Slashdot Mirror
Could Global Warming Make Life on Earth Better?
mikee805 writes "A lengthy article in Spiegel explores the possibility that global warming might make life on Earth better, not just for humans, but all species. The article argues that 'worst-case scenarios' are often the result of inaccurate simulations made in the 1980s. While climate change is a reality, as far as the article is concerned, some planning and forethought may mean that more benefits than drawbacks will result from higher temperatures. From the article:'The medical benefits of higher average temperatures have also been ignored. According to Richard Tol, an environmental economist, "warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu." Another widespread fear about global warming -- that it will cause super-storms that could devastate towns and villages with unprecedented fury -- also appears to be unfounded. Current long-term simulations, at any rate, do not suggest that such a trend will in fact materialize.'"
Only if you bought lake front property in Siberia for no money down ... and you were hoping that one day you could use it as a Winter home.
Is it just me or does this strike others as "lalalalalalalalalalalaI'mnotlisteninglalalalalala la!" Way to ignore the vast majority of solid information out there and try to put a rose on a pile of shit.
Aren't we all sick of the global warming hoax yet?
You heard me, I called it a hoax. Not only has our planet seen amounts of CO2 that make the current amount look silly, but we're coming out of a geological cold phase. CO2 lags heat, not the other way around. It's all about the sun. We've got nothing to do with it.
Surprisingly convincing BBC documentary.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I live in the Netherlands. We are now taking measures to prevent the flooding of my country. But, recent calculations show that we can manage the extra water that we will have to cope with.
-- Cheers!
the increased popularity of scantily-clad women running around in bikini tops and shorts, due to the heat.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
yes!
Would the decrease in cold-related deaths be countered by an increase in heat-related deaths?
(IANAL)
40,000 more somewhere else from increased range of tropical diseases and their carriers.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
I never ceased to be amazed at the sheer number of "Global Warming's a Myth / Good for Us" stories in American Newspapers and on American websites.
A few thoughts:
How many times have you heard of scientists complaining because an government won't let them spread bullshit?
How many companies have a vested interest in ignoring/delaying/otherwise interfering in the result of genuine science when it doesn't suit their policies?
There will always be "scientists" who are willing to say what someone pays them to say. But when you get significant numbers of experts complaining about science being repressed, large scale international focus on the issue and dissenting countries with an administrations that have long standing and close connections to the oil industry, shouldn't anyone in their right minds be suspicious of such stories?
todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
As long as I could maintain my tan...
Thanks,
Wayne Newton
Hate to tell you, but you can get the flu in summer. But all that aside, people die every year here in Texas because of the heat.
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
I don't know if you can call it good or bad, but life will adapt. Some species will die off others will thrive. Humans? We're the best adapters of them all.
Global warming will be good for all species? I think polar bears, coral reefs, penguins and humans living near coastal regions might disagree.
Namaste
The GOP, [pick your favorite oil conglomerate], everyone who hates Al Gore.
u-bend
I remember watching a BBC newsclip once where one of their reporters was near Murmansk (northwestern Russia), talking to two Russian engineers working in the middle of a field of snow. He told them about the theory of global warming and they both visibly perked up. One asked him, "Really? How can we help?"
That talk like this will make Al Gore hot, but not in the sexy way.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
When the weather isn't consistent with what models predict, it's the weather that's wrong, not the models.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Regardless of why the earth is warming (either man-induced or a natural cycle of the earth), I welcome it with open arms.
Milder winters are going to open up trade routes through the arctic.
I will potentially be able to grow stuff in my garden that won't grow there today. My tomatoes may become perennials as they are in their native habitat. And I could do with some citrus trees in my yard.
If the ocean levels rise, landmass on the North American continent will shrink as populations rise. The equity in my real estate investments will grow at an unprecedented rate.
Living in Raleigh, I will be much closer to the coast than I am today.
OK yes this does mean I will have less buffer from hurricanes, and the hurricanes may be more frequent and more violent than is typical.
Inuit may lose their traditional way of life, but they are sitting on vast chunks of currently frozen land that will become desirable temperate areas that the yankees will pay good money to move to once they start experiencing the kind of weather that is more typical of the southeastern US.
It's not all doom and gloom, folks. There will be extensive collateral damages, whole species will be lost, but life has a way of moving on. And Homo sapiens is one of the most adaptable vertebrates on this planet, so I'm sure we'll find a way to thrive through this.
How about warm weather related diseases like Malaria. We are starting to see bugs winter over that used to be killed by the frost. Anyway, many more people are killed by tropical diseases like Malaria than are killed by the flu. The flu mainly kills old people whereas Malaria kills mainly children. I would rather that my family get the flu. If I die a year earlier than I might otherwise have died I hope nobody will take it too hard. On the other hand, if my kid dies seventy years too early because he got Malaria ...
40k fewer deaths to the flu, and 40k more to malaria in Ethiopia. Or 400k more to frostbite to Europe if the North Atlantic Gyre switches its course slightly.
The issue is not that it's gonna get hotter, damnit. It's that we're changing the world drastically in unpredictable ways. That means a mass exodus of people from the coasts, from the new deserts, from swampland that used to be permafrost. Global warming is a practical and moral issue for the world about whether they want to move a significant portion of their population, and everyone else's population, somewhere else, with all the horror that being forced off your land entails.
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
would get a Mediterranean climate. I have been all in favour of global warming ever since so dont go telling me that prediction was innacurate.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Yes, it's a nice sizable article, featuring women in bikinis enjoying a nice drink on a hot day, quotes from important figures, official-looking charts, and subtext in places like "a warm future" under a simplistic image of warmer-colored earth.
The problem is that I don't see it citing many sources, and when it does, it seems to selectively quote them, such as limiting it's considerations to "gradual thawing of the Greenland ice sheet" only when considering sea level changes. I'm not going to call this a whitewash, but it seems to be a sales job for a point of view, rather than a well-founded findings of a respectable research effort.
Ryan Fenton
I'm sure it will come as a great relief to know the flu is cold related, especially for people in places like Vietnam or south China that of course never catch the flu - avian or otherwise - and who have been rightly upset that we persist in naming flu varieties after cities in their countries in direct defiance of the now obvious fact that it can't have originated from there. Any reports of flu in warm areas are complete fabrications, and dissembling disseminators will be summarily shot for a long time.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Sir, this is Happy Thought Hour!
Didn't you see the pictures in the article of pretty young ladies enjoying the sun?
Eliminate the negative! Accentuate the positive!
Visualize palm trees in Germany, and put out of your mind the massive droughts and desertification in the torrid and equatorial zones.
when the temperatures rise, areas that are good for farming will be too hot for crop farming. Areas that have ideal temperatures for growing crops will shift north towards Canada. Canada has crap soil, the glaciers and winds moved good soil to the US. Crops don't grow in crap soil. Less crops means less food which will equal bad no matter how your fricken spin it. BTW, the world stays on average about 4 months ahead in general food supply.
from TFA: ...each time the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel...
If it's the president, his punctuation is as bad as his oration.
but remember, heat-stroke related deaths? UP!
That being said, evidence that I've read a while ago suggests that the earth was at it's peak biodiversity/total-biomas when it was 4 degrees celsius, on average, hotter than it was around 1995.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
April 2007 (subscription probably required for back issues.)
Similar article in that the premise is accepted: global warming is real, and it's too late to stop or turn it back. So, on to the next question: who will benefit from it? How will market forces respond to higher sea levels, longer growing seasons, etc? And one big theme, and irony, is that the developed countries will likely reap large benefits, while the developing countries will be faced with the worst detrimental effects.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Article says the global warming will reduce 40,000 deaths because of the flu. However, what about heat related problems. Just a few years ago, thousands died in Europe because of heat waves. Also, the relation between flu and cold weather is not clear. As the temperature increases, we will see more A/C usage which will generate artificial cold. There are some scenerios about why flu spread more in the cold weather. The theories include cold force people to stay inside, creating a good means of transportation in the crowd and the dry weather helps the spread. Either will still be true when people stay inside because of heat and the air will be dry because of air conditioner.
I've got friends who think that global warming is a big crock of shit and (in a very immature way) bring up Al Gore and say how he thinks he invented the internet as their basis for not believing anything he says.
One of my biggest annoyances with people who question global warming isn't that they think it's not happening or that it isn't us who are contributing to it, but rather the fact that they use these previous statements as an excuse to not do anything about it.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that carbon dioxide emissions really don't have any effect on global warming... does that mean that we should keep driving SUVs and not care about how much pollution we dump into the environment?
Although people who announce that the earth is doomed because of global warming and come across as being panicky appear to be crackpots to all them skeptics, it doesn't mean that we should ignore them. we should do what we can to conserve what we have. It's worth it.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
The argument that "yay more sunshine, more warmth, what's the fuss, party!" is generally not considered a serious one.
Although arguing based on authority is something I don't usually do, but in the case of global warming most common people just display ignorance about the matter. That in itself is not a problem, but writing articles proclaiming truths which show signs that the guy didn't even bother to do basic research is bad. I wish people would try to inform themselves before trying to form the opinions of others.
Science is complex, deal with it. Naive, overly simplistic ideas set off my bullshit alarm, like in the case of "paranormal" stuff.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
According to Richard Tol, an environmental economist, "warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu."
Yes, but higher temperatures also mean more tropical diseases, particularly malaria, and notably the plethora of parasites and other pests which are currently controlled by cold winter cycles.
My understanding (and it's limited, I admit) is that there is a reason the Northern Hemisphere has fewer problems with diseases, and that correlation is caused by the winter cold-cycle limiting the growth of aggressive and infectious disease. If that's true, and you take the cold-cycle away, there is nothing preventing these tropical diseases from growing here. Given this, I would expect that the savings in deaths due to the flu will be more than accommodated by the introduction of more aggressive diseases that are able to exist and persist in the newly temperate climate.
While tfa is biased and has its far share of fud, the argument it makes (which others have too) is a valid point. There have been at least 2 super continents, thousands of ice ages and geographic and atmospheric changes we can't even phantom. 99% of all species to walk this planet are extinct, and man has very very little to do with that. If the history of Earth was a day, humans have only been around for the last 4 seconds so this brief snapshot of the planet we consider to be the ideal state isn't the way things have always been (considering you agree w/ science and not a certain book). The planet has an always will change and we need to deal it with. I'm not saying we're aren't contributing to it and doesn't it at a much faster rate, but change is inevitable.
Does this mean we shouldn't change our habits, absolutely not. But Global Warming doesn't mean it's time to prepare for the apocalypse. Adapt or die.
First-positives. I'm originally from upstate NY, a region not exactly known for its' pleasant weather. Winter lasts from November->April (I am not kidding) with severe snowfalls from January till April. Just two weeks ago, a snowstorm blasted through and canceled classes at many of my friends colleges. (Snow day with 2 weeks of classes left is pretty crazy) Oswego, NY had over 8' of snow on the ground at one point during the February storms this year. Obviously we could deal with warmer weather.
However, I go to college in New Orleans, and obviously with a warmer climate globally there would be a higher sea level. It is already difficult enough for this city with substandard levees, adding a few more feet to the height of the ocean and local waterbays would be catastrophic. For the Americans who say to hell with New Orleans, take a look at New York City. A rise in sea level would inundate the city, especially Manhattan and Brooklyn which both are low boroughs as well as directly in contact with the ocean.
Overall while there may be positives the eroding of our seashores, the centers of economic activity, would definitely outweight the positives. Still an interesting piece though.
I don't understand why everyone gets all bent out of shape. I admit, global warming is real, but it's NATURAL. The Earth has been doing this for as long as it's been around, and we have nothing to do with it. 99% of greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR. There's nothing we can do even if we want to! Just chill out!
Many of the coastal cities/states/provinces may end up underwater. For example, Newfoundland, California, Vancouver... hmm, I'm starting to understand why life will get better!
http://www.skullsecurity.org/blog/
Just a sidenote: Newsweek [Europe] ran a very well written column about "Winners and losers of the global warming", which tried to show objectively what is most probably going to happen. Basically the rich countries get richer (like new beaches in scandinavia, lots of income for modern capitalist companies running building and salvage operations on the deserting places) and, guess what, poor countries gonna suffer most. Middle of Africa won't be a nice place to be, small islands going underwater etc. (Niue photos, anyone? Hurry.) Overall: we won't die. But some of us, the poorer part, definitely will. (And it's not a hoax anymore.)
The flagship publication of the reactionary publishing house Springer Presse puts forth an article in favor of heavy oil and coal consumption?
That's unpossible!
The "big 4" global warming assumptions:
1) The earth is warming due to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
2) Humans are causing the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase
3) Humans can control the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration
4) A warming earth will cause bad things for humankind
You have to fervently believe in all four of these to be a true believer. If you don't, you're just another mindless neanderthal who doesn't care about the planet. The article questions No. 4 and should be ridiculed and banned, of course.
They cite figures for places about which Western media care while ignoring the corollary--increased incidence of tropical and sub-tropical disease.
No matter which positive aspects this warming trend has, I think it's also important to look at the flux of refugees that will eventually develop when (if?) most the southern hemisphere transforms into a desert. I'm sure we Europeans would be happy to welcome all North Africans on our shores because their arable land has completely dried out while you guys will embrace most of South and all of Central America moving to the States.
It's now a feature. I love how spinners work, first, it was not happening, then it was not humans really doing it, now the spin is that it is happening, but it's actually a good thing.
It's like a politician caught in a lie trying to turn it to virtue.
Your tomatoes will be lovely, and you will still have magnificent Southern bacon, but when Raleigh creeps from Zone 7 to Zone 9, your lettuce is going to bolt before you even get the seeds in the ground. Think of the poor BLTs!
Errrr, climate change has both positive and negative effects. If the cost of reducing carbon emissions is greater than the sum of the positive and negative effects of global warming, why should we spend the money to reduce carbon emissions? Are you saying that scientists shouldn't do this research? Isn't that a rather faith-based idea? What's the difference between you and a believer in creationism? They don't question cretinism, and you don't question global warming. /me buys you a white coat so you can better pretend to be a scientist.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Just to remind everyone, there are countries near the equator that are warm enough as they are. For every person who survives a flu in Germany, please rest assured a few thousand will die of thirst (water sources drying up), hunger (food production will decrease), disease, floods and all sorts of pestilence that ultimately spring from the inability of the greedy SUV owning middle class westerners to limit their conspicuous consumption.
The article is a nice try to put some good spin on Global Warming. To some extent, they're right. There will be positive effects from an overall warmer climate: Siberia won't be quite so forbidding. Canada could get some better agricultural areas. Cold spells will kill hundreds less of homeless people in nothern latitudes.
The problem is that this is akin to talking about the positive effects of smoking: weightloss, fewer old people to draw down retirement benefits, etc. It's disingenuous and generally only used to mask the drawbacks. Is it a necessary part of the discussion? Of course. Does it change the negative aspects of Global Warming? No. Do the negative aspects of Global Warming outweigh the positive aspects? Yes. The cost of Global Warming is still going to be in the trillions, because people generally already accounted for this.
Fewer deaths from flu spells will be offset by increasing deaths by malaria (which is already migrating north). Actually, reading through the article, it seems that the author has no idea about what has already happened, and is content with merely posting speculation about what could happen. I'm reminded of the troll piece recently posted on C|Net about intellectual property. Same lack of content, same latching onto vague promises that have not materialized, same complete lack of evidence for their position.
I'm off to tagging the article flamebait.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It'd definitely be different. But "better" depends on what you look at.
The thawing of the Siberian and Canadian tundras could more than double the amount of arable land, providing more food than we could possible use, as well as provide land for trees which could halt the process. Done with some intelligence, we could "tune" the climate and the planet, and turn problems into solutions.
