Slashdot Mirror
North Pole Ice On Track To Melt By September?
phobos13013 writes "Recently released evidence is showing the North Pole ice is melting at the highest rate ever recorded. As a result, the Pole may be completely ice-free at the surface and composed of nothing but open water by September. As reported in September of last year, the Northwest Passage was ice-free for the first time known to man. The implications of this, as well as the causes, are still being debated. Are global warming experts just short-sighted alarmists? Are we heading for a global ice age? Or is the increase in global mean temperature having an effect on our planet?"
The Polar Bears. No place to go any more.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
This is not news. This is a prediction that there might be news in September.
If it doesn't happen, will we get an apology for misleading us?
The climate changes we are experiencing will likely take millions of lives. Few people realize how easily diseases like malaria might thrive if we go up even one or two degrees in average temperatures. Florida already has a few cases of malaria every year. The fear that other tropical plagues might become common inside the US mainland is very real.
Yeah, because everybody knows that the person who *really* knows about climate science is a bad fiction writer.
Yes. No one credible believes that we are entirely responsible for the climate change, on the other hand no one credible disputes that we are contributing to it. No matter what the cause, the increased global temperature is a bad thing for us and thus it is in our best interest to stop contributing to the change ASAP.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
You are probably right, man made global warming is just a vast conspiracy engineered to reduce pollution, achieve energy independence, secure our natural resources, and rile up oil executives.
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
Ah, Chrichton. Because writing Jurassic Park is the only scientific credential that actually matters.
With all due respect, he's got an M.D., he's not a climatologist. I don't call a plumber when I'm sick; I don't ask an M.D.'s opinion on climate change.
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
It's the sound of that joke going way over your head.
Your remark interests me cause as a relative new slashdot member, I noticed that one of the main things I love about the threads here is the wonderful intermixing between jokes, facts, irony, wisdom and sarcasm.
Your reasonably funny joke, gave someone else the opportunity to spread a fact he's been sitting on for years. Besides all the funny guys, there are a lot of smart people dwelling here, and I for one welcome the knowledge especially in this intermixed way.
In other words. Take it easy..
Anyone who believes this isn't a man-made disaster has their speaking privileges taken away. Put on your dunce caps, go sit in the corner and shut the f&*k up.
Yes, absolutely. Instead of believing the propaganda from Big Oil that nothing is wrong, we should instead believe in the propaganda from political interests attempting to divert our attention from other matters and scientific communities whose funding is dependent on the support of those political interests that our doom is upon us and we must stop doing anything.
In no way will this turn out to be the same as most issues in popular science, where there is an underlying trend that we should consider changing, but whose likely effects will not be fully understood without much more research and in any case will occur subtly over a period of many years.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm not the original Anonymous Coward, I'm just being an asshat.
Anyone who believes this isn't a man-made disaster has their speaking privileges taken away.
Who died and left you in charge?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Yeah. Better to sit on your ass and do nothing until you have 100% proof and it's too late to bother changing your ways anyway. That's the spirit. If a car is coming towards you at 100 miles an hour and at 50ft away a phycisist says "There's a very good chance that car isn't going to stop in time, maybe you should move out of the way" do you tell him you want to be 100% sure before you move?
I don't call a plumber when I'm sick; I don't ask an M.D.'s opinion on climate change.
Then please, please tell me why anyone thinks Al Gore is remotely relevant on the issue of climate change!!!
Fuck if I know. I guess the media likes people with name recognition. "This guy wrote Jurassic Park, he must know what he's talking about!" "Yeah, well, this guy used to be Vice President! He must know what he's talking about even more!"
It's the fucking name-obsessed news media.
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
Adding insulation, better windows, more efficient air conditioner, florescent lights, and so on makes my home more valuable. It also reduces my electric bill, which means more money in my pocket. Same for cars. Less pollution is a side effect, albeit a good one. More to the point it lowers my gasoline consumption, again, more money in my pocket. And I happen to like clean air, so bonus!
Argue climate change all you want, green makes sense, if only from an economic standpoint. And why would anyone be against clean air and water?
I have some serious questions for you:
1) Do you believe that Michael Crichton has information that the climate scientists do not?
2) Do you believe Michael Crichton is smarter than the climate scientists and better able to interpret the data?
3) If either of these is true, what leads you to believe this?
True... now here's the converse: Al Gore is no climatologist, either - but that didn't stop him from writing a book and being pointed at as some sort of authority on climate by the populace at large.
Not trying to pick a debate, but I do want to point out something.
It doesn't require any sort of degree to use logic in order to take what's out there data-wise, and form a hypothesis (or opinion) that can withstand scrutiny. All that is required is logical skill, intellect, a lot of research, a little wisdom, and patience enough to see the argument (pro or con) come together.
I honestly don't care about who advances the opinion, I care about the logical progression of the argument. I also care about whether or not the supporting facts are as complete as possible, in context, and not in disregard of facts which oppose the conclusion. See also the reasons why ad hominem and appeals to authority are counted as fallacious.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
If you truly think that modern "science" isn't influenced at all by politics, you really need to read about what happened behind the scenes before that IPCC report was published. You could start by looking at the legal action some of the scientists named as contributors took to try to get their names removed because they didn't want to be associated with it. Then you could look at the funding arrangements for the strongest supporters.
I'm not saying the phenomenon of global warming is completely made up. I'm not saying we shouldn't be watching what's happening, considering our role in it, and adjusting our behaviour if necessary. Nowhere did I say any of these things, despite what several knee-jerk respondents seem to think I wrote.
