Slashdot Mirror
World's Largest Tropical Glacier Vanishing
Socguy wrote with a link to a CBC article about the rapidly disappearing Peruvian glacier known as the Quelccaya ice cap. The world's largest tropical glacier was a hot topic this past Thursday at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Glaciologist Lonnie Thompson, and a team of Ohio state scientists, produced the stunning news that Quelccaya and similar formations are melting at a rate of some 60 metres per year. While polar ice caps have commanded attention in the discussion of global warming to date, these tropical caps are crucial to the well-being of ecosystems relying on an influx of mountain stream fresh water.
It makes great margaritas.
Every time it's proven that global warming is happening, we have people who insist that it isn't. We're not even at the point where we're trying to determine whether or not humans are responsible.
Again, we're just talking at the level of whether or not warming is happening, and it clearly is. The evidence is there, as is shown by the melting of glaciers in Peru and Greenland, a decade of warm winters in the northern US and Canada, ice-free passage through the Arctic Ocean, and so forth.
I'm just wondering when those people who are standing so steadfast against reality will admit that they've been wrong.
Second Life, the enormously popular Internet "virtual reality" world with over 60 zillion users, has PLENTY of tropical glaciers available. You can even build your own glacier, and earn REAL money selling the land to other Second Life players!
Also, it's great if you are a furry.
glaciers melt you.
Hmm, actually no... nothing melts.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
A number of himalaya glaciers are disappearing fast. Once they do, India and Western/Central China are in great danger. As it is, Gorges dam (and the 2 new hydroelectrics being planed) is mostly fed by Glaciers that may disappear in less than 50 years. Worse, this water is used for some of the most fertile land in both countries. That would leave both with far less capability to feed themselves. China will almost certainly pull a W approach and pick a fight with neighboring country with plenty of water. In general, there is only 1 country; Russia.
Bah, I don't believe in global warming. Scientific proofs won't change my faith.
The last bit of news was that some 5,000 year old plants were uncovered due to the glacier melting.
Ah. So it was this warm or dry there 5,000 years ago.
What were you doing 5,000 years ago?
...just got higher! And when the glacier is completely melted the rate will return to the same rate as when the glacier size was stable (= the rate at which rain/snow falls in the glacier region). So where is the problem?
It's hard to imagine how this would affect the "influx of mountain stream fresh water", other than temporarily increase it while the glacier is melting off.
The water isn't magically generated by the glacier, it comes from snow and rainfall in that area, which presumably will continue as before.
On the subject of Global Warming, allow me to be the first Canadian to say YES, YES, AWESOME, FUCK YEAH!
Another article for the hysteria bin. Also in the news today was a warning that the UN needs to "act now!" to be ready for an asteroid strike:
e roid-threat-demands-response-experts-warn.html
"Beginning in the next few months, Schweickart's group will host a series of meetings to provide the UN with a 'decision process' for assessing and acting on the hazard posed by Apophis and other near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). A draft document ready for consideration by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is expected by 2009."
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11207-ast
When do people see through this racket?
...and not necessarily man-caused.
But you can join that crowd, if you like stampedes.
Moo....
VIVA EL PERU CARAJO
You're lucky they exist in the first place - it's like having a Sahara Catfish...
Don't trust any concentration of power.
Nice work selectively citing the minority of papers that support your position. Most climate scientists not funded by Big Oil will tell you that we are indeed altering the balance of the Earth.
Oh and, even if you believe global warming is a natural phenomenon, you should still be worried. After all, whatever wiped out the dinosaurs was also a natural phenomenon.
http://xkcd.com/c164.html
Why is it that only anonymous cowards tend to disclaim global warming? ALL of the most recent observations of really important glaciers (read as heavily utilized) tend to point to the fact that most of them are disappearing at a scary rate. If you rely on glacier melt for fresh water, you are most probably fucked...next year, 5 years, 25 years down the road, it doesn't matter. The time frame is debatable. The end result isn't.
How can any educated person deny that we have seriously affected our world ecosystem? Species are going extinct everywhere, local climates are fluctuating wildly, and I sure as hell won't be buying any land that is close to our current sea level.
We don't understand the world or even local climate science in enough depth. Our actions seem to be causing changes that are mostly unpredictable. Just because we can't categorically prove it doesn't mean that we aren't the cause. The predictions I see as most reasonable are actually some of the worst case scenarios.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
I was standing on the elevated train platform in Chicago a little while back when it was at least -10F every day for nearly two weeks wondering why I haven't heard anything from these global warming idiots in awhile. If it's too hot in Peru go sit under a tree. There's still no evidence to say that global warming is even taking place (warming and cooling trends over the past hundreds of years, sunspots?) or if it is taking place that it will ultimately have bad consequences. Meanwhile I'm paying $800 a month in gas bills to heat a 2BR apt. And I don't drive a huge gas guzzling SUV, I get 28mph Also, fuck (the) Ohio State. Thank you.
The report implies that the tropical glaciers are all receding. And there are probably fewer of them, so it ought to be easier to tell. But it could be wrong.
Of course, I hear that there's a glacier advancing in New Zealand. Maybe it's tropical.
If all the tropical glaciers are receding, then that means the tropics are getting warmer, regardless of whether the poles are warming or prepping for a "Day After Tomorrow" snowstorm.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
The snow of Mount Kilimanjaro, for one, welcome our new global warming overlords. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/kilicores.htm
It's easy to bury your head in the sand and go "la la la it's just an anecdote!", but if you actually look around, you will find that the vast majority of glaciers, tropical or not, *are* retreating.
Wikipedia actually has an article full of data regarding exactly that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_s ince_1850 . If you don't believe what's written in the article, check out the references. The global conclusions are quite clear.
Be relentless!
Nice rebuttal of the science. Boy, those 95% of scientists who believe the evidence supporting global climate change makes the opposite case to the two papers you linked to will feel silly now.
Come back when you've got scientific consensus on your side.
Until then, maybe we can start planning how to deal with this. Even if you disagree with the cause, the fact remains that we have to be concerned about the result.
I remember reading about a P-38 Lightning called "Glacier Girl" (WW2 fighter plane) that crash landed on a glacier in Greenland around 1942. What was interesting was that it was buried under 268 feet of ICE when found in 1988!!! That's a lot of ice to be formed in just 46 years!
Ya, I'd say glacial growth is very under estimated.
Life is not for the lazy.
so... what is causing MARS to warm up?
e _031208.html
5 -04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-ag
or cliamte change on Jupiter?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-0
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
You posit that some glaciers are advancing, but this is unreported.
Why do you suspect this? How do you know? Is it likely that there aren't any glaciers advancing?
I've never heard anything to back up your position, so it seems like you're trying to sow some doubt here without any evidence behind you. I'm happy to debate, but you've got to bring something to the table.
This is odd on a couple counts. First, Lonnie Thompson has undoubtedly been aware for a couple decades that Quelccaya has been melting away (I used to work in a different university's ice core lab, and we used to collaborate with Lonnie). Second, based on both climate models and historical records I'm pretty sure that what we refer to as "global warming" shouldn't have a huge impact on tropical glaciers. During both glacial and interglacial periods the significant temperature changes were in subtropical and especially arctic areas - tropical areas saw very little change. What this means is: even if we'd never dumped tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, Quelccaya would still likely be melting away right now.
This isn't meant as an argument in the debate over human-caused global warming; it's just an argument that Quelccaya is probably not good supporting evidence for either side.
#DeleteChrome
Of course, I hear that there's a glacier advancing in New Zealand. Maybe it's tropical.
Have you ever been to NZ? The Tropic of Capricorn is a fair distance north from the country.