On the other hand, by the 2080's, the summer high temperatures in the southeastern US would average around 115. The energy use for the increased air conditioning could accelerate the process.
The simple solution is to move everyone from Flordia to Canada and and Siberia to become farmers. They'll have to go somewhere, because Florida will be almost entirely under water.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Already there are reports in Italy and Norway of an increase in non-native insects moving north into new territory. Sure, it might be nice to avoid frostbite due to global climate change, but at the expense of catching the plague or malaria, it ain't much of a bargain.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
What about Tipping Points?
Things might really suck for us!
i notice that the ones that are comfortable with "collateral damage" are the ones who won't be -- or at least believe they won't be -- "collateral damage".
note that i'm not necessarily talking about, just making an observation in the general.
mr c
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
We have the technology to save them. We weren't around to help the Woolly Mammoths but we can do something about the Polar Bears. Let's make sure nature doesn't fuck up again.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
"This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."
Read any good sonnets lately?
Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple.
Raleigh is betwen 250 and 300 feet above sea level, and the total sea level rise if all the ice melted is about 270 feet, so I hope you are on a hill. The ice caps start really coming apart at 4 degrees C warmer than now, which is within projections for the 21st century.
This seems to me to be more of the same from the denial team.
No, global warming will not make things better for all species. Many areas rely on snow pack melt off in the spring and summer months to supply needed water. If the snow packs melt early or don't form at all it causes drought.
I believe the figures are something like forty percent of the world depends on snow pack melt off for their summer water supply.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Nuff said.
Deleted
Meanwhile no one in Australia or Africa is growing anything because both have turned into continent sized deserts.
It's all there for a great satire: The vaguarity. The complete lack of citation. The telling reference to a controversial and widely decried TV movie. The potent mixture of credulity and cynicism. The reference to the sun.
On the other hand it might a real person who's just new to the subject and not very knowledgable yet.
If it's a joke then Internet Honor demands that I stay away and not get hooked. But if it's an honest post, Internet Honor demands that I respond with well-reasoned rational counters to everything that's wrong.
Maybe I should just go with a goatse link.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
"lake front"?
I'm guessing you haven't heard of the rising oceans thing..
MABASPLOOM!
This is awful!
Please resection this article to FICTION.
1) Humans need OXYGEN to survive. Increased CO2 and changes in ocean temperatures will massively impact the growth of pyhtoplankton, the largest producer of oxygen in the world (look it up yourselves.
2) "Scientists" are not acting as preachers here. In fact, the only people who think we are actually shrieking that the world is ending is people who don't want to have to change our CO2 emmissions.
3) I actually agree about climate change changing economic tourism etc. That's well and good.
Hawaii will be either A) underwater, or B) uninhabitable.
hmmmm?
As to the idiotic head in the sand attitude to global warming going on in the so called Bush sponsored American apologist scientific community I have no doubt that their funding is coming from Chaney oil lobby. All you have to do is really look at what is happening around you, forget listening to these morons!
those who treat the direst predictions about Global Warming as fact also treat Darwinian evolution as fact and yet are absolutely terrified about the natural implications of both theories: namely that you're going to die, it's going to unpleasant if not painful, and ultimately there's nothing you can do about it.
Standard disclaimer: no, I don't believe that Global Warming is fake; and if you're planning to equate speaking ill of Darwin with being a Creationist, I'd suggest going here first.
Nice way to not read TFA:
"But it quickly became apparent that the horrific tale of a melting South Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in the Antarctic is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to melt this giant block of ice. On the contrary, current climate models suggest that the Antarctic will even increase in mass: Global warming will cause more water to evaporate, and part of that moisture will fall as snow over Antarctica, causing the ice shield to grow. As a result, the total rise in sea levels would in fact be reduced by about 5 cm (2 inches)."
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Amputees find they save money on socks.
Really, the title and claims are too vague to even argue about. make "life" "better"? Which species? How many? Better for otters or better for Rush Limbaugh's ego?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Did you also know that among suicide victims, the cases of death by cancer, disease, or AIDS are on average 0.0! This is strong evidence that we should advocate suicide to our children.
Just because something causes fewer deaths in one particular category doesn't mean that overall it causes fewer deaths, or that it won't increase other causes of death (for example... oh I dunno... heat exhaustion, maybe).
...and everyone in Bangladesh can move to Germany.
In capitalist world, New Yorkers go to Florida.
In grand new Soviet World, Florida comes to the New York.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Milder winders are actually causing problems with trade routes to the arctic. A lot of the stuff that gets delivered gets done so in the winter on ice roads, and with milder winters the window in which the lakes are frozen enough to drive large semi trucks on is getting narrower and narrower.
-Xoltri
... All the leftists are blaming the historically bad Hurricane season of 2006 on Bush.
Huh? There was no bad hurricane season of 2006?
Nevermind.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
I wonder if these future weather forecasts factor in the effects of sunspots and cosmic rays?
...
Of the people out there that are *very* familiar with the technical aspects of global warming, I'm very curious what you guys think about the correlation between sunspots and global temperatures? Have you guys seen "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary that talks about research that demonstrates an 800 year gap between co2 and temperature (where temperature changes *precede* co2 changes)?
I'm really curious what the rebuttal to that is. Please no hostile responses. Just trying to use my analytical mind to figure out what to believe based upon the evidence (since I don't put much stock in consensus science)
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
I know creatinoists who believe the science on climate change.
I can't speak to any flat-earthers, I've never met one.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
more population + less water = !
So yeah, we will enjoy some more tropical weather, of course, we'll need to get along with the frigging mosquitoes and war will be for water and not oil, that's better!
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Humans have pretty much already done that. The Moors turned north Africa into a desert when they wiped out all of the vineyards. The european settlers turned much of the American Southwest into a desert with overgrazing, in South America, slash and burn farming is doing the same thing, and the Russian approach to irrigation is making the ground saline enough to be effectively a desert. So what's changed? Ph by the way, a huge part of Australia is already a desert, and has been a long time. Same thing with salinity though is happening there.
What part of "don't bother replying without data" is too complicated for you? I most certainly am not dead wrong about that; I've got a history in this. You, I suspect, do not. (Whatever fool moderated that "informative" doesn't have the slightest idea how moderation works; saying "nuh-uh" is not informative in the slightest.)
Stop claiming to know things you don't. Either cite actual data, or shut your mouth. All you're doing is spreading environment FUD. The problem is, this kind of FUD can do us all very real, very permanent damage.
Cite data next time, or consider yourself called a liar in public.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Okefenokee Swamp is burning: 100000 acres.
Early heat has meant early wildfires. Meanwhile, the Missouri River floods and tornados destroy the entire town of Greensburg, Kansas.
The climate seems to be getting real wild, right now. Pay me enough though, and I'll tell you thats just normal variation in the weather and it will all be ok.... let it warm, it will make the poles a tropical paradise I'm sure.
Global warming might make things better somewhere else, but I'm not real keen on moving, and right now things are getting real nasty here.
All these posts, and nobody mentions computer cooling and the rising costs of maintaining datacenters and the like?
Is this Slashdot? D:
I listen to the BBC World Service every day on my way to and from work. In my gas-guzzling SUV.
Just about every story is about how the world is ending, mostly because of man-made global warming. Yesterday, I heard that dams and hydro-electric power release more greenhouse gases than coal-fire electric plants. If they keep on like this, the only option for humanity will be mass suicide. Though, only if a decomposing corpse releases less methane than a living person, I guess.
Earlier this week there was a story about RFID devices in trash cans, to measure and control the amount of garbage thrown out by Britons. If this were in support of the George Bush's Global War on Terror, the masses would be out on the streets, but any invasive authoritarian measure can be justified in order to "Save the Earth" (tm).
I'm over it. Bother me no more with stories of global warming. At this stage, it's become a catchphrase to justify all sorts of bureaucratic intrusion and control, instigated by the watermelon left (green outside, red inside).
668: Neighbour of the Beast
I agree that there certianly have been times in the geologic past when the earth was hotter, and colder, and CO2 was in higher - or lower - concentration. It's "just a few degrees" right? More summer sounds like a good idea, of course, unless you hate the heat of the summer.
Everytime someone touts the variations over the life of the earth, I'm always compelled to point out that almost nothing that was alive then is alive now. So as long as you're not really concered about becoming extinct, it's not a big deal. Whether climate change occurs "naturally" or by human intervention is somewhat irrelevant if the end result is that we are all going to die. It seems that it is in our best interest to maintain the status quo. To do so, we should not be ignoring the changes as "inevitable" but determining what effects we can have to keep the system stable. That's a pretty big order, but given the consequeces I think a little forethought might not be a bad idea.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Viruses survive more in warmer weather. Though we associate the common cold with colder temperatures, the cold actually inhibits them from growing. Viruses are more prevalent in the winter because humans are in closer proximity to each other due to the fact that they are inside more.
Or just like a PlayBoy, just looked at the pictures
the two most stereotypical perspectives on global warming center on two points: whether mankind is changing the environment, and what to do about our impact
...but impact it positively. in other words, mankind is obviously the steward of this planet. arguing about our negative impact and concluding we can lessen the footprint of 6 billion plus rapidly modernizing human beings is insane. how about this: i accept we have a negative, unintentional impact. so counter with a positive intentional impact
stereotype #1 is:
1. mankind isn't changing the environment, it's just changing naturally, and
2. we don't have to change our behavior, we have no impact
stereotype #2 is:
1. mankind is changing the environment, and
2. we have to change our behavior by impacting our environment LESS
i am of another mind:
1. who cares if mankind is changing the environment or not. whether natural or manmade, the earth is clearly warming. i don't care about who is to blame, that's a political partisan's game.
2. we have to change our behavior by impacting our environment MORE
we should be actively cooling the planet: seeding dead areas of the ocean with iron to sequester CO2, for example. or purposefully trigger a volcanic eruption to cool the atmosphere with high smog. all sorts of dieas exist
and the point of trying to cool the planet? not to return it to some natural state as if mankind didn't exist, but to actively terraform earth to our liking. there are a million moneyed and vested interests: rich coastal communities sensitive to sealevel, agriculture sensitive to rain, plain old nostalgia, etc.
the point would be, at first, to try and maintain the earth as we have been used to it the last 1,000 years. then, we could talk about things like: if we have another krakatoa or such (increased volcanic activity initiated a little ice age in the early 1800s), we could temporarily increase our C02 output to offset the cooling that would create. and given enough time, maybe we can micromanage the greening of the sahara by changing ocean currents on purpose (in such a way that the UK or the caribbean aren't affected). who knows.
the whole point is, NOT having an impact is an impossibility. once you accept that fact, that we WILL have an impact, one way or another, then you embrace the idea of actively counteracting your negatvie impact
i really think that saying we have no impact on the atmosphere (and shouldn't change our behavior), or expecting us to have no impact on the atmosphere (and that we somehow could have no impact), are both completely useless points of view. the issue for BOTH sides of the climate debate is to ACCEPT that mankind IS impacting the environment, and will CONTINUE to do so. this changes the tenor of the debate from one of denial of current or future no impact to "ok, we have an impact, what can we do to make our impact POSITIVE."
on a deepr philosophical level, no problem was ever solved by walking away from the situation. are you more interested in assigning political blame? or do you want to make the earth cooler? any problem is improved by MORE involvement, not less. this lesson applies to those who would deny that we have an impact now, and those who somehow beleive we could ever have no impact
an active hand on the thermostat: pushing it up at time, pushing it down at times, through various manipulations, is the right answer. MORE manipulation of our environment, not less. and to do it for completely selfish human interests is not a problem too: for the most part, mankind wants the planet to stay habitable and temperate
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The question isn't whether global warming will make life better or worse, for how much people, or for how long. I just personally don't think of it as "a chance we have to take".
In my opinion (despite famine, poverty and war today), the world is already a very well-functioning organism (OH NOES it's the gaia theory, or someone can't think of a better word) and I personally don't think we need to take a chance, it works fine now and there's a good chance it won't work as well if we just sit back and let global warming take place.
While we obviously can't stop it now, if we can delay it we may eventually be able to start reversing damage, or at least figure out whether it's going to be good or bad
How dare you, Slashdot! You have posted blasphemy in the name of Our Religion. The sins of man have sullied our great Eden, and when the Judgement Day comes and the waters flood and the fires burn, it will fall on your head, so sayeth the Lord Gore. You must repent your sins and pray through ritual recycling, carbon credits to make companies rich, dangerous mercury bulbs, and higher taxes. You damn Christian capitalists and your fundamentalist religion. You're a bunch of Nazis! Now pay the government for the shame of your existence.
"Sufferin' succotash."
The conclusions may be bogus, but this is exactly the kind of analyses we need to start working on now. We need to drop this false catastrophe/rosey scenerio dichotomy bullshit and project, to the best of our ability, what will really happen in a warming world. Right now, the future projections are based too much on ideology and/or elitist social engineering and not enough on actual science. And these projections matter if we want sensible policy decisions based on reality, instead of policy driven by ideologically colored speculation. Ultimately we will have to make political value judgements. The tanstaafl principle applies here. Intervention or non-intervention is going to have disparate impacts on different ecosystems and societies. There will be trade offs no matter what we do or don't do. However, we can't even begin to sanely valuate the various trade-offs unless we know what they actually are. Unfortunately, it seems people on all sides of the global warming issue would rather grind their axes and myopically focus on their narrow self-interest (and yes, even environmentalists are pursuing self-interest even if they think they're just looking after the common good) than patiently, and openly try to look at what the evidence tells us good and bad. I fear the result is going to be disastrous either way: horrible over-intervention that just increases the power of special interests, lines the pockets of the connected, and decreases freedom, or a blind failure to even prepare for negative impacts, resulting in tremendous suffering. The middle road really appears to be one less traveled right now.
I for one will strive to honor your real estate investments to the best of my efforts as I flee desperately from my submerged home along with hundreds of thousands of fellow refugees. I'll try not to raid your garden, but I can't promise I won't be hungry form all that travel. Sure it will be rough, but let's face the facts. If Katrina proved anything, it's that we'll be taken care of in case of a disaster.
It wouldn't even be an issue if Americans like you didn't keep denying reality just so they can carry on feeling good about driving their SUV's.
IMHO, any law that removes peoples 'rights' to be totally ignorant, greedy and self-centred at the cost of the environment (and therefore everyone else) is a good thing.
This study was done by someone in marketing.
Those Katrina victims are better off now -- we've flooded them out of their destitute lifestyles so they can be exposed to new destitute lifestyles in luxurious FEMA trailers.
Global Warming Rocks!
the fact that global warming is causing the gulf stream to change direction which in turn will condemn Scotland and parts of Northern England to dissapear under pack-ice is all OK then is it?
But it quickly became apparent that the horrific tale of a melting South Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in the Antarctic is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to melt this giant block of ice.
Hello, Spiegel. Let me introduce my friend, the Larsen B ice shelf, along with Journalistic Integrity. No, you haven't met.
so what exactly is this history you keep talking about yet not specifying?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature -plot.svg
Consider data cited.
I'm always amazed by supposed scientists being so confident in predicting future states of chaotic systems so far in advance. I'm even more amazed by claims that certain changes to the present state will lead to a specific changes in future outcome. I believe this is called Hubris.
Now then, "Oy vey" is Yiddish for "Oh woe is me". This is a bit premature. Let's save it for when Nemesis gets his revenge.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
A lengthy article in Spiegel explores the possibility that global warming might make life on Earth better, not just for humans, but all species which haven't disappeared.
What doesn't kill your species makes your life better!
You just got troll'd!