What I am saying is that we shouldn't panic over every little story about something this year being different to something last year, and go all hyper as if the world is about to end. As others have noted, the possibility of global warming has been on the scientific radar for decades. If it is such a great and immediate threat to humanity, the scientific community has been remarkably restrained for an awfully long time given that suddenly this is the top item on the agenda and they are falling over themselves to tell us how much trouble we are in. The science didn't change that quickly; remember, the IPCC report was essentially a huge survey paper, not a whole load of original research that told us we'd been off by orders of magnitude in our previous knowledge and modelling or something. What changed quickly was the politics.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Anyone who believes this isn't a man-made disaster ... shut the f&*k up.
Alternatively, any one who would like to stop hearing opposing view points, feel free to close the browser.
It's worth repeating, historically, the mob is often, if not always, wrong. Below is an excerpt from a speech that is well worth reading for an historical perspective:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
The argument can easily be made that over the last ten to twenty years we have moved from a consensus of there-is-no-warming to a consensus of global-warming. One might argue that a few determined scientists with excellent data managed this swing in just a few short years.
But the argument can also be made that the consensus prior to global-warming was not there-is-no-warming, but rather global-cooling and trying to drive policy to prevent the coming ice age. These people have a poor track record with predictions, but always seem ready with recommendations for how to behave.
Only history will prove them right or wrong. Prior to that, we are just running around with our hands in the air like chicken-little and demanding that massive works are undertaken to shore up the sky. Had we done this for global-cooling in the 1970s, we would have wasted a lot of money and resources.
I would suggest that the global warming crowd make a track of predictions for average surface, ocean and atmospheric temperatures for the next ten years. They should be able to predict the average within a margin of error EACH year on the way to that goal. If they can select the measurement criteria and firmly state their predictions... then we can observe their accuracy and react accordingly as the reality of the situation unfolds.
Up until now, all they've done is move the target.
These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
On the other hand, there is a non-zero chance that when you leave your home to go to work tomorrow morning, you will be run over by a truck. You could guarantee that you will avoid this fate by staying home. Do you do so?
The difference is just the numbers. In one case, we know the impact is very likely; in the other, it is very unlikely. In one case, the downside of making the "safe" choice is negligible; in the other, it probably costs you your job.
I rather doubt that an informed, object viewer of the current evidence on global warming would consider the situation anything like either of these extremes.
For the record, I also rather doubt any of the people expressing such strong views in this Slashdot discussion are even remotely qualified to do so. Heck, looking at some of the comments, I would be surprised if the majority of people here even know the basic science to understand what is being discussed rather than regurgitating the passionately held views of whoever's position statement they read most recently.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
We're taking billions of tons of carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere. Are you so confident that this will have no effect on climate that you're willing to bet billions of lives on it? That seems crazy to me. Climatologists have actually done the math and generally agree that the risk is significant. What is the downside in proactively reducing fossil fuel consumption? We're going to have to reduce fossil fuel consumption eventually anyway (as the high-quality near-surface stuff runs out) so getting started early and possibly avoiding an immense global disaster seems only prudent.
"polar ice maximum"--that is the *date* of the thickest ice, end of winter ice forming season. Calendar dates are not thick (or thin). FWIW, they reckon mid march this past winter for the polar ice maximum at the north pole. If you mean extent, it was marginally larger than last year, but still way below average and most of it is "young" ice, and it is already melting rapidly. Old ice-ice that has survived past one season- has been steadily dropping for some time now. That's the thick heavy duty stuff that hangs in there and really helps with climate moderation and circulation, but there is less of it every year now. Once it is all young ice, it will be ice free every summer, more or less completely. If that happens, the next goi go is the tundra, and if the tundra goes all melty, 100 zillion cubic metric fucktons of methane start to be released-then all bets are off. The climate modelers gauges only go to 10 ;)
Not that I am a proponent of the 100% man made global climate change theory, I am not, and I am completely against the total scam carbon trading massive wealth skimming industry and huge government power grabs being pushed as the "war on carbon", when we all need and use carbon, no way around that. But I am a proponent of the climate change theory of man made simultaneously with naturally occurring cyclic and solar output variable. IMO, it is *all of the above*, all the time now, but I also support a real fast shutdown (within a decade or so) of the heavy pollution from coal and oil, a fast weaning off those sources, (I certainly think the big oil guys and big coal guys have made enough for now, time for the planets money to go elsewhere and to eliminate threat of war over those resources) and a global mega project to go to renewables and decentralized power and individual ownership as much as possible. I am against massive air and water pollution just to perpetuate global energy cartel vendor lockin. If such a switch helps to moderate climate change for the better, that's frosting.
30 years ago there were a couple articles in popular magazines pointing out that up until 10,000 years ago, Europe an North America underwent repeated, frequent ice ages. They had not measured the Earth cooling in the 30 years prior. Gerald Ford did not get an Ocscar or a Nobel Prize for a movie about Global Cooling. Global cooling was never taken seriously then in the way that global warming now is.
Now we have measured the Earth warming. We have tried to model it, and the only reasonable explanation is human emissions of greenhouse gases. It now appears the North Pole will melt this year.
How much longer do you want to wait for "definitive evidence" that global warming is happening, and that we're causing it? Until drought wrecks the farm economy of California? Until Florida disappears back into the ocean? Until the oil and the coal runs out, and there's no longer economic incentive for people to stick their heads in the sand?