"But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding. That isn't being reported." : "There are good things happening in Iraq; they just aren't being reported." :: bullshit : bullshit
Hey, evolution, gravity, and all the electrical engineering that make your computer run are also theories. The question is, is the evidence there or not, and is the danger sufficiently large compared to the probabilities to be cause for worry?
...) due to rising oceans and extreme weather.
If the Earth's systems are disrupted by climate change to the extent that some scientists are expecting, "100's of millions murdered" may start seeming trivial compared to the combined effects of failed crops and erased land (Denmark, the southeast USA, England,
What if humans are the cause of Global Warming? Aren't we all a natural phenomena? After all, we're no different from other animals, right? It could be natural that humans destroy the balance of the planet.
OK, I don't really believe any of the above, but it makes me question people who think we're no better than animals, and yet claim that we still have a responsibility to protect the planet.
"I'll see you next time." - LeVar Burton
Could someone help me out here - are these people trolls, shills or tards ? Because it's quite hard to tell on Slashdot. I'm even beginning to wonder if it's the staff, trying to drum up pageviews.
Simple google search yields the info you obviously can't be bothered to hunt down. http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glacier s.htm
Indeed, and there's also nuclear war and pandemics to worry about. What was your point?
This from the poster who states "95% of scientists who believe the evidence supporting global climate change"... I'll let consensus and 95% sink in...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Don't you fucking see that it DOESN'T MATTER what's causing the climate change? The reality is now indisputable, and must be dealt with if we're to avoid massive human suffering regardless of whether the cause is natural or man-made. There are options that must be considered, and this pointless bickering is just getting in the way.
Can you back up that statement with a link, or did you just pull some highly speculative piece of bullshit out of your ass?
So the question to ask is: How many tropical glaciers are advancing or staying the same instead of receding? The report does not say, so it is impossible to draw any global conclusions.
Fucking retarded. TFA talked about other glaciers & a few seconds research would have lead you to Tropical Glacier Retreat analysis.In short, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Current/Past situation...
- snow falls and accumulates into snowpack over the winter
- snowpack melts during spring and summer, supplying water for irrigation during the growing season
- snowpack doesn't melt completely during summer. This means there's a reserve that can handle a couple of dry years
Future situation
- rain falls during the winter and runs off to the sea
- no water during the summer
- a couple of dry winters makes things even worse
Do you have any idea how huge a dam you'd need to hold water equivalant to the snow cover on a mountain range?
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Hey - it's the responsibility of the original poster to put some evidence if they make a claim. Yes, I can't be bothered doing their part for them.
1) Melt Tropical Glaciers.
2) ???
3) Profit!
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C1 bottles of beer on the wall. Take one down, pass it round... Oh, umm...
"Our actions seem to be causing changes that are mostly unpredictable."
Read what you just typed.
Vermifax
Logout
But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding. That isn't being reported.
Do you know why this isn't being reported by most media outlets? Because it's not actually happening! There are no studies nor published measurements supporting your claims.
You're not correct just because you heard Rush Limbaugh incorrectly say that there are advancing glaciers in some areas, a claim which anyone in the field of geology, geophysics or glaciology can easily prove incorrect.
The fact is, as this article clearly shows, that glaciers around the world are melting. We don't necessarily know why, but we know that they are. Likewise, we also know that other glaciers are not growing larger. Again, this is measured and documented fact. You'll just have to admit that you're wrong on this one.
Everyone knows this one already, right ? But just in case.
I wish I had checked that site before posting.
I've been to Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier, and it's not growing. It does advance at about 2m per day (it's the world's fastest glacier) but massive chunks are falling off all the time. It's a spectacular show. The actual glacier is relatively constant in size - as more ice comes in, more ice falls off.
Given that I have first-hand knowledge of one glaring flaw on that site, I have to question the rest of the data.
I new it was big oils fault!!! Brilliant of them!
King of kings and Lord of lords
None of them and people have been noticing this for decades.
I'm a little sick of the foothold creationists have got on this issue which has left the USA opposing even printing anything on this - it is well documented that the climate is changing.
How many feet of sea level rise does the Himalayan glacial melt represent? We see stats about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (5m) and Greenland (7m), but what about the Himalays? And what about the contribution from all the Andean glaciers, not just Peru's? Canada's got lots of land ice...
Even the NASA data for flood elevations goes up to only 14m. We've got a lot more ice than that.
--
make install -not war
We only have about 25 years of direct measurement of solar intensity from outside the atmosphere. Indirect reconstructions have not converged yet. That's why there's such a range of uncertainty about the contribution of solar changes to global temperature increases.
The whole body of research is summarized in the latest IPCC report. The numbers are:
"The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W/m**-2"
and
"Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W/m**-2"
[Notice the factor of 5 between the low and high estimate of solar changes].
But as usual you can simplify the whole question by looking at one key point. Why are nights getting warmer? Solar input affects daytime temperatures. The predicted effect of longwave absorption is that nights won't cool off as quickly. The observation is the same.
For the same reason why people post as AC whenever it is on a topic where there is a strong majority opinion opposing them; they know that they are likely to get modded into hell and have their precious karma torn apart.
One thing that does and always has moderate me is that when the group think really gets going it can result in comments that are certainly insightful/informative/whatever getting modded down because they are going against the consensus of the group. The point of the moderation system is not to sit around jerking each other off about how much you agree. The point of discussion is to explore different points of view, debate, pontificate, and in general act like intellectuals who are not afraid of dissidents from the group.
I personally think that glaciers melting is a bad thing and that humans probably can take a hunk of the blame for it. That said, it pisses me off when I see completely reasonable arguments to the opposite getting modded down as flames, trolls, or (the slightly more reasonable) overrated. At the same time, we get a dozen one line "See!!!! When will people realize global warming is real!!!!" post modded up like that actually brings something intelligent to the conversation.
This isn't a battle to mod the other sides opinion into oblivion. The point is to actually converse. People are posting as AC because the environment of conversation is completely broken when it comes to this topic. Utter crap that agrees with the majority opinion is getting modded up, and well thought out arguments against the majority opinion are getting slammed down. People shouldn't have to post AC to post a dissenting opinion.
"My dear friend Condoleezza says I am destroying the Venezuelan economy," said Chavez, a fierce critic of U.S.-style capitalism. "Death to the empire! We will not be dominated. We have decided to be free!" Chavez also said Venezuela was unconcerned with plans by the Bush administration to become less dependent on crude oil from politically unfriendly nations. "If they do not want to buy it, say it, and I will not sell them oil," he said.
Now I'm not saying that's what did happen, but it's feasible. Perhaps glacial growth is not so underestimated. On the other hand perhaps it is anyway.
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
What are these options and how are we sure that these options won't make things worse if this is juat a trend that corrects itself?
Every damn story about something melting, getting hotter, dying, etc. always has the subtext: "You lousy humans are THE cause." Guess what? If it's a problem, it won't be solved by diverting all talk of the subject to us lousy humans. Solving it first requires detached observation of what's happening, then detached ideas about the cause, then detached tests to see if changing the apparent causes changes the effect. And who knows, we might conclude that major change beyond our control is in the near future and that we must find ways to accommodate to a new climate.
According to the page you linked to:
Ok then, please state your options that, "must be considered" if your going to use that debate tactic. That way, others can either agree, or tear those, "options" down.
>Human activity is responsible for 50% of CO2, the other 50% is volcanic sources.
Whoever told you this is not your friend.
Annual CO2 from volcanic activity, 130 to 230 teragrams(*). Annual CO2 from humans burning things, and not counting deforestation: 20,000 teragrams.
(*)Gerlach, T.M., 1992, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 72, No. 23, June 4, 1991, pp. 249, and 254-255
Or are you saying that these good things are actually being reported?
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
*Sigh*. On the internets, no-one can hear you sarcasm. I'll remember next time.