I am not familiar with this perspective as a part of mainstream scientific thought. To my knowledge, Ice core records correlate pretty well with tree ring records and other geologic evidence. Pretty much all of it stands up to scientific scrutiny. Would you mind citing *your* source to support your claims?
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
If nothing else, it'll piss off the greenies.
While I agree that we should try to reduce and mitigate CO2 emissions in order to slow the effects of global warming, I don't see how you can reduce emissions substantially in a short period of time without draconian measures. Even with draconian measures, which would have their own dire consequences, most models I have seen would still see some decades of continued warming until things maybe leveled out.
Why shouldn't we just do the best we can using reasonable measures and then deal with the consequences? So far systems of CO2 rationing have not worked and in places where people need to heat their homes in the winter, CO2 rationing isn't likely to work.
Seems that whenever you try to do a cost benefit analysis with the entire world including many variables that you cannot control or predict, then you are going out on a limb especially the farther out you extrapolate. If we perfect fusion for instance, then we don't worry about global warming anymore, sure it might still happen, but with nearly limitless cheap power you could mitigate nearly any effect.
No it isn't prudent to rely on technology we don't have, but if we don't come up with new technology, then civilization will naturally go into decline due to resource exhaustion regardless of global warming. But that same decline will happen if we impose too much rationing on resources, so really either way we are out of luck in the next 100-200 years unless new technology can keep civilization going.
Here in BC, Canada, we're having our forests killed off by the "mountain pine beetle." While this is a recurring pest, it seems that this time around it's a lot worse than previous. One of the main things that can kill the bugs in a big hurry is a sudden cold snap to about -40c for about 3-5 days. Winters have been milder and shorter lived these last few years though, so the beetle is continuing on. I've heard that Eastern Canada is starting to suffer from something similar with "Pine Wasp" (I'll take the beetles, thanks).
Add to that the issue of beehives being killed off by strange bacteria that seems to proliferate better in the warmer weather, the marked increase in allergy issues locally (according my doctor, and he indicated that it was partly due to the warm, dry weather here), and I'd agree that there are a lot of ways that global warming is not making life better in terms of disease, parasites, and pests...
30 years from now, what will the encyclopedia say about Global Warming? Since humans never learn but are driven by greed and selfishness, we are doomed to repeat the past. Maybe the article will look a little like this:
"My God, what have we done?" - Robert Lewis, the co-pilot of the Enola Gay
"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." - J. Robert Oppenheimer
"I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made" - Einstein
Out of all the possible temperature the world could be in, we're obviously at a temperature that is perfect and any departure from that will cause death and doom?
Let's say we determined the absolute best temperature to be at is cool Earth down by 5 degrees and we can do it. You can stil make the same argument, that people living in cold areas will be dying more due to cold-related deaths even though the rest of the world is better off. Why should you get freezed to death when you don't have to if we maintain the status quo?
Even if global warming really does improve the welfare of the world overall (unlikely), someone somewhere will of course get screwed in the process. This is true even if you can somehow shift the world's temperature to some ideal level. Unless we're already at the ideal temperature, of course, but I've never heard of anyone even making such a claim.
"Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator."
Could he have done that in a world without copyright?
Look at a map of North America, the sheer landmass that is Canada. They will become the agricultural overlords of the western hemisphere (and possibly beyond). My lettuce will be shipped in, as it is today. I doubt much of my lettuce actually comes from North Carolina, where most farms seem to be growing soybeans or tobacco today.
But if Raleigh becomes zone 9, it becomes feasible for me to grow semitropical fruits in my own yard. It's a tradeoff I can live with.
I do expect some other nasty things, though. Africanized bees gaining more of a stronghold, malaria, other insect-borne diseases. It will be a different world. But not necessarily a bad one (for those who are lucky enough to live in the right places).
Holland may very well become New Atlantis. That would suck. Hard. But Norway and Sweden could enjoy greater tourism throughout the year. The impact all depends on where in the world you are.
The issue seems to be dynamics rather than specifics. My understanding for 20 years or so was that global warming would bring more violent weather, rather than more consistently bad weather.
Also, with respect to the warming is good for life argument, the Earth has most certainly been warmer, and likely more violent weather-wise. Our distinct problem is that we have virtually eliminated the possibility of more life spawning by killing its potential habitat and introducing toxic waste of various forms.
I wrote an article 15 years or so ago arguing that global warming wasn't the biggest issue, but rather that desertification and the elimination of biodiversity was. Whether we can live in a world without a functional ecology is going to be something we quickly find out. If it's warmer doesn't really matter, unless you are in a stressed area. My opinion is that a lot of people are going to perish, but as usual YMMV. As if they already are not perishing! It may simply be more permanent for many regions.
Predicting those regions is like predicting the weather!
Spoken like a well-indoctrinated true believer.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Whoever believe the oil industry bullshit about the benefit of global warming are big morons or idiots smoking glue or crack.
If indead the flues due to the cold are less common this doesn't change the fact that humans don't turn into fishes overnight. With ice caps melting large portions of the planet will be under water.
Most of Quebec and Ontario north is packed with lakes. The lakes will be larger. The great lake region will have more flooding Michigan and Illinois are likely to get very small with the lakes increasing in size. The whole area from Acadie to Detroit is likely to be under water, the area around the St Lawrence river and the great lakes. New York and Chicago are also likely to be under water.
In Asia several countries are likely to go under water.
and repeat after me:
We all like global warming,
The hotter sun is habit forming.
Fossil fuels we need to burn,
There is no worry or concern.
Just get the publisher those slanted papers,
To confuse the issues of oil capers.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
#1: who benefits? those in northerly latitiudes
#2: ???
(censored contents... #2: canada has a lot of oil shale)
#3: BLAME CANADA! no wait, INVADE CANADA!
you dirty canucks can have my palm trees after i finish napalming them
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
250-300 feet is downtown. We're still in the piedmont of the state so the elevation deltas city wide are actually further apart than that. My own home is around 350-360 feet above sea level (GPS isn't much more precise than that). A large parcel of unimproved land that I own nearby is over 600 feet above sea level on average with about a 25 foot variation.
That graph clearly shows CO2 lagging temperature. Thank you for supporting me in so clear a fashion.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
In the heat it really comes down to hydration. You can (and I have) worked outside in 110 degree heat all day. You just make sure to consume a lot of water. I much prefer staying in doors where it's air conditioned, but you can do the outdoor thing if it comes to it, even strenuous labour.
can global warming make life on Mars better?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Our local public television network produced a special episode of Exploring North Carolina that dealt specifically with what global warming will mean for my state. The waters will rise up through the Neuse basin, but will not consume Raleigh by any stretch.
Honestly, we all know life will go on. It's only the most radical who predict the end of life as we know it as a result of global warming. That, however, is totally beside the point.
I'm already hating the ninety degree weather as summer picks up. I don't see why we have to ruin places like Canada by melting them...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
For 90 percent of the world's population, global warming, and the connected rising acidity of the seas is an unmitigated disaster, especially for the 40 percent that live in the low elevation coastal areas.
For the 10 percent of the world living in cold mountainous regions in upper temperate zones, where they have sufficient water and will have more arable land, it's great, although the changes in growing seasons and plant and animal life suited for those regions will cause massive change, it's better.
Only someone who thinks only about themselves would regard global warming as a plus.
Please note: I have spent most of my life in the areas that will benefit from these changes, and even I think the disruption effect will be far worse than any beneficial rewards of global warming. Most of the people promoting this are just GW naysayers who don't want to have to deal with the real costs of reality in the 22nd Century.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Oh right, and also, where did I say they failed to correlate? Oh, right: I didn't.You should look up the phrase "weasel words." All of what, exactly? Do you believe you see me saying the ice core samples are wrong? Because I never said that. All I said was that parent was likely jumping to conclusions based on a poor understanding of the data the ice cores gave.
You seem to have turned that, in your mind, into something else entirely.
Would you mind citing *your* source to support your claims?I've cited several, and if you'd bother to follow any of the links I'd given, you'd have watched a documentary that showed similar data. I realize you think it's cute to catch someone asking others to support their data and say "no u," but maybe you should check and find out whether they did before accusing them of not having done so.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
This is a temporary shortcoming.
Who cares if trucks can't get through when soon cargo ships, holding hundreds of truckloads of goods at a time, will be able to navigate their way through to currently interior arctic ports (and beyond)?
And where, kind sir, are your references?
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Either you're from a blue state or you're from a land that doesn't recognize the natural right to keep and bear arms.
My home would be one of the most foolish homes to try and loot. Hanging a few dead looters from my mighty oak trees out front should be a good way to stave off future attempts.
Denial: What global warming?
:-)
Anger: This could actually be good for us damnit! (where we are now)
Bargaining: Please Mrs. Nature, don't kill us all! We'll give you a toupee for the ozone hole!
Depression: This is so unfair! (while wiping sweat from underarms with paper towel)
Acceptance: People wander the streets naked to escape the heat.
Call me when we get to step five
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Maybe "interesting" in how he's avoided all the information that's available on the subject that he dismisses as being not available.
t alk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
For example: temperature data extracted from glacial samples date back 600,000 years. That's enough of a "lifetime" for me. We've exceeded all temperature spikes demonstrated by those samples, and drastically exceeded the average temperature that you're interested in.
I know it's asking a lot to have informed opinions in postings to Slashdot, but Global Climate Change is one of the more well documented issues around.
Please read up all the nice things this person has compiled here:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-
"warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu" Last time I checked the death rate from being born is 100%. So while there may be 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses, there will be 40,000 more deaths attributable to something else.
I have always heard the same thing, FWIW. That "catching cold" wasn't actually caused by being physiologically cold, but occurred more often in the winter because people tend to be inside, packed together, with the houses/buildings all sealed up, basically creating little petri dishes for bacteria to thrive in.
I can imagine that if you were really cold, for a long time -- like, hypothermic -- that perhaps this would weaken your body's immune system to the point where you would become more susceptible to disease. However, I really don't think that there's much credence to the old adages about "putting your hat on so you don't catch cold!"
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Lots of women in bikinis but the island of Bikini will be gone.
In fact, just the other day there was a forum discussing how to handle all the refugees from islands that won't be around when the ocean level goes up a few meters.
http://news.bahai.org/story/530
The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%), I find it so cool that a CO2 Percentage of .01%-.1% can have such an effect. It seems H20 or "water"(for the non scientist) is the biggest contributer to Global Warming at a hefty 7% or ~70x that of CO2.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
Hans von Storch is characterized as level headed in the article. He has been involved in a few cortroversies in climate science, but what I like best is that he founded the Donald Duck Club to defend the drake against accusations of indecent behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch.s -selling-solar.html
--
End global warming! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
...and Lake Michigan is 579 feet above sea level (this means that the majority of the state of Michigan is even higher in altitude). No predictions, regardless of how absurd, ever mentioned the oceans rising by that much.
And no, melting ice caps will not make the Great Lakes flood. If anything, global warming is more likely to make them continue shrinking in size.
A virus (or more accurately a family of viruses) cause the flu.
Temperature is not the cause.
Of course there would be fewer deaths from exposure and Jack London's books would be less compelling.
At least 35,000[11] and as many as 50,000[12] people died from the 2003 European heat wave.
a ve#Total_dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_w
Article does acknowledge:
Meanwhile, the Kiel Institute for World Economics warns that higher temperatures could mean thousands of heat-related deaths every year. But the extrapolations that lead to this dire prediction are based on the mortality rate in the unusually hot summer of 2003, for which Germans were wholly unprepared. But if hot summer days do become the norm, people will simply adjust by taking siestas and installing air-conditioning.
Invest in A/C and siestas now!
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
Mighty Taco is looking for some managers.
Email your resume to Guy@MightyTaco.com Or Send it to: Mighty Taco, Attn: Guy 9362 Transit Road East Amherst, NY 14051
"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton
Mutually corroborating data makes for a convincing argument. When multiple investigative conclusions all point to the same thing, it's hard to say the conclusion should be dismissed based in inaccuracy. The ice core itself may or may not be accurate enough (what is enough?) But when considered along with everything else, it is spot on. Suppose we indulge you for a moment. 10 years? The industrial revolution has been going on a lot longer than that. Even with a margin of 10 years, the general trend is *not* due to statistical sampling or measurement errors. The "source" that you cite is nothing more than the polished product of a video production outfit. Professionally speaking, they're no different from "alien autopsy", "moon landing hoax", and other similar embarrassments. Real data, like the type that comes from peer reviewed journals, you seem to be unwilling to produce at the moment. Go ahead - we'll wait.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Yes, tomatoes in their native setting are perennial as well we day-neutral, so you could accomplish that with a greenhouse and leave the rest of us out of it.
"I'm sure we'll find a way to thrive through this."
Yeah, it's gonna get pretty crowded in Saskatchewan.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Why do a lot of people equate 'warmer weather' with 'better weather'?
If you can't stand the cold, get out of the refrigerator and move to a warmer climate. Don't 'pray' that global warming will make things nicer for you.
There are those of us who like cooler weather and have moved hundreds of miles to get out of the heat of the 'kitchen'.
Are you insane? You're trying to counterbalance the fact that hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, entire huge landmasses will be submerged, hundreds of species will die, and that your children won't be able to be uncovered outside for more than a few minutes without sustaining a severe sunburn
with...
the fact that your tomatoes will grow year round???
Your arrogance is astounding. If the cycle were natural then so be it. I have no firm opinions as to what the cause of Global Warming truly is, it's all political bullshit as far as I'm concerned. What amazes me about your statement is your inability to see the difference between made-made GW and natural GW. If we're responsible, we owe it to the Inuit (for example) and the other species that will suffer to be proactive and do something about it.
Your self-centered attitude is due to your current locale. It's not going to affect you, so why the fuck should you care? Prick.
Disclaimer: I have a PhD in meteorology. While paleoclimatology and climate change are not my research areas, I am fascinated by climate change and try to keep up on the research.
I naively thought once the IPCC report came out these types of "debates" about climate change would end. I was wrong. If anything, the naysayers are louder than ever.
I have read the Summary for Policymakers (and actually used it as a teaching tool in my numerical weather prediction undergraduate class). Have you? It's written at a relatively non-scientific level (hey, it's for politicians after all) but is very, very clear.
The results of this international (intergovernmental) exhaustive literature review? Humans are very likely (90%) responsible for the bulk of observed global warming.
That's it. Plain and simple.
Yet, no other topic in the world brings out the armchair scientists more than global warming. It's a frustrating phenomenon for me as a scientist. It's sort of like being an oncologist dealing with a chronic smoker who blames his lung cancer on some genetic anomaly, or living 50 miles away from a nuclear power plant, rather than the bloody obvious fact that smoking two packs of cigarettes for 40 years just might have something to do with the cancer.
This is science, not faith. Just about every climate change doubter starts his sentence with "I don't believe humans cause global warming because..." or "I don't believe in global warming." This clearly demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of the scientific process. Belief has nothing to do with it. It's about physics, meteorology, climatology, astronomy, biology, oceanography, chemistry etc., all of which rely on the peer-reviewed scientific process to further our understanding of the physical world.
I challenge any of the naysayers to do a little research of their own, not simply rely on cherry picking viewpoints which align with their own. It's sort of like a game, holding up their "most credible scientist" as a shield, challenging me to do the same. Never mind the fact that my "army" of scientists is about three orders of magnitude greater than their own... but I digress...
The very least anyone should do before arguing against... or for... anthropogenic climate change is to pick up an undergraduate meteorology textbook and opening up to (usually) chapter 3, the chapter on heat transfer. The section on radiation is the most crucial one. Read about blackbody radiation. The solar spectrum and the terrestrial spectrum are a function of their temperatures. Because the Earth is much colder than than the sun, it emits in the infrared (longer wavelength than visible light etc. from the sun).
