like that will not make any difference. Clearly this is inconsistent at best, but is probably deliberate hypocrisy in the majority of cases.
Even if we didn't CAUSE this problem we have to deal with it. We can be part of the solution, or part of the precipitate (and that means we drop out and are left lying around on the bottom of the flask, just a bit of excess, rejected sludge.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The ozone hole has nothing to do with global warming and is getting smaller precisely because we took action to make it smaller. As for how much we influence the climate,you seem to lack any justification, besides your flawed ozone argument, for believing we have little influence on the climate.
All that said, yes, Kyoto is not going to deal with the problem. However, given that we have enough poeple, such as yourself, who refuse to acknowledge the extent of the climate change problem, I hardly expect that an international treaty which includes more strict emmission curtails will ever come into being.
A blog about stuff.
I don't get why the "man has no effect" crowd are so vehemently against taking any action. If we assume man has no effect and global warming is a natural phenomenon, what's so wrong with taking steps to (a) reduce pollution and (b) reduce dependency on fossil fuels?
(a) Pollution does f*cked up things quite apart from global warming. Remember those picture of forest in Germany and Sweden, algae blooms, "clean" rivers and streams etc etc, so what's wrong with trying to reduce it?
(b) Why would anyone want to be so dependant on another countries resource? The oil is finite, it's going to run out, this is a bad thing. Developing new tech and their associated industries, this is a good thing. What's the problem?
Look, if it helps all the naysayers, claim you're being patriotic, claim that you want to wean your country off the petrochemical teat, claim that you want to save you glorious forests and lakes for "the kids". You don't have to say you're doing it because you've changed your mind about global warming, you just have to do it.
The left one? Please don't tell me you took the left one.
Why do people feel the need to be so "smart" about this? Why is it cool to use your half-formed scientific knowledge to criticise something you clearly know nothing about? The Ozone Hole connection is the screaming give away, but before that, what is this?
"we certainly are not as significant as the political rallying groups would like you to believe"
says who? you, according to what analysis of what data? Or is it just your opinion, based on the feeling that you like being counter to "the liberal agenda"? You see, the "rallying groups" might be wrong, but don't go taking the high ground without actually contributing knowledge or, you see, you are just like them.
I've *never* flamed anyone personally on Slashdot before (call me on it, please), but it's part of a wider symptom that's going to be a real problem for US. You and me and everyone we care about.
Listen, learn, read. Scientists are not out to bring America down, or trying to stop us having fun in cool cars. They're totally regular people whose only crime is knowing about the frickin topic they're talking about, and smart-arses like you seem to hate them for it.
'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
...and I just bought a hybrid vehicle... Yes, it's an SUV, but I also need space to hold all that comes with having an infant (car seat, stroller, diaper bag, and still gotta carry the groceries or whatever we're going out for).
I just love this kind of self-justification. You don't 'need' an SUV. I think you could carry all that stuff pretty easily in a small hatchback - or a minivan - or any of several vehicle types that have plenty of room for such everyday suburban needs. You bought an SUV because the culture, fed by the car companies, taught you to *want* an SUV.
Now you may *need* 4 wheel drive up there in Alberta, but you certainly don't *need* a big, heavy truck.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
This is the centrist fallacy in action. "Well, both sides have lied (or have been wrong on some points) so the truth must be somewhere in the middle." Except, you take it one step further and cast doubt on the efficacy of the pursuit of clarity. You use the fact that the issue is political to write people off as "tools" and despair of ever having access to unbiased truth, when it is in fact staring you in the face. Like with any issue, insight is gained through the critical examination of the claims presented, and the merits on which they attempt to be relevant. Inventing an unknown median state of "truthiness" based on some notion of intellectual responsibility to maintain doubt and respect "both sides" is simply avoiding the responsibility to actually think critically altogether.
This is the same thing that bugs me about "South Park Republicans", whose basic M.O. is to ridicule both parties for the worst behavior of their respective adherents, and then pat themselves on the back for reaching some kind of moral compromise.