No fires. The flight crews waited in the B-17 until they were rescued. The only fires documented were the ones they made themselves from oxygen tanks.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
If it's not being reported, why was it so easy for me to find that the Hubbard glacier is expanding?
The valid point you make is that an article about one glacier does not help you determine global climate. What does is the fact that most of them are retreating.
The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million reference.
The real point isn't who funds the research, it's the scientific basis on which it's based. I hate when people say, "but look, they're funded by X and therefore are biased so lets not even bother trying to show how they are wrong" instead of what scientists (and others) should be doing, "I'm not interested in personal attacks since that doesn't prove anything, but here is why this is wrong..."
This doesn't only apply to climate change but to things like Microsoft's Get the Facts campaign and so forth. Some people on /. would say, "but it's from Microsoft, don't even bother looking at it", but the smart /.ers would actually point out faults in the papers (such as having sys admins upgrade libc, etc).
Actually I picked up on it and was supporting it...
:p.
However I think the post below didn't pick up on it
But this doesn't prove anything about solar intervention. It just doesn't discount it.
Here is a good/short argument that earth temperature is maxed out.
http://www.ianschumacher.com/gwc.html
Riiiiight... we're going to selectively engineer a global climate when we can't even selectively control other undesirable local weather phenomenon like hurricanes and tornadoes. Hell, we can't even accurately predict them.
Climate is historically self-correcting. I have no reason to believe it is not still so. Why should I believe the 100-year forecast when next week's is typically wildly off the mark?
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
So if some glaciers like this one, which have been essentially unchanged in size for thousands of years, are shrinking to the point of disappearing within five years, while others are growing, (even at the same rate, which is highly doubtful), they somehow "balance out" and thus there's no global trend to be seen or to worry about?
It's like these folks who are saying "The Eastern seaboard has had its coldest winter or record! Global warming is bunk!" What matters is not so much whether it's heating or cooling, it's the drastic, volatile nature of recent climate change, which is pretty hard to dispute.
We need a nuclear holocaust to get these important glaciers back.
Oh waah. In light of the topic at hand, let me be the first to say cry me a fucking (glacial) river. If using a different kind of lightbulb, taking public transit, driving a more fuel efficient car (when necessary), buying energy efficient appliances &c &c &c comprises the sum total of your "free individual life," you are the most pathetic individual I have ever come across. Or is this just some sort of pent-up spew from back when the gub'ment told you you can't have any more AK-47s to hunt deer with? The sacrifices being asked of you in order that we have a livable planet in 50 years are for the most part, minor. Equating them with (?) communism and fascism is coming it a trifle high, mm?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
But you can be bothered to make unqualified claims of your own, eh? I love Slashdot. :-)
My apologies. It was actually the guy below I was thinking of.
Let's see:
1. climate change skeptic in self-righteous post promotes solar-cycle theory.
2. climate change believer rapidly ripostes regarding selective fact picking.
3. comments about big-oil funded research
4. "AAAARGH - who cares what's causing it - let's fix it NOW!" i.e. unreasonable PANIC
5. comments arguing for caution, measured response i.e. unreasonable calm
6. some idiot bringing Microsoft in to this.
7. inevitable (yet unamusing) "...PROFIT!" jokes
8. inevitable (yet much deserved) Bush/US bashing.
9. various meta-posts (e.g. checklists of posts)
Climate change: Nero - fiddle - Rome - burn.
For the record, the above post is disinformative rather than informative.
Every point that the above post raises has been convincingly shot down over and over in the scientific literature as well as at sites such as realclimate.org.
Stop confusing "ignorant as a damn neoconservative" with "informative". Our species future depends on you doing so.
Thank you for your help.
I made no claim in this thread. I asked for the original poster to provide something to backup their claim. The parent posts were short, so your failure to actually read them is a bit baffling.
I love ACs on Slashdot - too gutless to put a name in, too stupid to put an argument forward.
Every time you delete or save file, 2 Kelvins of heat are released into the world. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that the rise of the computer is responsible for global warming. If you look at it from a purely scientific point of view, there is a direct linkage to the increase of storage (Disk Drives) and global warming. You might think 2 Kelvin is a small amount of heat but when you multiple all those files by 2 Kelvin it just starts to add up. One company has billions and billions of files. That one company is responsible for more global warming than all the SUV every produced.
In 1973 IBM shipped the model 3340 Winchester sealed hard disk drive, the predecessor of all current hard disk drives. The 3340 had two spindles each with a capacity of 30 MBytes, and the term "30/30 Winchester". The Winchester rifle was responsible for killing all the Indians. The Winchester hard drive is responsible for killing the planet. Is it any wonder when scientists predicted global cooling in the 70s all these new hard drives came online? Was IBM trying to save the world from freezing or is there something much more sinister at work? I've heard rumors that IBM was heavily invested in companies like TRANE and CARRIER. Also IBM recently sold off most of their hard drive lines to Hitachi. I believe IBM was on the verge of being exposed for their part of global warming and decided to get rid of most of their drives.
I do have a plan to stop Global warming. I don't believe it's very realistic to have everyone stop using computers. So I will suggest the following steps to help stop global warming.
The scientist that create computer models about our environment... PLEASE STOP NOW. You are creating and deleting trillions and trillions of files. We can not afford to wait any longer. If you love mother earth and I know you do, you will stop.
Spammers: I know you don't care about us but maybe, just maybe some of you care enough about the earth. After the scientist creating the computer models, your kind are the most responsible. Please stop sending out Spam that nobody wants and that is killing the environment.
Users: quit saving all those e-mails you get. You'll never read them all. I know you keep thinking that one day you'll get around to it. Please just give up and quit saving all those e-mails.
Microsoft: Quit Making Operating Systems and Office that take trillions of files to do something sort of useful. In the spirit of saving the world from global warming please start shipping DOS 6.22. It only has a hand full of files and has more than enough power for the average user. It also helps eliminate the problem with the spammers and the Users who save all their e-mail.
ALL: Do we really need 1 TB of storage on our locale PC? Can't we downside to something that has a smaller footprint. We should all be limited to 2GB total for both work and home.
Government: The UN should pass a resolution that all computer users are limited to 2 GB of storage and can have no more that 1000 file writes and deletes per year. For those that have over 2 GB of storage or 1000 writes or deletes, those individual should be fined heavily with the proceeds to go to help the children.
Some of you might think that this requires further investigation but to those of you who think that way I say, How long can we wait??? If we don't do something now to stop the writing and deleting of files now it may be too late. I predict if we don't change our ways somewhere between 1 to 1000 years, then we and all that we love are doomed.
Because all of the self-correcting trends that we know about also caused at least 50% extinction of life on the planet, and took thousands of years to work out?
Like what I said? You might like my music
Why should we pay attention to anything you say when you are too developmentally challenged to understand the difference between weather and climate?
Some of these may seem impractical, but I would think the following should hold true:
It is theoretically possible that we will reduce the variety of building materials to include carbon-based materials such as carbon nanotubes, diamond-nanotube composite, aggregated diamond nanorods, and other similar materials. We'll still probably need metals for a variety of tasks, but our current concrete/steel/asphalt/wood/plaster/sheetrock economy will likely be scrapped in favor of an economy based around superior technology. In light of this potential development, our primary resources will include:
1). Energy
2). Fresh Water
3). Carbon
Therefore, the most intelligent way to counter the effects of global warming on human society would be to ensure the rapid and stable mass-distribution of the aforementioned resources, in one form or another, to as many communities as possible.
Energy, most likely in the form of electricity transmitted across a grid (as we have now) or stored in the form of hydrogen transmitted by pipeline or ground transit, will be at the core of our economy moreso than it does now. Carbon-based construction utilizing multi-walled nanotubes and similar substances will likely require massive amounts of energy to produce building material in desirable quantities. It is also likely that we will be utilizing an increasingly mechanized workforce in the future which will further our need for energy.