Then read about greenhouse gases, those by-and-large trace gases which exist in our atmosphere. Understand how they respond to longwave and shortwave radiation. A little light bulb should eventually go on over your head when you realize "oh, so *that's* why the Earth is habitable." You see, without these trace gases (CO2, H20, CH4) the earth would be in a deep freeze - estimated at about 50 degrees F colder global average temperature.
Once you make it that far, you're almost there. Realize that humans are responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2 levels from preindustrial levels of 280 ppm to a modern day value of 380 ppm, an increase of over 30%. It takes very little stretch to realize that this would lead to a shift in the radiative equilibrium temperature of the earth (related to the global average temperature).
You see, this is really easy science. There is NO REASON TO ASSUME that CO2 values increasing the way they have would NOT lead to an increase in global average temperature!! This is exactly what we'd expect! And this doesn't even involve the scary discussion of feedbacks (water vapor feedback, snow/ice albedo feedback) which may accelerate the warming.
And that's just the back of the envelope part. Yes, there are still unknowns. Not, it's not the sun (we've checked into that if you can believe it). No, it's n
A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
I had with a friend who is a *very* fundamentalist Christian who believes in the Rapture. A time when all the "good" Christians (opposed to what?) get taken up to heaven for a thousand years. It went something like this:
Him: And then there will be plagues.
Me: What kind of plagues?
Him: The earth will get hot.
Me: Let me get this straight...all you right wing Christians will be gone and the rest of us can live our lives in peace without your religious dogma and misguided legislative agenda and it will be endless summer here? What's the bad part again?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
...when you said "Further, global warming, whether true or not" - The planet is heating up, its a fact. Getting more water? Baah.
Scientists say it has become increasingly clear that worldwide precipitation is shifting away from the equator and toward the poles. That will nourish crops in warming regions like Canada and Siberia while parching countries -- like Malawi in sub-Saharan Africa -- which are already prone to drought
New York Times:
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
People in this thread keep mentioning the spread of malaria due to a warmer world. For those who don't know: malaria was common in the US and Europe up until just this century. Mosquito control has stopped it.
Your design to a real part online: Big Blue Saw
I heard that same report on BBC news feeds about the hydroelectric power giving off methane. That had to be one of the most blatantly ignorant theories I have ever heard on the news. EVERYTHING on earth is cyclical, including carbon going in and out of a reservior. The way that guy was talking, he was making it sound like carbon was magically appearing out of the ether of the universe destroying the planet. Lucky for us he is wrong, carbon flows in carbon flows out just like the rest of the planet.. In the end the net carbon gain and loss for a region has to equal one another whether sequestered or not. Basically the carbon flowing out (if constant) must equal the carbon flowing in. Reserviors can't magically create carbon. It's amazing what garbage makes it into the news.
Your attitude is fairly typical, but contains a very troubling assumption -- namely that if the global warming phenomenon currently ongoing is not anthropogenic, that somehow we don't need to worry about it.
I think this is completely false, and quite dangerous. Furthermore, I think that the debate over what has caused global warming, has really just become a distraction to the real issue, which is quite simply "what the hell are we going to do about it?"
It doesn't really matter whether the cause of the warming is anthropogenic or not; unless you're going to debate that the planet is not getting warmer -- and it doesn't seem like you are -- we still have a serious problem on our hands. It's a little academic to most people whether it's caused by power production, or automobiles, or cow farts, or energy fluctuations in the Sun, or a lack of pirates.
Telling people in Bangladesh who are up to their knees in seawater that "hey, we're just coming out of a geological cold phase!" isn't particularly useful. Or when the power grid and water supplies in the whole Eastern half of the U.S. fail because the average summer temperature is up in the mid-to-high 90s (or higher), saying "it was a lot worse a few million years ago" isn't getting us any closer to a solution.
The causes of the warming phenomenon are only interesting insofar as they give us possible solutions for dealing with the problem -- because it's not CO2 that's the problem, it's the warming that's the problem. If you don't think it's anthropogenic CO2 that's the cause of the warming, fine, but that doesn't mean that the actual problem just goes away because we didn't cause it, which seems to be the attitude taken by many of the anti-anthropogenic-global-warming side. We still have to deal with the same consequences even if the cause isn't anthropogenic. (And if it's not anthropogenic, then we're probably screwed even further, because it's probably a lot more difficult to reverse the process.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Biomatter that was fixed into the groung for millions of years will be release in to the atmosphere. That carbon is once again apart of the life cycle which means that there will be a bloom plant species will send nutrients right up the food chain. That may cause an explosion of species that both good and bad.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Spoken like a true self-centred denier.
I will potentially be able to grow stuff in my garden that won't grow there today. My tomatoes may become perennials as they are in their native habitat. And I could do with some citrus trees in my yard.
Yeah, but all the refugies who are setting up camp in your yard will be a bother - when millions start fleeing the desserts and run over the borders. There is a limit to how many people the guards can gun down at once.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
...the result of inaccurate simulations made in the 1980s...
...fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu....
The notion that cold temperatures cause influenza and the common cold also went out in the 80's. Wakey Wakey! It's bacteria and viri!! And if I remember my biology 101 correctly, the little beasties don't much care for sub-zero temperatures.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
I blame George W. Bush ... Oh, wait, it's a good thing ... I thank our new Democrat Congress!
[Insert pithy quote here]
it didn't require a serious reponse
if you want to get serious though, most americans don't even know or care about canada
you're just americans living on unincorporated land. too cold, not worth it
the southeastern usa has more unique cultural signifiers than canadians do, in terms of cultural identity as being distinct from the average american
molson and hockey don't make a country, eh?
sorry, but what you apparently seek the most: respect, or even recognition, is forever beyond you. because what "you" are doesn't even really exist
you're just american, and you don't even know it
someone wiser than me said it best: the us canadian border is a one way mirror. canadians look south and see everything they are not. americans look north and see themselves
so, if cultural pride is really that important to you, open an ice cold molson
it's all you got going for you as something distinct and uniquely canadian
all of your actors and athletes come here (and have no adjustment phase: they are peceived as, and get along perfectly well, as if they were always us citizens)... 90% of you live within in 100 miles of the border... what the hell is canada? nothing distinct as far as i can tell, you're surrounded on 2 sides by us, and the rest: ocean
well the quebeckers ARE distinct... but they want to break away from you! they don't like you! your "countrymen" pffft. what is that for a canadian? and i heard if the quebeckers did break free, alberta actually wants to join the usa! or even the maritimes. sorry, but anglophone canada is a f***ing joke
who knows if we'd take alberta though... again, too cold, not worth it
enjoy your wasteland, unincorporated american
sorry, but in the immortal words of rodney dangerfield (american comedian, i know you know who he is, because we exist in the same culture): "i don't get no respect"
canada: the rodney dangerfield of (nonexistent) countries
xoxoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Desertification? Don't you mean Dessertification??
Life sure would be better when tropical fruits abound!
Oh, life is sweet on the beach.
Sometimes, you can, you go to hell for the rest of your life! That's a true thing.
And increased deaths due to:
Warmer weather is not necessarily a panacea.
Another widespread fear about global warming -- that it will cause super-storms that could devastate towns and villages with unprecedented fury -- also appears to be unfounded. Current long-term simulations, at any rate, do not suggest that such a trend will in fact materialize.'"
I don't buy that. Increased heat, means increased kinetic energy in the air, which means more movement. Storms won't necessarily increase in magnitude everywhere, but they will increase in magnitude somewhere.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
This guy is a layman, huh? Or the journalists who write ALL of the articles?
People who complain in knee jerk fashion without reading TFA set off my bullshit alarm. Can't touch the argument, attack the credibility of the researcher - standard procedure.
Truth is, you wish the opposition to your viewpoint would stfu, otherwise you would have had nothing to say. It's not ignorance, its another valid point of view on the phenomenon of climate change - and in the vast sea of apocalyptic points of view being spat at the entire world on a daily basis, I find it a refreshingly more level headed one.
From the wikipedia:
The clathrate gun hypothesis states that as sea temperatures rise the sudden release of methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in the seabeds will cause a drastic alteration of the ocean enviornment and the atmosphere of earth, as recent analysis concerning the Permian extinction event indicates may have happened in the past.
The Permian-Triassic extinction event, labeled "End P" here, is the most significant extinction event in this plot for marine genera which produce large numbers of fossils.Contents
Mechanism
Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, is a form of water ice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure. Extremely large deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of the Earth. The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits in a runaway greenhouse effect could be a cause of past and future climate changes. The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this might increase the global temperature by an additional 5 in itself, as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (despite its atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, it has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 23 over 100 years). The theory also predicts this will greatly affect available oxygen content of the atmosphere.
Recent findings
In 2002, a BBC2 'Horizon' documentary, 'The Day the Earth Nearly Died,' summarized some recent findings and speculation concerning the Permian extinction event. Paul Wignall examined Permian strata in Greenland, where the rock layers devoid of marine life are tens of meters thick. With such an expanded scale, he could judge the timing of deposition more accurately and ascertained that the entire extinction lasted merely 80,000 years and showed three distinctive phases in the plant and animal fossils they contained. The extinction appeared to kill land and marine life selectively at different times. Two periods of extinctions of terrestrial life were separated by a brief, sharp, almost total extinction of marine life. Such a process seemed too long, however, to be accounted for by a meteorite strike. His best clue was the carbon isotope balance in the rock, which showed an increase in carbon-12 over time. The standard explanation for such a spike - rotting vegetation - seemed insufficient.
Geologist Gerry Dickens suggested that the increased carbon-12 could have been rapidly released by up-swellings of frozen methane hydrate from the seabed. Experiments to assess how large a rise in deep sea temperature would be required to sublimate solid methane hydrate suggested that a rise of 5C (10 F) would be sufficient.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Whenever I hear people taking about alternative causes of global warming I sometimes wonder how many people realize that there can be multiple actions contributing to a trend.
Sunspots and cosmic rays may contribute X percent to what I would term 'global energy gain'. Human generated greenhouse gases may contribute Y percent. Urbanization, with the loss of greenery AND the increase in asphalt, may contribute Z percent. An unusually active year of volcanic eruptions may contribute a higher percent one year as opposed to another. Other factors, known and unknown, may contribute other percentages.
No matter which side of the debate you are on, if you ignore the possibility that there may be multiple causes for 'global energy gain' then you are not approaching the problem correctly. Saying that 'global energy gain' is hype because of non-human generated causes is just as bad as saying that 'global energy gain' is strictly a human problem.
There's a lot more to "warming" than more sunny skies. Heat evaporates water.
The most simple definition of "weather" is water in the air. The weather is all about water in the air. The force and fury of storms comes from differences in temperature and water in the air. If you have even paid a LITTLE attention to the news during hurricane season, you would have learned that the forces that power a hurricane are differences in temperature and the temperature of the water. (That's why hurricane season is during the months that they are and not during the winter season.)
A global climate change will kill many species and cause others to flourish. This will create an unpredictable change in the global eco-system. We don't have the knowledge or computational power to take into account ALL known factors (let alone all unknown factors) to form a prediction. But one thing is pretty certain when it comes to global events like these. A lot of life is lost and it takes millions upon millions of years to bring the planet back to the level that we know it to be today. We won't see what happens. Our kids... our great great grandchildren will not see what happens. Humans may well be extinct when it happens and not necessarily for reasons we bring on ourselves. (In the grand scheme of things, very few species last THAT long, but given that we have effectively halted human evolution, it's quite possible we'll survive.)
But back to the possibility that global warming might HELP the planet? No way... it will destroy anything close to the oceans, and areas identified as "tornado alley" such as an area close to where I live, will see expansion and intensification of those danger zones.
Again: more heat, more water in the air, more intensely violent weather.
I'm not a climate expert, but I stayed a weekend at some hotel that somehow makes you really smart.
Ok, lets indulge our over-inflated homo-sapien egos here and imagine we are the main cause of global warming. We have destroyed large portions of the planet and caused mass extinctions for the sake of technology and progress only to find out that we are all going to die in a horrible drought....okay, whatever My question is: How is that a bad thing for the planet? Obviously people imagine that a couple extra degrees are going to effectively end civilization and kill off many billions of people. You know what? Problem solved!! We are doing the planet a favor by killing ourselves. We are incapable of equilibrating our own population so it makes sense that we have to be purged every now and then right? I know we have all thought it... I just felt like being captain obvious. You can thank me later
You're right I didn't get that from your post, but, that isn't the point your post appears to make.
However, the melting glacial ice has volume that correlates directly to rising ocean levels. Rising ocean levels correlates directly to displaced populations.
Warmer earth includes warmer oceans. Warmer oceans mean stronger, more frequent tropical storms. I imagine you're also familiar with the meteorological phenomenon known as El Nino and La Nina. These terms describe the effects on weather caused by variations of surface water temperatures in the Pacific. The changes caused are observable, predictable and bad. Changes include flooding in areas unused to flooding, causing landslides, and drought in areas unused to drought, causing wildfires and failed crops. El Nino is not related to Global Warming. However, Global warming by definition will create surface water conditions similar to El Nino in more places around the globe.
So again, you're right, change isn't bad. However, too much change too fast can be bad. In this case, our change seems to indicate bad consequences.
The source is obviously paid by Big Oil (ad hominem) The scientific community has reached consensus on the matter (appeal to belief, bandwagon) Al Gore says the worst will happen (appeal to authority) Only an idiot wouldn't believe its true (ridicule) If we don't do something now we'll all be dead (appeal to fear) Its the responsibility of the denyers to prove that the worst won't happen (burden of proof) Either warming isn't happening, or its man's fault; its getting a bit warm therefore we did it (false argument) Come on! Add your own logical fallacies! Its fun!
You're doing it wrong--http://youredoingitwrong.mee.nu
I think we can find plenty of papers that are peer reviewed but ended up to be wrong. When I am in an optimistic mood, I think that peer reviews means that the results are not out-right wrong (but which was not right either). When I am in a cynical mood, I think that peer reviews means that they review the peers rather than the work done in the paper.
The fact that the debate keeps renaming itself from global warming to climate change underscores the fact that the concept itself is ambiguous. Ice caps and glaciers have been melting since the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. What caused that ice to stop and the massive ice sheet created, to melt and recede? I expect the naturally occuring cycles in the planet's geology and meteorology. Never in the angst and handwringing about this misunderstood thing, does anyone really address the affect of the sun. A several thousand degree thermonuclear reaction in space itself capable of cycles and fluctuations with solar flares, sun spots and other variations in that star's weather. And we're about a half degree rise in tempurature ? Indeed Mars's ice caps melt and freeze with some regularity. So, what is the crisis ? I expect man's inability to adapt to his surroundings is the real crisis. That thousands of people, living in a city between a lake and river, seven feet below see level, in a hurricane zone, with four days warnings of a severe hurricane and did nothing but wait, proves this. Perhaps nature was only trying to cull the human herd ? If there is a sane solution, it will come from the market place and not a bunch of politicians bent on spending billions of dollars not their own to make people feel bad becasue they live a comfortable lifestyle. This is the crisis as the ne'er-do-wells who run the government, being lobbied by the equally wealthy "environmental" lobby see taxpayers as a rich source of money and this contrivance of a crisis as way to influence, or coerce,the way people behave and act.
If you sincerely believe that your home will be submerged by an inevitable global warming catastrophe, then you'd have to be a pretty big jerk to insist on living in it anyway, and then invading somebody else's home once yours becomes unlivable.
The responsible thing to do would be to move out of your home now, while there's still time, and take the necessary steps to provide for yourself now, before your own laziness inconveniences others.
The humanitarian thing to do, instead of threatening high-grounders with home invasion, would be to move out of your low-ground home now, and work to set up a refugee center on high ground through legal means, so that your farsightedness and sincere concern for the future of mankind can bear fruit for the greatest number of unfortunates.
However, given your threats and disrespect for those who have already invested in high-ground homes, I conclude that you're just a jerk who doesn't really care about anything except making other people pay for your mistakes.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
All very nice when you only consider the good side of things. One of the main drives of the 'global warming' movement is an attempt to lessen the amount of pollution we are putting into the atmosphere and therefore into ourselves and our food supply. Another thing no one here seems to have considered is the Salination levels of the Oceans drastically changing and what that means to ocean currents and life.
"warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu."
I'd rather catch flu than get malaria.
Counterquestion: Does increasing heat and decreasing precipitation make life better in Africa or Australia?
I think the data on both sides of the global warming argument is the exact same: The world is warming up, and prior cases where the world has warmed up there has been an increase in CO2. I don't think these observations are disputed.
What seems to be disputed is what the data actually means. Global-warming activists seem to say that human output of CO2 is causing global warming. Global-warming skeptics seem to say that high CO2 levels are correlated with global warming (and in fact, that CO2 levels rise because of global warming).
I've discussed the data and the theories with a number of people. It's useful to remember that global warming caused by CO2 is just a theory, based on two observations: First, the world is warming up. Second: observations of prior world temperature changes commensurate with observations of CO2 levels, and notably higher CO2 with higher temperatures. There is some evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, however there are much stronger greenhouse gases (i.e. methane) which we now produce at industrial levels.
A theory upon which we found our social, political and economic principles must be subject to the strictest of scrutiny, and yet the evidence for it is not sound. There are a huge number of scientists who are rightly skeptical of this, and their voice is being silenced (just as is the original post in this thread!). However there are a small number of politically interested advocates of this theory, and based upon this hypothetical they intend to change world economic dynamics by marketing this theory to the masses.
The consequences are numerous. First, we may not address the actual problem that is causing global warming. Second, we may cause huge social and economic consequences for no benefit. Third, if there is no benefit, any future notion of relying upon "scientific evidence" may be viewed skeptically by the masses.
It is the third notion about which I have the most concern. If the CO2-causing-global-warming theory is incorrect, and it is espoused as a "scientific truth", then the massive public failure in this case may undermine confidence in future "scientific truths" that may actually have merit.
That being said, I acknowledge that it is plausible that global warming is caused by CO2. What I am concerned about is that the science has been poorly done, that the voices of consensus are few and loud, that the voices of criticism are silenced, that the truth may as a result be lost, and that the public confidence in scientific truth may be undermined.
Yes, the historical data clearly shows that CO2 concentration lags temperature data by 700 to 1000 years. So, in about 2700 we are going to experience additional CO2 raise due to the current temperature rise.
But the data also shows quite clearly that there is a positive feedback there -- CO2 concentration does influence temperature as well. So the rise in CO2 due to human activity is bound to influence rise in the global temperatures NOW.
Some might suggest your position is unethical.
If you would benefit from warmer weather or being closer to the beach, move to San Diego. That's a voluntary choice you can make which improves your local climate — by changing localities — and affects no one else. Your proposed alternative is to change everybody's climate and force many of those who like their local climate to move involuntarily just because you don't like your climate.
the discussion of global climate change always reminds me of a terminal patient going through the six stages of death:
d eath.html
http://www.cusd.claremont.edu/safe/epp/stages_of_
we've been through denial and anger and now it seems bargaining has set in.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
dual citizen of the usa and what? japan? mexico? japan and mexico are countries with a distinctive culture. you can easily tell what japanese culture is, or mexican culture
i know you are a citizen of the usa, but what is this other country you speak of? i don't know what you could be referring to
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm not even going into the other effects described in the fourth 5-yearly IPCC climate change report.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
... and conservatives.
The conservative says 'We really don't understand what's going on here, so we probably shouldn't be messing around with the system.' The liberal says 'don't worry, we'll be able to fix it if it breaks.'
Which are you?
This article, while written to be more sensational than factual does manage to touch a few important points: The earth is getting warmer. This is inarguably true, anybody who says otherwise is lying or a politician, but warming has been occurring more or less for over 10,000 years. If it were up to Al Gore, he would be telling us how he personally pushed all the glaciers, and all the ice back to the poles and saved humanity. The rates of warming and sea level rising are nothing compared with what were seen near the end of the last ice age. The second point is that anthropogenic green house gases (read CO2) are part of global warming. When a scientist uses the word significant, that rarely means "major". More often it means that the results were able to be detected by current methods. Our atmosphere is very poor in CO2, with a concentration of approximately 0.038%. There is more of the gas Argon in our atmosphere than CO2. When concentrations are that low it does not take a lot to make a measurable change.
... " meaning we have had storms as bad as that before ( the most violent hurricane recorded happened during the American Revolutionary War, can really blame that one on human effects on global warming). I think Mother Earth is a much tougher woman than we give her credit for.
Now from elementary school you probably remember that plants breath in CO2 and through photosynthesis make stuff that the plant can use. Since the atmosphere has only 0.038% CO2 plants are generally suffocating from a lack of CO2. If we look at the history of the earth the most productive plant growth ages had atmospheric CO2 concentration significantly higher than present levels. Very small increases of CO2 make plants more drought resistant (they don't have to breath as much so they lose less water), more productive, and able to grow in a wider range (think of CO2 as plant fertilizer). Many aquarium owners spend lots of money on complex CO2 injection systems to make their water plants grow better. An excellent documentary on this phenomenon is called "The Greening of Planet Earth", it was black listed during the Clinton years so it is hard to find in most libraries. You will probably have to ILL it.
As for sea level rises, super storms etc. Sea levels rise and fall often much faster than they do now, it is always "the worst storm since
In the immortal words of Eric Cartman: "Weeeeeeeeeak!"
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Global warming may be happening and it may not be. Who can say with any absolute certainty that global warming is really happening? Who can say with any certainty that global warming will lead to abrupt climate changes? As Michael Crichton points out, all we have are computer models and theories. A computer model is just that, a prediction that is quite error prone. I think rather than being concerned about global warming, we should be actively conserving our natural resources and engage in environmentally friendly practices. It is my belief that money, time, and energy are better spent in actively reducing air, ground, and water pollution than throwing money into global warming research. Also, conservation of our forests and open spaces should be paramount. I think we can say only one thing with certainty: we are polluting our air and water. Let's deal with the immediate problems that are within our power to solve.
Superman did not thwart Lex Luthor's plans, he only delayed them a bit...
You've got your labels on backwards.
Were that I say, pancakes?
Log in. I'm getting tired of dealing with your anonymous trolling. Have the balls to have a name.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
People talk about Global Warming as if it's going to end the world. The world will go on with or without humanity. Our big problems are overpopulation and that we build most of our cities near the oceans.
Someplace like Chicago, though, will have a great time of this. Mild winters, year-round growing season, and no flooding to worry about. Someplace like New York? Well, nobody said building a city at sea level was terribly bright...
Just about every story is about how the world is ending, mostly because of man-made global warming.
I really don't know what to believe when it comes to global warming, but it does come across right now as a fad to the point where I doubt the legitimacy of the claims. In my experience, serious problems go neglected while politician drone on about the inconsequential stuff. But who knows, this could be a first. It also seems like there are far more important environmental issues that are being brushed aside as a consequence.
I hear what you say about British media. I know they live on a island and all, but they seem completely obsessed with it over there to the point of hysteria. It's working out well for a physicist friend of mine who claims to have developed a free energy technique. Some British billionaire is flying him around all over Europe, wanting to fund him. I suppose if the claim is real, then some good will have come out of the hysteria after all.
How can this be? Didn't you see Al's movie? He told me that strong hurricanes ARE the result of global wraming. And when he talked about all the people that are going to die of tropical diseases, he didn't say anything about people NOT dying from the cold. Are you saying that Al's wrong? He won an academy award, you know - how can he be wrong?
/. got in at least one climate change article this week. I can't wait to see how many we'll have next week!
Anyway, I'm glad to see that
Even if it turns out that the earth's warming is a natural cycle, does it make sense to exasperate the problem by dumping additional greenhouse gases?
To me it is akin to leaving the oven on in your house on a hot summer day. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
I agree. That's why when I see the ice record disagreeing with CO2-driven warming, the CO2 sedimentation record disagreeing, weather balloons disagreeing, the atmospheric temperature gradient disagreeing, oceanic outgassing measurements disagreeing, the CO2/temperature correlation disagreeing and basic common sense disagreeing, I start thinking it's hard to say that the conclusion that global warming is driven by this vanishingly rare industrial gas whose primary output is a system that has been in place throughout the entire life of the planet is incorrect can be argued.
Yes, they all agree that CO2-driven global warming is a fundamental impossibility. This is why it is looked down upon to make broad statements like "with everything else" - you should be giving a list, so that you can realize that you're not actually on nearly as solid ground as you believe that you are.
I'd prefer to indulge in the six hundred million years of data provided by the things you're carefully ignoring, but okay.
Luckily, I never said that it was. I was too busy focussing on realistic data that predates animal life, rather than on measurements that go back almost as far as a middle aged man.
I'll be careful to raise my child to be humiliated when they say "your claim X isn't true," only to realize that the person never actually claimed X. That should prevent them from behaving as you do.
By the way, I don't like the way you associated global warming with the wholesale rape of baby seals. (It's not much better when the lies are on topic, either. Funny how what you claim I said isn't actually coming out of my posts.)
What I've never understood is how someone can pretend someone else has only one source, attack that source based on something that isn't a useful observation, and then walk away as anything other than ashamed of themselves.
So, if you ignore everything else I said, and rely only on a professionally edited documentary by a neutral organization featuring dozens of professional climatologists, data which nobody has claimed is false and observations that nobody has claimed to have specific fault with, this is, what, supposed to be inferior to your well thought out opinion or something?
Or did you just miss the half dozen places where I said I was able to read the models, and was doing so at that time? Or the links, the references to work, et cetera?
Reductionism is tiresome. Don't attack 10% of my sources on validity and then claim there are no others. By the way, I don't see you citing a damn thing, which is a hell of a lot less authoratative than the thing you're currently whining about. Indeed, the only things anyone seem to be citing are Wikipedia, bastion of popular belief, and random people's personal web pages. Wow! The Nobody Ever Heard Of It Institute! I'm impressed!
When you can read one of these models, or even argue without putting lies in other people's mouths, lemme know, and I'll take you a little more seriously.
It doesn't actually much surprise me that you ca
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Right now there are forests that do not have to worry about termites, as it still gets cold enough in the winter to kill those insects.
What happens to those forests once the coldest winter temperatures are _not_ enough to kill them? The lumber industry of the American northwest would be jeopardized. Currently we need renewable lumber for housing, paper, and such.
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
I would make the argument that significant change in an ecosystem will usually be bad for the dominant species that have adapted to live in that ecosystem. Change can of course give opportunities to other species that have struggled to live in an ecosystem. The obvious examples are the past mass extinctions, especially the one that gave rise to the dinosaurs, as well as the one that destroyed the dinosaurs and gave rise to mammals.
Significant change destroys. It destroys existing systems. It plays havoc on most species. It creates starvation for species that have grown to need the existing systems that are being swept away. Of course, this allows new species to rise and fill the vacuum. Change is the prime driver of evolution. Evolution works at its fastest when there is mass death and destruction.
And today, we are the dominant species on the Earth. The agricultural systems that we rely on are built on our current climatic conditions. Farms are located in certain places that have the perfect combinations of good soil, and good weather. Too much rain, or too little, or rain at the wrong time can destroy crops. If the rain moves from an area with good soil to an area with bad soil, then this will reduce crop yields, even if our farmers follow the rain. Moving the water by canal or pipeline is an option, but it is expensive (how much did the Panama Canal cost to build?).
I can think of no better an example of the problems of climate change than the Australian drought. Australia has already lost 1% of its GDP due to drought conditions. And without significant rain in the coming weeks, the country faces draconian water restrictions: Brisbane is at stage 5 water restrictions right now, which effectively means flushing the toilet every 7 uses and keeping shower water in a bucket for later use. Agriculture along the Murray Darling River (the main agricultural river system) faces a complete cutoff of irrigation. That means the death of the many grape vines that form the basis for Australia's wine industry.
Here is a map that shows how rainfall patterns have changed. The interior (where no one lives) is receiving more rain. The coasts (where almost everyone lives) are receiving less rain. The rainfall patterns have changed, and the Australians are struggling to adapt to the new conditions.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Would global warming increase the availability of solar energy? My first thought is no, because global warming is just retaining more heat in the atmosphere, and not increasing the amount of energy reaching the earth's surface. Does anyone have a different take on that?
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
I appreciate the supporting voice. Sometimes just hearing the same thing out of two different mouths is enough to convince people to take a second look. The belief some people take in that a lone dissenting voice must be crazy is unfortunate.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
It would be pointless to direct you to any documentation and data. You obviously are emotionally attached to the issue and would discount any data presented.
You call me a liar? Okay I've got a name your you. Oil Industry Shill. I may or may not be true but it's just as valid as you puffed up statements.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Maybe this is flamebait, I don't know but I have to ask: A few people have written humans are adaptive ... how so? Fires have burned down peoples' homes for a long time, they still do. Tornadoes and Hurricanes blow over peoples' homes, floods have wiped out homes (in fact the Earth is 2/3s water but our booming population lives where there is less room, land). I fail to see how we have adapted, we've just rebuilt, sometimes with stronger buildings, but still not strong enough. The most "adaption" I can think of is that people have darker skin where there is stronger sun rays.
So, we're on a thread right now that is in response to an article about the effects of Global Warming. That article is accompanied with a picture of two girls in bikinis. The sub-text the picture creates is, "Don't worry, don't worry, there are good changes coming."
A quote in the article says, "we have to take away people's fear of climate change." Okay, take away the fear. Not a bad idea objectively. But in this situation fear is what's motivating people to change their behaviors so we can moderate the effects of climate change. If the news media takes away people's fear, what motivator will they supply to replace it? See, that's not what they're doing. This is stick your head in the sand, "nothing to worry about" type reporting.
Back to your point. If this article was really about pointing out the possibility of beneficial aspects of global climate change, there would have been more discussion along the lines of, "once we get a handle on all the bad things coming, dealing with refugees, figuring out where and when to plant which crops, etc, then think of the good things there will be to get used to!"
Certainly some people will see milder winters. I'm all for milder winters. Except when it means that less snow accumulates in the Himalayas. Cause then the millions of people who rely on Himalayan snow melt for their drinking water will have to find some place else to live.
I guess they'll be room for them in Siberia. If Russia lets them in...
It is more livable in Argentina than Ecuador. It is more livable in South Africa than Nigeria. It is more livable in Japan than Indonesia.
Expanding the tropical zone cannot be a net plus.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
For the record... Americans usually don't refer to the Enlgish as Britons... I may be wrong, but this might be an English guy with his SUV... just a thought before you universally put down Americans
The DURING & AFTER the last ice age (wherever you actually put it) has arguably seen the greatest rise of humans and their creative efforts ever.
Seas rose approx 50 meters in that time period. Warming of the climate obviously ocurred over that time period on average (or the ice would not have melted).
Arguably we do not have much historical data to show what happens when temperatures go down, what little we do shows millions of people starved each year during the "little ice age" and during heavy volcanism.
So is there really a question at to what is better? Like who wants freezing in July in the upper mid-west again?
"Or did you just miss the half dozen places where I said I was able to read the models, and was doing so at that time? Or the links, the references to work, et cetera?"
I've just managed to browse through the tedium of your entire body of posts in this thread, and I found only two relevant links: the documentary on google video, and the umich.edu page, which you summarily dismissed as supporting your points anyway.