With sufficient energy, we should be able to:
1). Build intracontinental water distribution networks much larger than anything currently available to ensure proper irrigation of lands regardless of weather conditions
2). Power massive pump/levee/dam systems to evacuate water faster than it can accumulate due to flooding and store it until it can be safely released into normal drainage channels.
3). Provide sufficient desalinization services to keep water distribution networks fully supplied, at least until we perfect technology that lets us separate water into hydrogen and oxygen from mere exposure to sunlight (a process that would yield rather than consume useable energy).
4). Fabricate building materials out of super-strong carbon-based materials which we may use to reinforce existing structures or build advanced infrastructure that will withstand the punishment of Cat 5+ hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis.
5). Power armies of automated construction machines tasked with rebuilding our entire civilization's housing and infrastructure out of materials stronger than those which we use now.
That would nearly handle any crisis imaginable outside of soil depletion and rising sea levels. I would imagine that coastal cities would eventually have to be moved inland or built on stilts (which is doable with the right materials and a sufficient amount of effort) to survive unless someone wants to protect entire coasts with sea wall networks or . . . something.
In any case, all of the above have one thing more than anything else: energy. Lots of it. Maybe more than a hundred times the energy we produce now, too. Sadly, supply is currently being outstripped by demand. That's one situation that must be reversed.
The world seems to be of the opinion that the existence of global warming proves we are fucking up this planet... and it's non-existence would prove that we're fine... as if global warming is the ONLY environmental issue there is, and if we can solve that, we're fine. Jeebus!
What about deforestation? Air quality? Mass extinctions? Loss of biodiversity? Water availability and quality? Overpopulation? Non-renewable resource shortages? Nuclear waste? Landfill?
Anyone tasted the air in peak hour traffic in a major city? Isn't that enough to prompt some action?
We don't have to prove the earth is warming for us to realise the damage we are doing! It's a RED HERRING! It's just one issue. What if we solve global warming... then what? Will our attitudes have changed? Will we still be pumping sewage in the ocean, burning coal and cutting down all the trees?
Global Warming isn't a problem unto itself... its a symptom of our abuse of this planet. It's only a poster-boy issue. Both sides need to stop debating - it doesn't matter whether global warming is happening or not. It's OBVIOUS the damage we're doing... that should be enough to prompt us to fix it.
Circumcision is child abuse.
The thing is, if human CO2 emissions are only .05 degrees of difference, whereas 1.1 is solar activity change and .05 is volcanic, limiting our CO2 emissions aren't going to do jack squat in comparison to natural sources of increased temperature. We might as well set off a few hundred nukes and cause some nuclear winter. At least that'd reduce temperatures.
The way I look at it, everything in civilization depends on power. The cheaper and more plentiful the power, the better people live and the more options we have.
Yes, conserving power is great and all that(I just installed a tube flourescent fixture in my house), waste is always bad, but there's any number of technologies that about the only thing holding them back is that the electricity is too expensive to do it. Hydrogen, Ethanol production, various metal foundry techniques, etc...
There's very little we can't do with enough power, and that includes land reclamation. Dredge the oceans a bit. Create new land above the sea level. So many tons of earth/soil/rock go into the ocean every day, the tendency is towards a planet like waterworld, with all soils underneath the waves. It takes tetonic movements to move it back up naturally.
We could desalinate the ocean with enough power.
I don't read AC A human right
I know! This "act now" shit is getting out of hand. Fucking scientists... What have they ever done? Bunch of pinko leftist communist fascists. I don't want to live if I can't drive around in my Hummer with all windows down, A/C on full, 3 miles per gallon. I don't care. Fuck you and your planet. I even removed my catalytic converter just to piss off the LIEbruls. You goddamn Nazi sonofbitches trying to take my freedoms away.
Live free or die!
Here's a thought: maybe they're like me, and have had their accounts modded down to Karma -1: Terrible because in the past we've dared to ask questions about the Glabal Warming issue. By asking questions, I don't mean doubting, or criticising...I mean asking questions which possibly make Global Warming believers uncomfortable, and so the bandwagoners hit the Mod-Into-Oblivion button.
My 4-digit account used to have good Karma on Slashdot. I routinely got modded +5 Informative, Insightful, Whatever. I don't think I was ever modded Troll or Flamebait. That was until I asked a person who was shrieking about how "we should all kill ourselves for what we'd done to the Planet" why it wasn't possible to calmly try and explore the topic sensibly and rationally. Buh-bye karma!
I no longer talk about the GW issue, and doubt it's even possible to discuss it---letalone do anything about it---when most people are capable only of knee-jerk reactions, one way or the other. Believe it or not, I'm stocking up instead. I recently purchased 200 acres of land on a high mountain plateau, a long way from anywhere, and am getting ready to build a house on it. It'll be well stocked with food and water.
Does that make me a survivalist nutcase? Whatever. Even if Global Warming turns out to be just another embarrassing storm in a tea cup, at least my family now has a really nice vacation home. And now that I'm posting AC, a big fuck you very much to the reactionary, intolerant karma killers.
I'm so sick of all the left-wing zealots going crazy over news like this.
Global Warming is a simple, natural phenomenon whereby the planet destroys a large percentage of it's population - including humanity, and then starts over again.
Nothing to worry about.
---
Too large a percentage?
Ace
not sure if anybody has thought of this yet but it seems pretty simple to me.... get a bunch of those snow making machines that ski resorts use.. or build a few really big ones, just use the melting water and put it right back on top of these mountains. QED.
Rahmstorf et al. (2004)
Foukal et al. (2006)
Stott et al. (2003) Human activity is responsible for 50% of CO2, the other 50% is volcanic sources. It's been some time since volcanic sources could compete with human activity for CO2 production; current anthropogenic CO2 production is about 100x larger than that of volcanic activity. That makes human activity culpable for about 0.05C in two hundred years. That is very far from what pretty much every other study ever done in climatology has found.
Also note that even that paper finds that anthropogenic activity competes equally with solar forcing before 1955, and exceeds it after 1955. Of course this paper attributes global warming to cosmic forces No, it doesn't. It attempts to associate glaciation cycles with cosmic rays. It doesn't say anything about the relatively recent phenomenon of global warming. We've reached the technological ability to see the change, and like Chicken Little run around declaring the "the sky is falling". Are you denying that climate change, whatever its source, has serious potential impacts that we should be concerned about?
Glacier. Tropics. Shouldn't it be melting quickly?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Climate is weather averaged over a long period of time. Weather is of climate.
If we are poor at understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the building blocks, how are we supposed to do any better at the larger picture? So my point stands.
But why bother answering the point when you can just toss out an ad-hoc attack instead?
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
Hmmm...
The world spent millions of years with a tropical climate in the Cretaceous age.And without a bit of help from mankind and his evil CO2 emissions, it might be pointed out.
What does "climate is self-correcting" mean? [...] the point is that the climate doesn't necessarily stabilize at conditions that we would find preferable.Habitable, perhaps not preferable. That is what self-correcting means. Or at least what I mean when I say it. Climate gets warmer, the world becomes largely tropical, life continues. Climate gets cooler, glaciers cover large amounts of land, life continues. "Climate is self-correcting" means that, even at its extremes, our world is still perfectly suitable for life.
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
Things are changing now rapidly on this world of ours.
.
Items of note:
1. Dangerous climate change.
2. UFO weirdness, crop-circles and continuing cattle mutilations.
3. War and the preparation for really big war with the apparent goal of the annihilation of all the Semites, (both Jew and Arabic; same blood and similar DNA qualities.)
4. Big rocks falling from the sky; enough to wipe out humanity.
5. Preparations in place for total military lock-down of North America.
Uh. . , what the heck?
So, in such times as these, what is one to do?
Here are a few ideas which will NOT work. .
1. Ignore it by distracting yourself with TV and video games in the hope that it will all go away.
This is silly for a couple of reasons, the first being that, obviously, it will not work, and secondly, that the coolest show on Earth is currently unfolding. Why would anybody want to miss watching it? The end of the world as we know it isn't the sort of thing happens every day!
2. Get down on your knees and pray to the holy whatchamacallit, mecca, guy on a cross, Jehovah lord of destruction. Religion is a BAD plan. In fact, it was mucked about with so that it became the plan to get all the silly humans to line up and shoot each other, (as we are witnessing in the Middle East.) Christ was a decent guy with a lot of great ideas, but very few of them survived in the bible and similar documents. Essentially, what he said was: "We are all one, all connected. Do unto your brother as you would do unto yourself. The kingdom of Heaven is not up in the sky. It's within you. We are all infinite creatures and though we live beneath the veil of forgetting, we have access to that infinity at all times. So love, forgive and do not judge, just do the best you can." He might well have added, "Do not go to church and don't expect anybody to 'rapture' you away. That's all a lie designed to distract you from working on the self. Nobody can deal with your baggage for you no matter how hard you 'believe'; your troubles in this world are your challenges to work through; they are your gifts to yourself and I'm certainly not going to take them away from you. How can you grow if somebody takes away your challenges, if you stop thinking for yourself? Do not follow. Not following is a key."
3. Trust in Science. Science is a great thing, but we're not going to be ducking out on the coming lessons through some kind of Star Trek quick-fix.
So what CAN be done?
Well. . , for starters, it would be a good idea to learn as much as you can about everything. Look into all those pesky conspiracy theories and happenings which are the focus of so much disdain among the sceptic-folk. I know a lot of people who haven't ever looked into any non-mainstream material because they don't want to look silly and instead quote lots of sceptic explanations for weird phenomenon which look great on paper and sound soothingly reasonable until you actually look closely at the material in question and realize that there is far, far more to it all than can ever be covered up by a few clever rationalizations. And it's precisely this weird stuff that orthodox culture doesn't want you looking at too closely at which is rapidly shaping our reality. That's the stuff to study, because without a full understanding of it all, you simply won't be able to deal with all the changes coming. Be warned, though: those who are not successfully turned away from looking are often caught up in the second tier of control; 95% of what you will find is twisted nonsense, much like the bible/koran/torah. You have to use your brain, trust your instincts and dis-trust your feelings. (Feelings can easily be manipulated.)
The second thing you need to do is to make a choice: Are you primarily here to serve yourself, or to serve others? Dark-side/Light-side. You have to choose and choose soon. Those who sit on the fence are doomed to repeat the whole ugly cycle on this planet in this lower vibra
>when the storm shifted course, the call to evacuate was cancelled.
>the state government didn't folow protocal and request the help that the law says she needed to do untill after being reminded by an aid when a reporter asked why the national guard wasn't there yet.
Mayor Nagin issued a voluntary evacuation call August 27 at 5 PM and made it mandatory the next day. Also on the 28th, Governor Blanco asked the President for a major disaster declaration and invoked the Stafford Act. Counterflow traffic went into effect that day. That afternoon, Gov. Blanco accepted an offer of National Guard troops from the governor of New Mexico. Federal approval for the transfer didn't come until the following Thursday.
On August 28th the President got a briefing that used the word "catastrophe" and didn't ask a single question or give a single order. If he had, perhaps Chertoff would have activated the Critical Incident Annex to the National Response Plan.
Landfall was morning of Monday, the 29th.
On the 29th, Gov. Blanco said "Mr. President, we need your help. We need everything you've got". The President went to senior centers to promote the Medicare prescription drug plan and went to a photo-op for McCain's birthday. He talked to Chertoff about -- immigration. He played guitar with Mark Willis, and said that when he returned to DC on Thursday he would "begin work". Thursday was when the DoD finally started giving logistics help to FEMA.
More at the bipartisan Congressional report.
Local government down there has never worked right -- pointing to that is a lame excuse for the multiple failures at the federal level.
The difference between us and the dinasaurs is we have Air Conditioning!
So if they've been retreating since 1850, how are cars to blame?
The world has been warming way longer than cars have been around.
I'm tired of all this bullshit about our generation killing the Earth.
And if all you hippies on here are so concerned, quit driving, flying, burning
oil to keep warm, and quit fucking using us rational peoples electricity!
Do you still need me to respond?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Our species future depends on you doing so.
Our specied future depends on people like you not panicking and doing something rash.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
So you're saying we're only allowed to think about and try to come up with solutions for only one problem at a time? Guess this is the same line of thought that produces 'why do this, why aren't they working on curing cancer?'
Ohhhhhh, I get it. You think the asteroid-impact risk has gone away because hollywood isn't making any more films about it, and since we haven't all died in the last 5 years from that yet, we can forget about it. *sigh*
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Look at the 'photos of all the glaciers in the world. They are all in rapid retreat. Here are some of Mt. Kilimanjaro. It's scary. I live pretty close to sea level, but about 5 miles inland, and I hope I'll be moving house before the sea level rise makes it compulsory.
So if they've been retreating since 1850, how are cars to blame?
Climate has always gone through fluctuations, what is frightening now is the how much bigger the change is, and how quickly it happens. I don't know how many times we have to explain this.
The world has been warming way longer than cars have been around.
Greenhouse gas emissions have been around longer than cars, it has been inceasing steadily since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
I'm tired of all this bullshit about our generation killing the Earth.
Being tired of it is not a rational argument for whether it is true or not. Sorry.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
I must have been hit by the extremists. They always leave the worst impressions though. But just because they didn't ruin your karma doesn't mean others have been so fortunate.
As for my mountaintop land, no, GW wasn't my rationale for acquiring it. However it will certainly be useful should the GW alarmists be correct.
We've know for the last 30 years, that were are emerging from a little ice age.
The temperature stabilized around 10k years ago.
"if we don't reduce emmission there is at most a 1/10 chance civilization is facing a collapse and an associated "population correction". "
Obviously that should read: "is NOT facing".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Indeed, so you'd find it surprising then that given the number of Scientists who are against Climate Change that none of them have managed to change to consensus in anything like the way Lavoisier did ?
Can you think of any reasons why this is the case ?
That is why they go AC. GW is a religion here.
/. would make the Inqusitors from long ago proud. I don't doubt that there are campaigns staged by groups to tilt the discussion at websites such as this. That is one of the mechanisms they promote.
As to the issue at hand.
What about the other thousand or so Glaciers that ARE ADVANCING?
This whole GW mess is all one sided. You never hear about the thousands of glaciers that are gaining mass. No, you only hear about the ones that are losing it. Why should many of us take the GW side seriously when they report only what advances their case and totally dismiss anything that doesn't? The poison most good sites of information with their campaign of omission. Look at WikiPedia. You can find a huge article with pictures about disappearing glaciers but you won't find information about all the glaciers increasing in mass. Nope, not at all. Guess what, try and put one there with links. Go for it. Really....
Sorry, but for a community that supposedly prizes facts and discussion the holy war waged by the Global Warming supporters on
Oh well, glaciers come and glaciers go. Just figure this out, some of these Glaciers were fine up till a decade ago. What shifted THAT suddenly to make them vanish. Sorry, it wasn't man. After all most claims it was the industrial revolution that started the mess, advancing well into the late 20th century where the real damage started. Yet some of these glaciers did just fine until very very recently. To me that indicates something bigger than us happened. Hopefully we will realize it before we go off an ruin the standard of living for millions
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Actually, human CO2 output is only about 3% of all CO2 output planet wide.