I now officially think that you're batshit fucking crazy, and just forgot to take your meds. I've said it before, I'll say it again - it's nice to know that the opposition to global warming seems to to be comprised almost entirely of paid whores or nutbags off their meds.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
We don't need *more* people on the planet. The lines at movies theaters are already too long.
Seriously, faster population growth is not a good thing.
So why doesn't all the water drain out?
Your kidding right?
Heatwaves...
o ad/ew_heat_wave.en.pdf
1988 5,000 to 10,000 dead in Central and the Eastern U.S.
2003 35,000 dead in Europe (7,000 in Germany).
2006 140 dead in California, 25,000 cattle dead and 700,000 poultry dead due to heat.
And they want it to get hotter?
This also ignores crop related issues. http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/downl
Actually I was just pointing out the absurdity of anticipating a windfall on property investments as a result of such a large and relatively sudden displacement of people. When in the past has there been a peaceful relocation of large amounts of people? Even something as relatively minor as the Katrina storm put a major strain on the surrounding areas. And I wasn't threatening home invasion. Merely pointing out with some sarcasm that it's quite possibly going to be a hell of a lot more chaotic than something a few rifles and a John Wayne attitude will be able to cope with. But good luck cowboy. I'm pretty sure I'll be fed up with this place before then anyway. Time to start spinning that globe.
Well, I'm no geologist or hydrologist, but maybe because Niagra shield, of which Lake Michigan, Huron, and Erie reside, is made of dolomitic limestone, and constricts its drainage over Niagra Falls?
More speculation on my part (afterall, this _is_ Slashdot): The Michigan-Huron basin, although drained primarily through the St. Clair River, and to a much lesser extent the Chicago River, also loses a significant amount of water through evaporation.
I'm not the GP, but some of us can't be arsed to register. We're certainly not going to do it just because you want a name to argue with.
I'm curious as too why they never include the theory that the two poles are changing polarity.
,(meaning several hundreds and thousand years apart) that the polarity has shifted more than once since the beginning.
they have discovered, in volcanoes and such that the rock when it solidifies, that it has a pattern to follow earth,s polarity (iron particles) and they have checked at several depth
That shift did not operate itself over night and they are saying that maybe that we are in that declining period where a polarity switch will occur (maybe in a thousand year) and the effects are that the magnetic field that protect us from the sun's deadly rays will completely slowly disappear leaving scorched earth everywhere except maybe near the equator and when that switch is completed the holes, that we are seeing will completely disappear pollution or no pollution, for sure at that point, they will mostly be no one left alive on earth thus leaving our planet pollution free.
Overall, i think that, even though pollution is creating hell of a lot of problems, that maybe it ain't the sole reason for the greenhouse effects and it maybe an infinite percentage of this pollution affecting earth's atmosphere.
For sure we cant deny that smog over cities are a big factor in raising the temperature and it's due to pollution.
Since your measure of "best" is the ability to produce crops, I'm assuming that you're measuring how useful the land is to man. In this case it is better to use it for office buildings. Maybe this produces some revolution in crop pesticides that then can be used to turn normally crappy fields into high producers.
I've been watching this stuff for a long time, and the part that bothers me the most about this is that we've become so accustomed to giving everyone an equal voice that people become numb to issues. For better or worse, we are starting see intellectual insight and armchair philosophy as equally valuable and perspectives that carry the same weight. While I hate to read comments like Phaedrus' above because it's a position that's ruining our world, I can also empathize with his position. I'm sick of hearing the debate as well, but as long as there are those out there delivering disinformation about climate change, we need to keep up the fight. It's unfortunate. Luckily the corporate world is now onside with climate change. A recent article I read talks about how climate change has become a corporate priority, and describes a "perfect storm" situation where multiple stakeholders are doing the right thing (and not always for the right reasons). To me it's a fascinating development. So while it appears there will always be debate on issues that truly warrant none, there are other issues in the world that may force our hand for the better - even if they are corporate (or greed) driven. There's debate, then there's action - it's interesting to see that the climate's enemy may become it's greatest ally.
I think you mean the newly added states to the expanded United States of America. If you think we'd let Canada stay as they are, think again :)
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
...nuclear radiation was found to be beneficial for certain sports. For example, in the NBA, extra arms may improve ball dribbling and defense; and extra eyes may reduce the chance of somebody sneaking up from behind for a steal. It should be pointed out the extra limbs and eyes in a large percentage of irradiated individuals tend not to fully function. But for those who do have full-functioning extra limbs and organs, the NBA welcomes them with open arms (all 3 of them).
Table-ized A.I.
Just about every argument I've heard about global warming can be summarized by a few talking points:
Liberal talking points
* Because of over a century of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the average temperature in Earth is increasing.
* This has foreseeable negative impacts.
* The scariest impacts are from subtle effects that we can't even predict.
* Models say we are approaching a tipping point where the changes become self-sustaining and self-feeding.
* We can slow or stop this, but we're running out of time, and must act now.
Conservative talking points
* Global warming is not happening. It's a liberal myth.
* It's a normal cycle, not caused by man.
* It's pointless for us to try to slow global warming because India and China are putting much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than the United States is, and they won't stop.
* What's the big deal? It's only a few degrees change, and will make life better on Earth. Don't you like nicer weather?
* It's too late to stop the major effects of global warming. Better for the the government to encourage and subsidize business to adapt to and profit from the major changes that will inevitably occur.
I just verified, and the link I provided does include submarine volcanoes. Here's your bad luck: I know more about physics and the climate than you, and my ego is as large as yours. I'm not intimidated by dicks, and I have no problem calling you on being one. It's ok if you simply ignore me - I've given up hope of getting some actual (and accurate) information from you. A shame, really.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
if (disaster.deny() == "fails") {
disaster.emphasize_upsides();
disaster.profit_from();
} else {
declare_success();
secretly_build_ark_for_buddies();
}
Table-ized A.I.
Less flu, more heatstroke. Great....
~Vexed and loving it!
But fuck it, it's a Friday afternoon and I don't feel like digging up all the necessary smackdown data. Looks like I'm going with the goatse link anyway.
Goatse.cx
Or, at least, its functional equivalents to someone like stonecypher.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Unfortunately, We all can't live in San Diego. Or Hawaii, for that matter. Those who like their local climate have been getting away with murder. Try freezing your ass off in a Canadian winter.
I'm not sure how idiots can even speculate about what the earth will be like in 2050. Obviously, the point about saving 40,000 germans is stupidity. I mean, by 2050, I hope nobody is dying from the flu, let alone cold people. Computer simulations can't consistently predict the weather the next day, let alone 40 years from now.
Yes, CO2 (and other gases) lag natural temperatures variations but the key point here is that temperatures will also react to a sudden influx / removal of same gas concentration. The current increase in gases is driving the temperature increase. As the temperature increase, so will additional concentration of those gases will be released until some other equilibrium is reached.
Have a look
here
"The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
It's not from the BBC, it's from Channel 4. The Great Global Warming Swindle, as one could understand from its title, is not exactly a balanced documentary, and has received threats of legal action by at least one of the people appearing in the film, Carl Wunsch, who claimed to have been grossly misquoted.
For the sake of open-mindedness, I tried watching this piece of corporate propaganda. I concluded this is crap when I heard the argument that "CO2 in atmosphere is not important because it is only 0.054% of the atmosphere" (at 13 minutes and 20 seconds into the movie). No, they did not say that: they knew it was a lie. So they just "implied" it, selectively and carefully quoting a scientist who is simply stating the obvious ("there is little CO2 in the atmosphere") but without the as obvious consequences ("Since it's so little humans can have a sensible effect in terms of percentage"). They also conveniently mentioned that 95% of greenhouse gases is water vapour, and as conveniently forgot to mention that that is a factor humans cannot influence, because of the enormous buffer represented by the oceans.
Finally, the documentary's author, Martin Durkin, a man with no scientific credentials by the way, handled criticism with class, calling one researcher who pointed out that his CO2/solar radiation correlation data were known to be flawed "a big daft cock" (that was actually all his answer), and telling to "go to fuck [him]self" to another one who urged him to be civilised.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
I don't know about everyone else but I think it's damn hot enough as it is. I live near Houston and it can get to be over 100 degrees here with 80-90% humidity. I know there are places that get hotter but they also have waaaayyyy less moist air. I'll take a global cooling anyday. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all steal southern California's climate? Hehehehe
The reason Americans have this attitude is because of space and population density. Those that live in areas with a great deal of open space and are more sparsely populated tend to think that the world has infinite resources and nothing we do can blemish it. People who live in more densely populated environments are more painfully aware of how we affect the environment and also care more about preserving that shared environment. Thats why we see most liberals in the west and the north-east. http://ite.pubs.informs.org/submissions/example/im ages/la1.gifo n/population_density/maps/europe.html
The population density of europe is much higher than that of the US so people care more about how they affect others as well.
http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/Basic_Informati
On top of that, a more dense population usally also means a better education infrastructure. Historically, the conservative areas of the US have had very poor schools as compared to the liberal areas. In other words, many are just ignorant.
Right or wrong, where are they? are we talking about pink elephants here?
Well, theanks for the considered opinion. Much nicer than the normal knee-jerk "You're a poo-head" bit.
That said, have read this: "...as long as there are those out there delivering disinformation about climate change, we need to keep up the fight...", I found muyself womdering whose disinformation, and whose fight.
My wife's a marketer, and clueless about science. She's completely influenced by the loudest voice that spoke last. This is generally another marketer selling man-made global warming. She just doesn't get it when I refuse to accept that marketing hype is actual reality.
I remember when Mount Pinatubo blew back in 1991. We had red skies *every night* for a year after. That's what 10 billion metric tons of magma, and 20 million tons of SO2 will do for your atmosphere. The red skies eventually faded. The point? One volcano was able to change the look of the atmosphere for a year before things went back to normal. I don't see those same dramatic effects from human activity.
I am willing to invest in technology that saves me money. Fluorescent bulbs, for example. If environmentalists could give me a P&L statement showing me how to make money by consuming less energy, I'd be all over it. Oh, and as for making money by consuming less energy, please don't quote the Prius. The cost differential between it and. say, a Ford Explorer is such that it'd take a decade to break even in gasoline saved. I want technologies that pay me this quarter, this year.
Instead, all I get is the "We're all gonna die!" dirge, and a call for hairshits, oh, and shit all over the US - the world's economic dynamo - for consuming so much energy. And as I sadi, I'm no longer up for it.
Sorry if this is a bit disconnected. My build's failing, so I'm switching back and forth.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Actually, human population is crashing. Countries like Greece and Italy have average female fertility rates of around 1, meaning the population's shrinking by 50% each generation.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
if not, i'm sure they'll be happy to throw it on the ticker...
Actually, I'm an Irish guy who escaped to the US.
After I got out of university, all it took was a couple of years of confiscatory PAYE taxation to convince me to leave.
I still retain a lot of the vocabulary, however.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
"I always found it unconvincing ... we're more likely to be outside in the winter than the summer!)"
Doesn't matter. So long as a higher percentage than normal of the US population has colds it'll spread to Miami thanks to all the visitors who go there to get away from the cold.
Bottom line: Cold/flu is a virus. It doesn't spontaneously generate out of nothing.
No sig today...
"The problem is that this is akin to talking about the positive effects of smoking: weightloss, fewer old people to draw down retirement benefits, etc. It's disingenuous and generally only used to mask the drawbacks."
This is nothing like that at all. In the case of smoking we have years of data that directly speaks to the negative effects of smoking. We have seen them. As yet, we have nothing but speculation as to them long term negative effects of global climate change.
Observing vs. Inferring is a big difference, so no, they're nothing alike.
I bag mine up, feed it to my chickens (so far a lot of really good eggs, pretty soon some freezer meat) or use it for mulch around my little trees or grapevines, etc. The chickens *love* grass clippings, scarf em down quick. A lot of folks in suburbia could do the same thing, they just don't feel like it or somehow think it's "weird" or something, even though caring for a small kitchen flock has been something humans have done for the bulk of our civilized existence.. A small flock is remarkably easy to care for too, and doesn't have to be any sort of huge mess or "eyesore", kinda fun really. And they can be housed in a sharp looking and relatively inexpensive to build (plans galore on the net) coop, then allowed a little walk around the lawn "free range" time during the day.
The conservative says "We like the status quo and don't want to rock the boat, especially since that would involve changing how we live."
The liberal says "We better start doing something because I think I hear some rapids ahead."
The average Joe says "Let's party for we're all going to die anyway. (Pass me another beer and watch how fast this boat can go.)"
The intelligent activist says "While the status quo is nice, we better scout ahead and be prepared to change our course."
Europe is warmed by a steady current that carries warm water from the 'West Indies' (i.e. the Caribbean) to the coasts of Europe. Extant climate predictions indicate that said current will be disrupted by global warming meaning that Europe might actually get colder on average than it has been up until now. The last time this occurred (the 'Mini Ice Age') coincided with the Dark Ages in Europe which was marked by widespread crop shortages.
If I were Der Speigel I would keep in mind that "Global Warming" still allows for "local cooling". And even if Europe gets warmer I would think that coming off of their disastrously hot previous summers that an increase in temperature might not be ideal.
It should really be titled "Could Global Warming Make Life in Germany Better?". It even acknowledged problems for countries in mediterranean latitudes; the implication is that they deserve it. It is amazing what sort of article you can come up with when you combine parochialism with selective research results.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
Really?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adapt
If you're saying that nature will adapt, you're correct. Species and ecosystems will evolve from earth changes when they occur.
Whether life in the sense of a species or life forms will adapt is a whole other matter. These earth changes are significant. Entire species will die off. The questions for humans is if we will be one of those species. Not likely? Perhaps. There is still the damage that we would experience from loss of biodiversity. After all, what if a species unlocks the cure for some human ailment... That's one possibility and I could go on and on. For me this is clear, the burning of fossil fuels produces by products that are not offset by any natural or mechanical process at the same rate they are being produced. So we are changing the equilibrium and we can and should correct this. So long as we make a contribution to the problem we should do something about it. There is so much at stake and yet people still want to say "Everything's fine"; it's beyond me.
Oops, how did this get here?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Sarah Silverman has already covered this angle of global warming. Here's the promo for her hard hitting documentary on the subject.
90 to 100 degree summers are plenty enough thank you.
[update: Damn you, NeutronCowboy, for beating me to the punch. But really, thank you. You have been a lot more elequent than I in this thread.]
0 2/1686
You do *not* get to have the last word. Everyone here is mostly trying to have a civil discussion with you. But so far, all you've done is insult and intimidate your critics. You say I don't provide any references or resources. I need to cite only one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/57
Oreskes has sampled almost a thousand seperate scholastic studies across multiple disciplines. and there was *NO* direct dissent. This is a far cry from the "gobal warming hoax" you claim. These researchers are serious scientists. They only responsibility they have is to their own designated area of research.
What have you done? Aside from providing a link to that god-awful documentary and a reference to "the global carbon cycle" at the Umich website cited by one of your critics, you have produced absolutely squat. I have gone through all your comments and as of 2 PM PDT, everything you've expressed so far in reply to those in this discussion thread has been a whole bunch of hand waving, groundless assertions, or evasive facts. You're quick to dismiss the references provided by others but other than just those two citations, I can't find any other sources despite your repeated assertion that you have indeed provided references. In reply to my earier comment, you mention:
ice record
CO2 sedimentation
weather balloons
atmospheric temperature gradient
oceanic outgassing measurements
the CO2/temperature correlation
(basic common sense)
saying doesn't make it so. where is the reference to back up your position? Where are the figures and charts from studies that use these methods to disagree with the conclusions of our current understanding of global warming? I think your engaged in this exchange just for the sake of arguing without any genuine intention to enlighten or be enlightened. Some of what you say just makes absolutely no sense. "realistic data that predates animal life"????? "wholesale rape of baby seals."??????
In light of such bizarre comments, I am left with no alternative but to urge you to stop bothering the nice folks at slashdot and don't skip out on your medications.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
I guess so, except for all those decaying bodies lying around.
That is all.
only be... scantily clad norse women! Yes!
Funny, I just rebutted an oil drum article using rabbits and goats: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/scrooge.html. Goats can do the job quite well, but you've got to have time to take care of them. I grew up partly on goat's milk and consider it superior to cow's milk. The deer here don't seem to be a systematic as goats, so I still mow.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get solar power to control global warming: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Yes... eg, i, for one, really do not enjoy the New York City skyline .. it's an afront to nature .. Far better that NYC be under 10 or more meters of Atlantic Ocean .. .. enventually those tall spires will crumble, water-logged, to the bottom, and once again, voila' !! a new vista!
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
What I learned from "The Great Global Warming Swindle":
It is now my mission to stop keeping an eye on people in power. This movie has assured me they have earned a free pass.
Or, to paraphrase:
"I am a psychological casualty of FUD."
Right on man.
"Choose life."
Thanks for the comment! Current incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change are a fraud. Junk science is infesting the media, the Internet and public schools, affecting public health, squandering your tax dollars, poisoning sick people and miseducating our children. Pseudoscientific claptrap abounds. Quackery is now found everywhere. Consensus is NOT science. Educate, inform yourself, take a 9th grade science class. Additional information http://www.inteliorg.com/co2_climate_change.html Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject. Unfortunately, many have learned to spin information, thusly have become intellectually and academically dishonest. Unfortunately, we can no longer trust most of the media for information, as they no longer assign "Reporters" that investigate then report on a subject, most just parrot or reinterpret the information to fit their bias, thusly we have a world of disinformation and junk science. Information Vetting: I have no financial interest in this subject.
Anytime. As a matter of human psychology and persuasiveness, it can look defensive to reply directly to counterarguments. In other words, if an idea has merits, it looks better to write them out, and leave it to others to defend it. And if it has merits, generally someone will. Even on Slashdot. :)
This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in weeks. This is insane! Take this off Slashdot.
I found a nice spoof on an advertisment for the Flemish socialist party (sp.a).
I don't think you need a translation, but you might not know that Spa is *the* best known mineral water in Belgium !
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
"warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu."
That's so blatantly made up right there. Flu isn't cold related, someone seems to be confusing a pedestrian cold with an actual flu.
In fact it's worse: cold weather helps kill the flu virus so it doesn't spread wide or survive for extended period of time on the outside. With higher temperatures, flu outbreaks will be worse.
The fact flu spreads in the autumn and early winter isn't directly related to a flu outbreak. The timing is, let's say, a happy coincidence. You can research more about why flu comes every year for more info.
hmm, isn't the debate about climate change/global warming all about trying to maintain the status quo: expensive beach front property, building cities/entire nations on land that is at less than 5 m above sea level, preventing the developing world from doing just that, inhibiting progress, etc.
The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
partisan politics will suppress what it doesn't want to hear under any premise
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
One big problem from global warming will be insect populations. Already, in far northern areas the shorter winters are allowing some bugs to survive and thus attack the arboreal forests.
In time, more bugs will survive in more areas. Bugs can dramatically alter the populations of local flora. They also carry diseases. Combined with the destruction of many animal species, we may not enjoy living with all insects.
So, exactly when was Spiegel bought out by ExxonMorris and/or PhilipMobil?
Gravity is a contributing factor in nearly 73 percent of all accidents involving falling objects. -Dave Barry
You *do* realize just how fragmentary the fossil record is, don't you?
My personal opinion (without studying the matter) is that we probably don't have enough evidence to guess whether there were more or fewer species. (Well, except that clearly there were fewer, e.g., right after the asteroid hit. And right after whatever caused the Permian Catastrophe. Etc.) Most species never leave any discovered and recognized fossil record, and we don't know what percentage "most" means, just that it's large relative to 50%. (There may, of course, people who have reasons to believe some particular number is "about right", but I'm not one of them.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
my girlfriend gets that catalog. I suppose they could sell more shorts and t-shirts if the weather just cooperated. That would truly make life better.
Why do we waste our breath on these trolls?
We can speculate all we want, but that's all it is, speculation. No one knows what will happen and I think that's the real point of this article. There are simply too many permutations and combinations to factor in that it's virtually impossible to figure out what will truly happen. But the environmental movement is a strong one that is more a religion that is based on half truths. The doom and gloom future we are all hearing about is one of many possible scenario's that could play out, but, it is not THE scenario that will play out. So, I am firmly seated in the "there's not enough data" camp.
Let's add a couple of observations to your "Big Two":
3) We know that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. stonecypher has been drastically misinforming you about the entire volcano non-issue.
4) It is indisputable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We've known at least that much for 150 years. It's disingenuous to portray this as a mere correlation, since the mechanism driving the correlation is well understood.
5) We know that solar flux has been basically steady since we started getting satellite data, so the most obvious alternative ("The sun is just warmer") is untenable.
6) We know that objections to the "consensus position" are surprisingly rare within the scientific community. A bit argument ad populum, but at least the populum in question knows what it's talking about. That's the sort of evidence that laypersons (who are notoriously bad at complex scientific issues) should be able to appreciate.
Regarding methane: First, we produce a helluva lot more CO2, which hurts the "maybe it's methane" picture you're trying to paint. Second, anthropogenic methane gets broken down relatively quickly, certainly when compared to CO2 levels. Methane concentrations have arguably stopped rising, so controls on methane are probably not our highest priority. More here.
What, exactly, are these "huge social and economic consequences?" If the recently released IPCC report is to be believed, an aggressive anti-CO2 campaign would "cost" about 3% of the expected economic growth between now and 2030 (I put the term "cost" in quotes, because this statistic ignores the cost of doing nothing). So, when we get to 2030, an aggressive climate change action plan will relegate us to the brutish, barbaric lifestyle of... 2028.
Also, you have to recognize that many of the proposed solutions have all manner of environmental and economic benefits that have absolutely nothing to do with global warming. CFLs, solar power, electric cars, reduced reliance on oil imports, smarter electric grids, kickass mass transit systems, localized food production... every one of them delivers benefits above and beyond reduced CO2 emissions. I believe that the economic "doomsday scenarios" of the climate skeptics are pure bunk.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Now I know you're just trolling.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I can't believe that global warming will make life on earth better, at least that you think that if there's less people in the planet then life gets better. This will kill people, and I know that people dies everyday but no because of the global warming!
It's stupid to believe that see people dying around you will make your life better, weather will change and will kill more people that already does... I don't believe that's a better life...
ghostbar page.
Don't blame them. We don't place enough value in real science. Who dedicates up to a decade of sweat and study to make less than a taxi driver? They have bills to pay. Oil companies buy whores; film at 11. I just can't figure out who is paying the 'pro global warming ones'. Terrorists?
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2423#comment-176191
People like Kunstler and his epigones (who are legion around here) basically hold humanity in contempt, and look upon some future of scarcity, suffering, starvation, with essentially unconcealed glee while pretending to bemoan humanity's insufficient awareness of the problems soon to beset it (excepting themselves, the superior people, of course), its paltry efforts at preparation, etc.
I call it Apocalyptic Personality Disorder (APD).
All of the "alternatives" that might actually mitigate some of the effects of peak oil, coal, nuclear, etc., tend to be either dismissed or downplayed, while those that make their proponents feel morally superior (conservation (even conservation through the forced demand destruction of mass privation), wind/solar, etc.) are presented as the only ones having any reality (for various complicated reasons that are basically rationalizations added after the fact to justify conclusions arrived at emotionally).
rapture is only about 100,000 people.
Also note, most Chritians are not good people, but blow hards with self inflicted ignorance that don't even know there own theology..at all.
So, we'll still have those people around.
Most of them don't even know the bible contradicts itself in regards to Rapture.
F'n morons.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
there where many in the pacific and the atlantic.
Insightfull my ass. More like F'n stupid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Immigrant birds carry the flu virus when they immigrate. The big flu virus reservoir for the northern hemisphere is the region between central china to siberia. Great flocks of birds fly from this region as far as south africa. December 2005 bird flu outbreak was triggered this way ..
chicken wire fences do a good job of keeping the little guys where they belong. Added bonus, less lawn to actually have to mow, they'll keep it scratched up good.
I think it is more cultural. In other places around the world having your own small flock is considered quite normal and practical. In rural US it is still quite common. In suburbia much less so, I was just pointing out a small flock is still quite doable, merely a step from having your own vegetable garden for instance. A lot of folks in suburbia don't have a garden, a lot do. A little coop can be built on the back of the garage for instance, and a small run enclosed. And by "suburbia" I guess I would have to quantify, a house with a yard big enough so that projects like this are at least theoretically possible. And by small flock I guess that would be say less than a dozen birds.
It is clear to me that you and I have a very, very different idea of what being civil is.And from that, I also know that you're not actually reading what I wrote. Good day. I really don't care what nasty comments you have to make about getting the last word; you can reply to this with any further perspicuous nonsense you like. You don't seem embattled by fact or information here. I see no reason the future should be any different.
A word of advice: don't assume that someone isn't citing things just because the person you're listening to says they aren't. Yes, I saw him claim I only cited two things, just like you did. If you take the time to check the discussion tree, you'll find that isn't true.
It's quite common for people to miss links in long discussions when they aren't actually reading. Given that you aren't, I suggest you look at the page source, move the lead cursor to the beginning of something I say, and search for "<a". It's quite likely you'll find my (currently) eleven citations more quickly that way.
I'm sure you'll insist I'm not re-citing them again because they don't exist. I also really don't care if that's what you believe. The reason I'm not re-citing them again is because people like you who find it more convenient to believe what someone else says instead of to just look for references yourself have also asked me to repeat myself, over and over.
I indulged them half a dozen times, and now I can't make helpful responses to people asking for more information in a different thread.
I'd forgotten why as a policy I don't reply to posts like these. Thank you for reminding me. All I've done is make you angry; if there was merit to what I said it was lost, and if there wasn't it shouldn't have been said at all. It was a waste of your time, a waste of my time, and it cost me the ability to have pleasant, productive conversations with other people.
Yes, I gather your idea of me. I really also don't care. I won't be responding anymore, because until SlashDot gets rid of its asinine post rate filter, the price is just too high.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
A complex system like the earth's climate cannot be modelled by simple extrapolation, since it has both negative *and positive* feedbacks. This means that--without knowing anything else about the earth itself--we should expect that the climate will exhibit a hysteris effect, whereby we have to cross a higher-than-predicted threshold of CO2 levels before we trigger a change, but once we do, the new climate state will be stable and nothing will bring it back to the way it was before.
What would one such state look like? Well, if it includes the greening of the Sahara and the world's deserts, along with glaciers over Europe or something, then that would not be the extinction of the human race, just a political and cultural nightmare.
Once this new state is obtained, the old state of climate would not return even if we reduced CO2 levels in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. There would have to be a major shock to the system to reverse the effects. The whole climate debate is centered around linear or exponential projections of average temperature based on CO2 levels, but they fail to take the self-regulating nature of the earth as a complex system into account. All we have to do is figure out what the High energy state of the planet looks like is, and where the new deserts will be, and what the habital zones will look like without getting into the boundary conditions (which may include flooding, droughts and what not.) There is almost a sadistic tendency in the popular press to assume that warming will be uniform all over the world: so Africa will get hotter and drier, while Europe will become balmier and wetter. One thing they don't acknowledge is that if the average temperature rises, the energy in the atmosphere rises, and temperature variances will increase--both extremes of cold and heat, with the overall average facing only a minor adjustment.
Hasan
But you didn't support your claims - find a single source of evidence that he just forgot to take his meds, is a paid whore, or is a nutbag off his meds. ;)
The filling of the container will constrict the space for air in the container. While the water may release enough oxygen, that oxygen would have to compete with the ever-thickening carbon dioxide from his own exhalations. I haven't run the math, and I honestly am not sure I could. I don't have the background in chemistry and medicine to figure all the rates properly from my head, and I refuse to work all weekend doing research for this post. I do know there's oxygen release of the water (unless it's depleted), carbon dioxide uptake of the water (unless it's saturated), rate of oxygen intake through respiration, and rate of carbon dioxide release through respiration. Then there's the increasing pressure of the water forcing the gases into the lungs, the mixture of oxygen to carbon dioxide that the body can stand, and the fact that if the water's colder, oxygen reliance actually drops a bit. :-)
Intuitively, I'd think that at some point the air space left at the top of the container would be primarily carbon dioxide, unless the water takes up enough of that at the same time. Still, drowning at a slow trickle seems an impossibility in this case whether the actual death be by hypothermia, crushing asphyxiation (which should happen well before structural damage to the organs, right?), or asphyxiation from poor gas mixture.
Gee, this is fun, but I'm out of my league on this one. Still, drowning seems unlikely. Hell, stroke or heart attack from the stress of knowing what was coming seems more likely than actual drowning at that kind of rate.
Thanks for playing along with my thought experiment.
I'd hate to be accused of not FTFA'ing, but I'd hate to read an article that starts off with a picture of german chicks in bikini's and speculates that germany could experience a tourist boom because of global warming.
People are sure taking their time wising up to global warming. The responses, like this article, tend to sidestep the issue by either suggesting that "it might not be that bad in some places," or suggesting that scientists might have gotten this whole "global warming" thing wrong, after all "climate change happens."
The problem is that there's a ton of evidence for global warming, and the natural progression of climate change *is* taken into account. Furthermore the effects are going to be more significant than the temperature increasing in a few places... There is a significant risk of a *massive* rise in sea level if the west antartic ice sheet melts http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6962
....then turn around and claim that everyone else is trying to be civil, when the person you're thanking used the words "I now officially think that you're batshit fucking crazy, and just forgot to take your meds"Because it is the only reasonable response to your crazy beligerant rants. Seriously, what choice do you give us? The two of us are not the only ones who think you're nuts. You've given EVERYONE on this thread reason to think so. Maybe you're just a bad communicator or maybe you just broke up with your girlfriend or maybe you have some other good reason for being an absolute ass to everyone who disagrees with you. But in the end, it is your actions and attitude that makes it hard to discuss the science involved here.
And from that, I also know that you're not actually reading what I wrote....NeutronCowboy and I did the same check and came to the same conclusion. I don't think you understand what it means to cite your source. Other than these two instances where others can examine the same things you're talking about to judge for themselves how to interperate the information provided, YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY INFORMATION WHICH CAN BE INDEPENDENTLY CHECKED. I gave a list of tools and methods you mentioned that you claim provide information to support your claims. To be fair, you've made the same assertions to others elsewhere in this post. But you have NEGLECTED TO PROVIDE ANY ACTUAL DATA from any studies using these methods that support your position. Saying doesn't make it so. You can tell us repeatedly there is data that shows you're right until you're blue in the face. But unless we can check the same data, you have demonstrated nothing. Maybe you actually do believe you've cited 11 sources, but you have not done it in any way that allows anyone else to follow up on them. Maybe you actually do believe the poorly thought out conclusions from your myopic understanding of the issues. I've read through some of your response to the data cited by other folks. I'd urge you to take a closer look at their responses which easily debunks your claims. Pay attention to them - they're trying to educate you.