What's important is not the absolute percentage. This is why not. In the recent few hundred million years, the Earth has had (more or less) the same amount of carbon sink as source, so more or less - with a little variation as the balance changes, the carbon sinks soak up all the carbon sources, so on average the system stays in balance.
What do you think happens if you take away some of the carbon dioxide sinks, but add some extra sources? Bueller? Bueller?
Just to give you an idea, here's a simple analogy. Take a funnel, and start pouring water into it at a rate such that the funnel always remains half-full (because the rate of water being poured in matches the rate it leaves). Now increase the water flow by 3%. What happens to the water level? Now decrease the exit by a couple of percent. How does this affect the level of water in the funnel?
Just that 3% mismatch between water going in and water going out makes the water level accumulate *significantly*, and surprisingly rapidly. It happens even quicker if you close off part of the funnel's exit. Eventually, the funnel overflows.
So what happens when you have a system where CO2 sinks on average match CO2 sources - and then increase the CO2 sources by 3% and decrease the CO2 sinks by some amount? You get quite a rapid accumulation of CO2 over time.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
From summary:
The world's largest *tropical* *glacier * was a *hot topic*
Hot topic indeed.
I'll just take issue here with the epithets being used here: "denial addicts" and "Greenhouse deniers." The first dismisses anyone who disagrees with the GW hypothesis as mentally unsound -- that is, they disagree because they're just crazy. The second is apparently a calculated attempt to compare anyone who disagrees with GW to a "Holocaust denier," implying that those who disagree are evil and murderous. Similarly, some writer recently gave the opinion that the "deniers" should be brought before a "climate Nuremburg" trial to punish them for delaying action on climate change through their sin of expressing the wrong opinions. Both terms are useful for winning an argument through name-calling, but they don't add much to the substance of the debate.
Revive the Constitution.
// "Global Cooling" is a BS red herring that only Greenhouse deniers like you take "seriously". //
I like how its a red herring now. Yet it was the "consensus" of its age and I am quite sure naysayers will equally villified as they are today. Nearly all the dire predictions for it were similar to the "global warming" today, yet none came to pass.
So, since it didn't occur it was never postulated either? Is that how this system works? Anything that is predicted that does not occur yet those with opposing views who bring it up are reaching for straws?
So I guess bring up the mass starvation that was to occur in the late 70s and 80s that never occured is equally a red herring?
Why not admit it. Everyone makes mistakes. If you won't acknowledge those which make you look bad why should people who don't buy into your view accept ANYTHING you say?
As for it being proven that some of this is stoppable thats fine, the issue is, is it what man is doing that is causing the problem. We can surely stop what we are doing but no one has proven conclusively that its man that caused the shift.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Could it be that the earth's angle to the galactic plane is changing? Such a change may be the reason for the melting of glaciers, the increasingly lower temperatures in the North, the change of position of the magnetic poles, the messed up seasons etc.
Of course someone could say that such a change would be obvious right from the start, since there are many people looking at the skies each night.
Name a single scientist who denies that the climate is currently warming. Just one.
You can't? You're not going to bother because its so trivial? Or because its simply not true?
So when a global warming story comes along (as it does all too frequently) then make the same straw man case over and over. Google does the rest.
The question is not if the climate is warming, since the global climate has generally warmed since the early 17th Century (well before industrialization but hey! what's the point of quibbling over trivia?), the questions are does that warming have a single human-based cause and if so should we do anything about it and can we do anything about it.
But first, before we know whether the current warming is extraordinary, we've got to check that a few scientists aren't rewriting the past to make the late 20th Century warming seem greater than it really is.
The whole question of whether the warming is natural or man-made is one of the great open questions of science.
We will now see the Slashdot effect applied to moderating this response down so that readers are not accidentally and unnecessarily educated.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Well, yeah, if drug addicts and suchlike decide policy, things may go badly. But that's not actually what you are getting at, is it? You're trying to imply that there is something wrong with progressive policies such as looking after the poor or taking care of our environment. Your whole argument about cancer would have been more convincing if you hadn't started to foam at the mouth there.
"We don't understand the world or even local climate science in enough depth."
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
If you actually include some way of bolstering your assertion you'd have a point. As it is, you simply repeated what is happening; mention one glacier at a time and not mention the other thousands. His point stands.
Scientific consensus is a meaningless term. It's been overturned many times in the past. Emperical evidence trumps all.
The topic is a helluva lot more complicated to prove/disprove, what with millions of variables instead of three or four?
As reported by Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota here:
Each time a scientist come up with some theory like : "Humm.... Factor {$F} has some interaction with the environment. Maybe we should control it more and try to avoid interfering with an already too much complicated equilibrium we don't fully understand. We can't afford the risk of worsening existing problems with our actions"
Then, the journalists come up with title like "Exclusive news !!! End of world next week : we all die because of {$F}"
People starts stock pile provition for use in case of having to hide in their cellar for the next two centuries.
And then the week passes and nothing serious happens.
So people stop believe the theory, or at least their *perception* of the theory through the press.
And it suddenly becomes very easy to deny that theory. People need to deny it, because their own habits that they like su much, depends on keeping the statu quo. And so saying that the theory is wrong because the catastrophic result didn't happen is very tempting.
Now add to the situation experts hired from companies that profit from {$F} and you can make nice show were expert says that we should pay that much intention to {Theory as stated in press} because we don't understand that well the problem {true, as per original publication} there are other reasons causing it {true, as per original publication} there for the theory is wrong {false, because fails to admit that the role of {$F} has been proven too, and the original publication's intent wasn't to say that {$F} is the cause of everything, but that it's an additional man-made cause that should be controlled in order to avoid interfering with the complexe processus}
And this falls conveniently into the ears of the mass who doesn't want to chance their habit.
That's what is happening with global warming
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
so its the "We GOT to do SOMETHING" mentality, that usually backfires and ends up costing a lot of money that could have been used to really make a difference somewhere else... ahhh politics...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
...these tropical caps are crucial to the well-being of ecosystems relying on an influx of mountain stream fresh water. Looks like they'll get plenty here pretty soon.I can see the point that the plants adapted to the Cretaceous might have been slightly more efficient at photosysnthesis though I doubt that one can easily implicate greater availability of CO2 since the increased growing season would have a greater effect. Plants adapted to the Holocene may do much worse in the face of a rapid increase in CO2 for while productivity may go up, the range of pests can also increase with the increase in temperature subjecting large tracks of forests to die off. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046 /j.1461-9563.2002.00124.x/full/?cookieSet=1
s -selling-solar.html
The key here is the rapidity of the change which allows the fast moving species (the pests) to overcome the slow moving species (the trees).
With regard to agriculture, beyond growing season, the timing of the availability of water is crucial, and the loss of glaciers and snowpack reduce the availability of water during the gowing season, counteracting the increase in the season. The cost of attempting to retain water that in the past has been held by snowpack may be unrealistically high, leading to the shutting down of vast amounts of currently productive agricutural land.
--
Switch to Solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
See this.
I'll take issue with your oversimplification and hyperbole. Not everyone who disagrees with the Global Warming observations and Greenhouse theory is dismissed as crazy. Though some are. Anyone denying Greenhouse science on hearsay or on nothing is irrational. "Crazy", as you say. Others making rational arguments on science, political/business cost or even philosophy of uncertainty can get a fair shake. The crazy ones aren't worth the time to treat gently, and they're infectious.
"Denier" is an epithet that describes someone who denies, especially without basis. Trying to Godwin that fair characterization of Greenhouse deniers is what's insubstantial. Much like the subtle Holocaust denial that forbids comparing other, especially current, repetitions of Nazi fascism or genocide to the original article.
Meanwhile, Greenhouse and Holocaust denial do have a lot in common. Most deniers in history, especially during the Holocaust, were overwhelmed by the enormity of the murderous evil. They bought into the Big Lie to protect themselves, flight rather than fight such a monster that would eventually threaten themselves. This is true of the Greenhouse: it's a lot easier putting gas in your SUV when you deny that burning it makes you more responsible for the Greenhouse than people who burn less. Given the scale of the Greenhouse threat, and the compelling evidence and qualified arguments pointing it out, Greenhouse denial can be at least as evil and murderous as Holocaust denial, though probably more murderous if not quite as evil.
I'd like to see a citation of "some writer" who opined that Greenhouse deniers should face a "climate Nuremburg" for "expressing the wrong opinions". Positions on scientific facts aren't "opinions", they're judgements, more or less right/wrong. And making uncited claims destroys any substance of this "debate" that has been entirely based on irrational propaganda for decades. Until now that we're facing the catastrophe decades too late for it to be anything like easy or certain to be solved.
If Holocaust denial were met with solely calm, technical academic refutations, without calling it bluntly what it is, the general consensus that it happened, that real people did it, that it was abominable, that it must not happen again, that it could happen again if we're not vigilant, would not be so certain. If we don't call Greenhouse deniers what they are, we will all face eradication at our own hands.
--
make install -not war
H. sapiens is not at risk as a species. It's not even clear that there will be many deaths directly associated with climate change. The process is gradual enough that it's easy to ignore on short timescales (one season, for example), and populations can move much faster than that.
There are indirect risks involving disease -- especially ones associated with poor water management. New areas will accomodate vectors for tropical diseases, too, which will also lead to some deaths. However all of these are endemic to the species now, and over at least 10-20 generations of H. sapiens.
Civilization is not at risk either, since catastrophic processes are on longer timescales than civilization-destroying traumas -- these are not sudden earthquakes or outbreaks of war.
However, a rise in sea level and reductions in agricultural productivity in well-lit long-summer areas will heavily tax the global economy as people and assets move away from the current shoreline, put up antiflood barriers, and shut down their farms. Sure, farms will reopen elsewhere, people can resettle, and businesses can be relocated, but these all have costs, especially if the new locations are less optimal than the old ones. Among these are shorter growing seasons, for example -- warm enough to grow what was grown closer to the Equator, but with less seasonal yield) -- and the loss of well sheltered natural deep harbours for shipping.
Moreover, there will be a substantial loss of habitat for other organisms that aren't as adaptable (or rather, aren't as able to shelter themselves from the climate) which will impose costs on humanity as well.
There is a chance of runaway climate change that introduces many small catastrophes which the global economy cannot absorb, leading to large numbers of deaths or huge numbers of displaced persons in economies not used to either (e.g. the West). This would not be civilization-ending but it would certainly make for a huge economic depression.
Finally, although it's possible to imagine runaway climate change that introduces one or more massive catastrophes that make most populated areas completely uninhabitable, this is not very likely. It still wouldn't destroy the species, even if most of civilization and its technical and economic success were to fall.
However, who really wants to live in a global economy undergoing a serious long-term depression? That's bad enough to avoid. Dwelling on less likely worst-case scenarios is bad P.R.
You might want to take a look at what is happening with regard to to the carryover supply of food (going down) and the impact of the large number of distilleries being built in time to eat into this year's harvest http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2007/Update63. htm. The capacity that is kept in reserve may not be quite so large as you think.s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar power, the original renewable: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
... my driveway.
:)]
...]
[Northern US is currently experiencing unusual cold and snow. It's funny. Laugh
[{cricket chirp} {cricket chirp}]
[OK, I'll keep my day job
I object to the word overpopulation. It seems to me that it denies fundemental human rights just to say it with regard to people. With regard to population dynamics models such as predator-prey interactions one is looking at a lag balance in any case so applying the term overpopulation seems a little laddened there as well. How about aplying this test: any time you want to use the term, imagine yourself first as Scrooge using the term "surplus population" to see if it has the same effect. If it does, then you are probably misusing the term.
I'm questioning "primarily due to". How is pointing out that the Earth does this with or without us irrelevant to that question?
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
Circumcision is child abuse.
The climatic conditions tens of millions of years ago are irrelevant to the attribution of the recent phenomenon of global warming. We can say that the current warming is "primarily due to" mankind's CO2 emissions irrespective of what drove the climate in past ages, purely on the basis of what we know about the recent climate. The fact that the Earth was once warmer, or colder, is not relevant to the fact that actions due to mankind are substantially responsible for the temperature increase that has occurred over the past 150 years.
Wow, Why hasn't something like this been presented before? It has all the element of actualy working without any of the polarizing hiden agendas attached to present day fixes.
You would think that normal progess of man's devlopment would be going in these directions simply because the end goal is a more efficient and productive output that will be both afordable and economical. you could forget any "Green" motivations and see results with a plan like this. You could just call it the "econimic of a safer and more efficient tomarrow" and lose most of the opositions surounding the debat today.
At least that is my opinion, and i am a skeptic on the claims of man being responsible enough that we can actualy fix it as well as how all the current purposed fixes tend to include some form of policy already rejected and considered unwanted.
According to this story, it looks pretty nice there: http://grapheety.com/?story=119&zoom=10
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
We don't know what drove these climate changes in the past. We have theories, not all of which agree with each other, on topics from volcanic erruptions to fluctuations in solar output to permutations in the Earth's orbit to shifts in the magnetic poles to... whatever.
We know only that the temperature has trended up recently. It might be mankind's "carbon footprint". It might be something else that we don't know to look for. The fact that these changes take place without us and we don't know why is completely relevant to the discussion.
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
Were it not for global warming, many parts of the world would still be under an ice field.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
If we are poor at understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the building blocks, how are we supposed to do any better at the larger picture? So my point stands.
Your "point" most certainly does not stand.
Which can be predicted with the most confidence:
1) The temperature it will be at noon on January 1, 2008 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
2) The average high temperature for all of January 2008 in North America.
3) The annual global temperature for 2008.
The answer, for those playing along at home, is that 3) can be predicted to within one degree Celsius with high confidence. 1) is weather, 3) is climate, and 2) is somewhere in between.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-ag
or cliamte change on Jupiter?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-0
Minor variations in solar radiation that make funny little bumps on the ever climbing temperature curve. We've been through this already. Grow up.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
IT'S A FUCKING PIECE OF ICE IN THE TROPICAL RAIN FOREST!
Quit wasting my tax dollars because you want a Peruvian Vacation in Lake Titicaca (hehe, I said Ca Ca).
So do some maths and see what sort of extra energy would result.
Then you'll have to see how the human creation of CO2 isn't causing as much change as it otherwise would appear to (and via a method that is either underestimated: another model please, or unthought of: another model!).
You see, it's damn easy to say "couldn't it be X?" but damn hard to work it in to the other stuff that is known.
Looking forward to your paper...
You've several bad, invalid, or just plain silly things in there, drix.
First, you're clearly not a hunter of any kind or you'd know that an AK-47 is a poor hunting rifle. It's really far too light a round and lack the necessary range; it's mostly designed to kill/wound people. It happens to be my favorite rifle, but I'd never take it hunting unless I was wandering around in some post-apocalyptic world where that was all I had with me. Might want to learn something about what you're talking about so you don't look silly.
Second, as I read the notes from the Lefties you're not "asking" anybody to change they're lifestyles--you're proposing to force them to do so. I've seen everything from mandatory fines to capital offenses for driving cars on these forums (I hope that last one was a joke, but you never can tell with most of the Slashdot crowd). It worries me muchness when people who think they know better than me insist on "helping" me, even when I don't want it.
Third, given that many on your side are proposing the use of force to make people march towards their grand world vision, equating that with facism, socialism, or communism doesn't really seem out of place at all.