You say you keep repeating yourself and no one listens. Have you stopped to consider that there might be something wrong with what you're say? Or perhaps something wrong with they way you're trying to communicate your ideas? If you're going to insult anyone who tells you that you have not gotten your own ideas straight, what incentive do other have to pay any attention to you? You don't make me angry, you make me sad. Personally, I believe there is much to be explored from the other side of the global warming debate. But the way you've gone about on this thread discredits the whole legitimacy of being curious about the other side. Who in their right mind would be willing to explore an idea advocated by an abrasive nut who is insulting everyone trying to talk to him? You start of by calling the scientific consensus a hoax, with nothing to back up this outrageous claim other than a single documentary riddled with breaches of good journalistic ethics. Your assertion that no one has challanged the science in the program is just not true: According to Houghton(former co-chair of IPCC) the program was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming".
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
I suggest you take the time to seriously examine the ideas and opinions presented here in oposition to yours. enlightening yourself would *not* be time wasted. And I believe I speak for all of slashdot when I say that *my*(our) time has not been wasted if I(we) have succeeded in teaching you something and compelled you to think critically and scientifically about the issue of global warming.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Oh please let it be so and I'll have a clean conscience when I buy a sports car I will almost exclusively use to drive around the countryside just to enjoy myself. Bad conscience is an enjoyment pooper.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
I debated a bit whether I should reply to you. What the heck, what's one more reply. You claim eleven citations, yet in your post history that I have access to, there are 4 unique outside references, only two of which are relevant to the topic. A more complete check shows a total of 6 unique topical references. I'll be generous and keep the ones in there that flat out contradict you in the body of the text, and also leave the one in there that can be summarized by "climate was different 600 million years ago, models have uncertainties, news at 11". Eleven references, my ass.
There is no point in debating Global Climate Change with you if you can't even pretend to be semi-accurate in the stupid small stuff.
My beef with you is quite simple really: when I look at the very basic stuff, the stuff I can check in 2 minutes and which involves only basic addition (single digit, even), you consistently get it massively wrong in your favor. When called on it, you resort to hand waving and insults, and don't even do a little song and dance like "oh, I got you confused with someone else". Then, when I check the somewhat more complex stuff, I get the same mode of operation. You know you made shit up, and can't even come clean about it. From what I can tell, you have the intellectual honesty of a scheister, the debate technique of a grade school bully, and are enough in love with yourself that I suspect you'd propose to yourself if you could. In short, batshit fucking crazy.
I know you're too wrapped up in your own world to get out, but don't think that people don't understand what you're trying to pull. It only works on people who don't know what you're talking about, are confused by big words and intimidated by your attitude. Everyone else just wants you to stop taking up valuable space.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
"Personally, I believe there is much to be explored from the other side of the global warming debate."
Thank you for spelling that out. I believe it's something important to keep in mind any time someone manages to completely discredit an entire position.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I am always amused by those who post URLs and say (paraphrased), "you must be a moron for not having read this: _________", as if anyone is going to actually read the link. In a "science" as vague and vast as monitoring earth's climate there are always going to be those that over exaggerate their own importance if it seems to lead to continued employment.
In my opinion, the doomers rely on the fact that most people have no sense of scale ("wow, a million of anything must be a lot") and manipulate popular attitudes by using emotional triggers. This is inherently dishonest as a tactic to gain more mindspace.
The End of Human Existence is what they predict, if you don't do what they say. Conveniently, the answer to all the problems is big government intervention.
Okay, let's move on to the north pole: It's a different story in the warmer regions surrounding the North Pole. According to an American study published last week, the Arctic could be melting even faster than previously assumed. But because the Arctic sea ice already floats in the water, its melting will have virtually no effect on sea levels. Ah, good point. And of course, when all that white ice reflecting sunlight turns to black water, that won't affect anything... you know... temperature-wise. I mean, the problem here is sea level, not temperature.
It's definitely striking how they focus far more on the effects on Germany and northern Europe (we'll have more chicks in bikinis here ! And Greenland will be a pleasant place!). Yes, some other places may be affected... negatively. They cover that in a serious tone: "While the bulk of summer vacationers will eventually lose interest in roasting on Spain's Costa del Sol, Mediterranean conditions could prevail between the German North Sea island of Sylt and Bavaria's Lake Starnberg."
Oh, wait -- by "serious tone" I meant "in humorous asides". Better get back to talking about the summers in Hamburg!
And (like you mentioned) they completely ignore the fact that people will have to *move*. It's not just "those people may get roasted a bit, but we'll be happier up here!". For example, countries like Canada and Russia can look forward to better harvests and a blossoming tourism industry, and the only distress the Scandinavians will face is the guilty conscience that could come with benefiting from global warming. Yes, just that guilty conscience... because I imagine they'll be pleased to see the entirety of Bangladesh's population camping in their lush green backyards.
Are they nuts? Until HIV/AIDS overtook it, Malaria was the number one identifiable cause of death in the world.
Even modest increases in temperatures can have non-linear effects in transmission of vector borne diseases. For example Mexico City, while in a latitude where Malaria is endemic, is free of it because its altitude makes it too cool for the Anopheles mosquito to establish itself; that is to say the range of the disease vector is limited by latitude and altitude. Once conditions at its 2240m elevation become inhabitable, the tenth most populous city in the world becomes vulnerable.
In the US,there have been serious outbreaks of Yellow Fever as far north as Boston. The 1793 Philadelphia epidemic killed 10% of the population and was only checked by cold weather in November. Philadelphia was an interesting case because it epidemic came in with slave trading ships; international trade is now a major transporter of disease vectors such as the asian tiger mosquito.
Infectious agents are now thought to play a role in both maintaining and disrupting ecological stability. New organisms who move into an already occupied are immunologically naive to pathogens present in the habitat, which forms a kind of natural defense. Likewise they may bring new pathogens in; the European settlement of the Americas would have gone differently were it not for smallpox.
The disruptions caused by both climate change and the human response to it are likely to spill a number of novel tropical infectious agents (such as Ebola) from their currently limited geographic ranges. International trade will transport them around the world. In particular vector borne diseases that have a capacity to establish themselves in wild animal populations have the potential to become endemic in temperate regions (as West Nile did, although WNV is relatively benign as such things go).
That's not to say global warming won't have some health benefits. But we can expect a number of novel diseases to emerge, many well known diseases to become more of a problem.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This is so cool, all that boring ice in Antartica will melt and now we'll all be able to find those fabulous temples hidden for thousands of years that only Lara Croft and those dudes from AVP were able to find.
Can't wait!
And I don't care what anyone says, when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were running the planet - the summers were much warmer and we were all just so much leaner and fitter.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
You're welcome! Eat your veggies and wash your hands! And those dastardly trees, brought us allergies and sneezing from pollen, and forest fires! Get rid of them! And fish! Dang sharks bite surfboarders! Out! Stupid nature, always being there and all, not clean and pure like a nice video game console and virtual reality!
You can go back to downloading your food off the intartubes now, must be really tasty!
We never had any tornados in Romania untill 1-2 years ago. We just had another one few days ago.
Last year we had floods almost every month of the year. and some areas remained flooded for over 3mo.
Can we say this is the kind of weather that will reduce the number of deaths ?
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I have one simple question about this whole 'Global Warming will kill us all and is the work of the devil' debate.
/ vostok/vostok_data.htmlc o2.gif
What's the right temperature?
Was it when we had sheets of ice covering 50% of the earth's surface? Was it when Vikings were setting up farming communities on Iceland?
The Vostok ice core seems to show a cyclical C02 level, with spikes at approximately 400 thousand years ago, 325 thousand years ago, 225 thousand years ago, 125 thousand years ago, and one that we're in the middle of. When compared with these time scales, looking at levels in times we can directly measure is as useless as picking a random 1 minute period to watch the stock market, and using that to predict market trends for the next 20 years. We cannot demonstrate that industry is causing this 'problem' because, not only do we have no direct readings from before industry, we don't actually know that there's a problem. This could easily be all natural.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
The "right" temperature is the one around which we've built about 200 years of rapid industrial expansion.
The problem is really not that the temperature changes, it's that it's changing more quickly than we can easily adapt to it.
The rest of your argument is addressed in the various reports at www.ipcc.ch.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
A fast scan of the articles shows nothing to dispute the validity of the Vostok ice core, or the conclusion I drew from it.
As far as difficulty adapting to the temperature changes goes, I'm going to say "Good." People innovate to increase luxury, but nearly so well as they innovate to prevent discomfort. Besides, nature's going to keep adjusting to changing conditions. All the other crap environmentalists worry about global warming for is a non-issue. The only real issue is how it will affect people, and people are really good at keeping the status quo from dropping. We'll figure out whatever we need to.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
OK, the fact that this particular post of yours got modded up to +5 insightful just about seals it for me that the "humans are causing global warming and it is bad, bad, bad!" crowd demonstrate just as much religious zealotry as do fundies asserting Creationism.
Seriously, there is NOTHING Insightful or otherwise worthy of being modded up in your post here. I can only attribute the fact that it was modded up to sheer "you go, girl!" dimwits just wanting to see cred given to a zinging personal attack against a dissident of the populist view.
The increased heat won't just cause ice to melt and the oceans to rise, it also increases evaporation and the ability of the air to retain water. The ocean's may rise, but not as much as everyone will think. How could there be more precipitaion in many area's without increased evaporation and humidity? Water is in a constant cycle and it can't just come from nowhere; it's the Law of Conservation of Matter.
A quick look says that your post count in this topic is higher than mine. So either you can't add, subtract or compare, or you made shit up, or just flat out lied. Again.
I always find it amusing to read a reply that says "I stopped replying to you". I find it equally amusing that me replying to you somehow causes you to waste time. All in all, your insanity has been a nice source of entertainment.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The concept is interesting (I have had two of them before), it is called the "chicken tractor" (googleable), or lightweight movable coop. You drag it over new areas of pasture/lawn every other day or so. As to their litter on the ground-a sprinker takes care of that easily, that and the ground insects-but in your case, sounds like none of the above is a much better idea. Other folks can do it though. There is no one size fits everyone urban or suburban "homesteading" scheme. A friend of mine really wanted a garden once, all he has was a second story tiny apartment with no authorized access to any of the grounds. The solution he did was a few small tomatoes and peppers in pots out on the roof!
It amazes me that some people can ignore the huge volume of scientific data concerning global warming. I can't help but wonder what motivates these people. I have found that many have some vested interest or relationship with the oil industry and others have religious beliefs that won't allow them to consider that man could destroy the planet.
I had one guy tell me that the world was made for man and we would never run out of oil because God had created the world to serve man's needs forever.
This guy, however, really is something. I replied to one of his rants where he discounted the ice core science without showing any references of course. I simply said "You're dead wrong on that." and got modded down into oblivion. Probably rightfully so as I should have posted various cites but I didn't feel it would do any good as he was ignoring all other cites that were posted by various people.
He responded in a very rude and obnoxious way. I believe you are correct. There is something not right with this dude. He actually insinuated that believing in global warming could cause irreparable damage. I didn't quite understand how pushing the world to clean up the environment could be dangerous but it made as much sense as the other dribble he was severing.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
It has been argued that the world's temperature has a history of fluctuation. This is true. However, the real problem is not that the Earth temperature fluctuates but that we are causing it to change at a much greater rate than creatures can evolve.
It's one thing for the average temperature to change a few degrees over the course of a million years it's very much more dangerous to our ecosystem to have that same change over a few hundred years.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
According to this post he writes video games for a living:0 93117
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234419&cid=19
Note the careful choice of the word "history" rather than "I am a Climatologist"
We're obviously so good at it right now. There wouldn't be global warming if we could plan ahead well. What does that really mean anyway? We can't see the future and our estimates and whatnot are constantly changing. The best thing to do would be to try to prevent it getting worse since we know how we're screwing it up.
Just 30 or so years ago, we were worried about Global Cooling, and now we are concerned about Global Warming, and supposibly before the Cooling that started in 1930, the Earth was obviously getting warmer... Seems we got some sort of natural cycle here. Not saying that we should not go green, in fact just the opposite. I'd personally love to see Ethanol from Switchgrass that grow easily in the Southern US in leiu of the useless grass that grows between two parts of an interstate become standard for the US and have the government get paid by people for the chance to obtain it for Fuel-Grade Ethanol. Perhaps we could also get Solar Power to a level where it is viable to make Solar Power Plants powerful enough and cheap enough for us humans to live off of. We need to focus on using renewable resources as opposed to nonrenewable ones.
How can you be both at the same time?
I mean, many things that would be good for the environment are expensive and not financially viable (profit, profit, profit). Business, on the other hand, doesn't care much about the environment so, once again, how can you be an environmental economist? Short of being schizophrenic, that is!
I don't see those same dramatic effects from human activity.
Oh, I see. You need, dramatic, visible effects to believe in them. Okay, well how about I gradually poison your drinking water with mercury. You can't see it, and it's happening slowly, so there's no evidence, right? Perfectly safe!
I want technologies that pay me this quarter, this year.
Wow... that's incredibly assinine. So I take it you don't believe in any kind of long term investment? Sounds like you fit right into American corporate and consumer culture. "I need IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION!"
On the flipside, it is true that using economics to force change is a good thing (fuel efficient cars and CF bulbs are increasing in popularity for a reason). The problem is, such changes create inflation that disproportionately affects the lower and middle class, while the greatest consumers just keep on keeping on.
shit all over the US - the world's economic dynamo - for consuming so much energy.
Uhuh... well, they do consume a disproportionately large amount of energy, and produce a disproportionately large amount of CO2 as a consequence, all while downplaying the effects of such behaviour on climate. How can one *not* criticise?
Oh, and BTW, the economies of the EU and soon China are both comparable to the US... calling the states the "world's economic dynamo" is, I think, a bit of an overstatement.
...with my cows as well. Been kicking this around now for awhile. Have some huge movable corral, encompassing a few acres or so.(ya, you need some good number of cows and big pastures for this to work) All the fence pieces on wheels. The whole thing is solar powered and crawls really slow, using GPS navigation to change areas they can really munch over. Well, ideally, initially I'd just use a diesel tractor once a day, drive up with a water tank on a trailer -a buffalo they are called-, refill the reservoir/watering thing that is attached on the inside, then attach the movable corral with another hitch on the back of the buffalo trailer, and drag it over another few acres. Instead of fencing the whole property, just use that, then all you need is just a little Y chute action to move out what ones you wanted to sell. Added bonus, you could run them over fresh mown hayfields and corn plots, let them eat the stubble. (I *hate* fencing and repairs and keeping them clean, seems a huge waste of time and resources when all you want to do is keep cows from escaping. I'd much rather just mow the perimeter than try and keep the fences from getting overgrown, and corral sections are better than fences anyway, sorta giant lincoln log deals made out of steel, go together easy) I guess you could have the chickens bring up the rear with an additional section, so they get dragged over the previous area. I know I could build a small one here to do that, but it wouldn't be practical size for me. I have enough spare corral sections and old junk axles and wheels etc to do one maybe-gee, not big, 1/4 acre maybe. I think it would be a neat project to do with a lot of solar panels and an electric motors and GPS and whatnot, get it as automated as possible. The only catch is watering, haven't worked that out yet on a big scale other than underground taps that automatically "dock" each day.
ZOMG, How are you SO stupid?
"I challenge you to justify that claim with published data."
Fine. Here is it.
"As the previous poster pointed out, there are large non-anthropogenic sources of CO2, but until recently they have been essentially balanced by non-anthropogenic sinks of CO2, so that net CO2 concentrations remained pretty much constant on timescales of millennia. We are now sourcing CO2 at a much greater rate than it can be sunk, leading to a rapid rate of accumulation."
Put down the thesaurus and learn some science. It might help you in discussions like this.
It's not narcissicism if it's true!
I don't buy it, since it has melted in the past at 4 degrees warmer than now.
_ Change.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:65_Myr_Climate