Ferretman
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
An anonymous coward can still claim credit for the post by printing the post submission confirmation screen. In cases where there is a pay-per-post arragement posting as an anonymous coward can boost the financial return. There is quite a lot of money behind getting these contrarian views out there without tracable attribution to the funding source http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html.
The same issue arises with voter receipts. Those why buy votes can have greater certainty that they are getting what they pay for when polling places give out receipts. In the case of the slashcode, the buyer can be even more certain. Showing no data after clicking submit for anonymous cowards might help out with this problem.
Climate is weather averaged over a long period of time. Weather is of climate.
If we are poor at understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the building blocks, how are we supposed to do any better at the larger picture? So my point stands.
But why bother answering the point when you can just toss out an ad-hoc attack instead?
If we are poor at understanding, predicting, and/or controlling atoms on the quantum level, how are we supposed to do any better at the larger picture? Doing anything with stuff made out of atoms is unpossible.Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Something like 80% of Canada's population lives within 100km of the border with the US.
You very well know all of these are not "Canadians", they are former loyal British colonists that are now amassing on the US border for the Great Push over the border in the coming months/years (secret!). The US population will be overwhelmed and a great Kanada will be built! You know the motto of our great leader - "To the 30th parallel or war!"
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Forget weather. We're going to selectively engineer the numerical distribution rolling dice. Now, we can't accurately predict or control any particular throw or series of throws, but we're going to magically make even numbers over-represent themselves.
No problems :-)
And you freaked me. I'm sorry you feel that way. Though, at the same time, I'm surprised I haven't been modded into the basement...
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
Apparently the "climate Nuremburg" comment came from one David Roberts of a "humor" site that was making one of those ha-ha-only-serious comments:
Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."
The comment got the attention of Congressional Republicans, here (with more details). Reason Magazine likened such a proposal to an inquisition, here. The Congressional article cited an author criticizing the use of the term "climate change denier," here. That writer's thread from two days later (2006.10.11) asks people to help find the origin of such terms. The first comment there cites a 2001 book review in Nature (big-name scientific journal) making the comparison:
The text [of "The Skeptical Environmentalist"] employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren't dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on.
Similarly, a 2001 article in The Ecologist compares denial of global warming -- that is, refusal "to accept our responsibility for a crime of such enormity" with no regard to why -- with "the refusal of many European Jews to recognize their impending extermination."
So, for years there have been explicit comparisons in the media by people who support GW. So, it's true that at least some environmentalists with some influence are using "denial" in a loaded way to demonize their opponents. By the way, your own comment said no, it's not being used that way... and then that "Greenhouse denial can be at least as evil and murderous as Holocaust denial."
Revive the Constitution.
I said that media isn't "reporting" about advancing glaciers. That's not true. They do get reported from time to time, but they're not nearly as sexy as stories about imminent catastrophe. And when they do get reported, it's in terms of controversy.
3
Here's a quick quote I found on glaciers: "Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why"
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=25786
p.s. As for the Wikipedia article, what can I say other than the fact that it's Wikipedia. It's indisputable that there are some advancing glaciers in the world today. Yet that article does not list one. Why? Because it's not an article on advancing glaciers! It's like pointing to an article on tall men as evidence that there are no short men. Sheesh.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Let me go on the slashdot record saying that I don't buy into the environmental propaganda. Are we destroying this planet? Dam right we are. But is mankind excessively contributing to global warming ? I'm beginning to doubt it more and more. Is there global warming? Yes, but the temperature of this planet isn't static. Compared to the amount of co2 that the earth itself naturally dumps into the atmosphere we are a campfire next to a forest fire.
Can we instead talk about species going extinct, forests being destroyed, and the way we are turning the oceans into a toilet? Those are identifiable problems that we can actually have an impact on today.
There are a few problems with plans like mine:
1). At least in the United States, problems seem to exist in the logistical and political arena when it comes to macro-engineering. Example: The Big Dig. It was a technically feasible plan ruined by graft, corruption, and possibly incompetence.
2). Modern industry, or at least the face of modern industry visible to the public, seems more concerned with small, disposable/replaceable products. In a sense, even our housing and infrastructure (roads in particular) are disposable.
3). Owners of existing infrastructure that would be replaced by that mentioned in my plan (or in plans like mine) would not enjoy seeing the value of their assets undermined and would interfere accordingly.
However, you are correct in asserting that much of the technology associated with "green" political movements has improved so vastly that it makes sense to adopt it on technical merit alone without worrying about environmental benefits. The question is, who really wants a safer and more efficient tomorrow?
I'm still waiting for the ozone crisis of the 90's. And the global food shortage of the 80's, and the oxygen shortage of the 70's. Fad science still rules the air-waves. But it's important to see just what they signed on for. Not the "executive summary" that gets published later.
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
Yeah the AK thing was a play on the old NRA canard about how assault weapons are useful hunting tools. Good to see it bouncing right off your forehead with a resounding thud. While we're interpreting things over-literally, perhaps you'd care to explain to me how your possession of said weapon helps to maintain "a well regulated militia"? Thanks.
Damn right I support forcing them to. I never disputed that. My only point was forcing you to do something that isn't that arduous, doesn't deprive you of your rights to life, liberty, and/or happiness in any fundamental way (yes, fundamental is a subjective term, but thankfully my interpretation is right), and has positive externalities, isn't such a bad deal. Think of it as the price you pay for living in the richest, most prosperous, and, yep, most free nation ever known.
After all, not everyone on this planet can just plunk down $800 for something as frivolous as your AK. Terrorists, Congolese militia leaders, and Iraqi breadwinners all get theirs donated.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
30 years ago, it was Carl Sagan, who proudly supported the plan to broadcast soot on the ice caps to cause melting to slow the comming ice age.
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
"It's always September somewhere on the world wide web".
That's the quote... :)
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
First off, when the Brits invaded the US, the one reason why they didn't win was because people had guns. When the Civil War ended, the main reason why there was a ruch to reconcile was because the citizens had a lot of guns. During the cold war, the main reason why any ground invasion stratigies were shelved by the USSR was because the people have guns. You don't know what you're talking about, or why the right to bear arms is even acknowledged. Gun rights are human rights, and the need for them has nothing to do with hunting, but power and control and whose entitled to have it in a free society.
... an inconvient truth :)
Second off, "If using a different kind of lightbulb, taking public transit, driving a more fuel efficient car (when necessary), buying energy efficient appliances..." There are market forces that encourage these anyhow, including all sorts of other efficient technologies. If you come up with a more efficient energy generating technology, just try using it in a world where "carbon credits" are locked up. Where are you going to get them from, competitors? Duh. You are lying because you are presuming that we need force, you are lying because you are presuming that the force will achieve the desired goal, and you are lying by presuming that the problem is more urgent than it really is, and you are lying because you are presuming that giving governments that kind of control will be less harmfull than it really is. Yes, the fact that your lies are so off base is
"Gun rights are human rights"--wow, that is the most hysterical thing I have heard all week. Thank you. Your history is of course way off (maybe the USSR didn't invade us by ground because there hasn't been a ground link between the USSR and North America for 70,000 years, dumbass) but many people smarter and better versed on the issues than me have spent countless hours refuting this idiocy, so I'll just leave it at that. If non-winger type is reading this and interested, Google around for
And boy, that's a lot of ad hominem in your 2nd para there. When you can't win the argument on the merits, just attack the person!--a tried and true stratagem ripped from the pages of the winger playbook. Keep trying. Having read it several times I still can't discern any logical argument (sorry, was there one?) but since there was some vague ramble about market forces, let me just remind you and all the other laissez faire wankers (ugh, wingers) out there that the first fundamental theorem of welfare economics (the one responsible for all those wet dreams) fails in the absence of complete markets. If there are externalities (air pollution happens to be the canonical example), markets fail and government intervention can be Pareto improving. I doubt you understand a word of that.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.