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
Oh no! What will happen to santa and his elves, and the reindeer? Won't someone think of the reindeer?
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
That we carpet bomb the damn thing just to be safe.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Just read a great book about China's 'discovery' of the America around 1421 and they were able to get their junks around Greenland, a feat not otherwise possible, but it was warm that year.
No idea how many SUVs were on the road back then, so I wonder how we can compare CO2 emissions?
The opposite of progress is congress
much easier to extract all the oil trapped in the sea floor up there!
If I can not smoke in heaven, then I shall not go. -- Mark Twain
It's about fucking time those damn penguins get what they deserve.
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?
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/video-speeches-independent.html
"The melt would be mostly symbolic--thicker ice, pushed against the Canadian continental shelf by weather and Earth's rotation, would still survive the summer."
So when we say the North Pole will melt we are talking about a point not the whole Artic ocean which is what impression one might get from the title.
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
So the ice is disappearing at record rates and the twat posting this article trolls that we're may be heading for an ice age?
Doesn't anyone read Nature or Science anymore?
I hate ice and snow anyway - what a bloody mess it is. If you are a masochistic person who actually likes snow I suggest you move to a colder planet such as Mars or Pluto.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Has anyone thought that this is just the planet recovering from the ice age?
Maybe the melting ice could have something to do with this:
AFP Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study
Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths
Some analysis at:
Global Warming - Or Simply Massive Under Sea Volcanoes?
Yess!!! More profits for my offshore drilling!! Screw humanity!! praise the (dollar,euro, etc)!!!
Signed,
Big Oil
It's almost like mother nature is giving humanity some 'gentle' urging to move-out and get our own place.
Pretty soon, however, if we don't get our ass in gear I have a feeling we might find all our stuff thrown out on the front lawn...if you follow the analogy.
Read my Very Short "Stories"
It is comical to me that in the past decade, I've seen the headlines purchased by oil company spin doctors go from:
Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?
to
Global Warming: Are We Causing It?
to
Global Warming: What Can We Do About It?
to
Antarctica: The New Hawaii
We need to get Congress on the phone... We need legislation to protect Santa Claus. What will we do when kids learn there's no ice at the pole for the old elf to live in?
What surprises me is that there has not been any significant change in sea level even though the sea level rose about 130m since the last ice age.
I thought flooding was one of the major dangers of global warning. Where did the ice go?
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?
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.
There are cycles on our planet, and that's a fact. We can count at least 4 cycles of global glaciation that we know of. But at a scale a lot greater than the human one, our sun is growing fast. A couple hundredths of a percent every decade. So our faith is there. As the sun will grow larger and larger, our planet is going to heat more and more, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it.
In the course of our tiny human life, we will never see the planet completely ice-free, nor will we ever witness Nenets Beach. But it's a fact we can see a slight difference, and it's a fact that WE make a slight difference on climate change. But our destiny is that of our Sun
TRA is about the North Pole melting. The link provided in the post about the implications is actually about the South Pole.
Yeah, that sounds like logical thinking. Isn't the use of fossil fuels one of the leading arguments for the reason the polar caps are melting?
Ursus Maritimus has been through worse. They've had to put up with a lot higher temperatures before. What's more they're
interbreeding with the Ursus Arctos (brown bear) population giving rise to the Grolar or the Prizzly. So does a polar bear
shit into the woods? Soon he will but he wont GIVE a shit.
All that climate alarmist crap. I haven't had access to untampered realtime raw satellite imagery for years so you can
all stick it where the polar bear doesn't get sunshine. I am not going to take your word, it isn't worth a polar bears
turd and as far as I can see out my window this is one hell of a cold summer so piss off.
Let me just say it now before someone else does...
Bush, BUSH, BUSH, Cheney, Halliburton, Cheney, Halliburton, No blood for oil, Bush, bush, Cheney, Halliburton...bush lied ppl died....
Moooooooooooon BaaaaT
Antarctica: The New Hawaii
According to this article the information was really extended beyond what the reporter had received from the scientist.
It was also suggested that the ice may have been flushed out due to the movement of water rather than melting so much. This flow of water might be caused by greenhouse gasses though.
Changes in solar energy output (the "ringing" of the Sun)? Or . . .
Naturally occuring changes in the planetary atmosphere (as has happened before on this planet)? Or . . .
Naturally occuring changes in the planetary hydrosphere (as has also happened before on this planet)? Or . . .
Al Gore's incessant whining about greenhouse gasses (now there's a bunch of hot air!)? Or . . .
But you get the point - when we at least have an educated guess as to the 'why' (and if that 'why' comes back to human activity on the planet), then I'll consider this more than an interesting possibility.
Yeah, because everybody knows that the person who *really* knows about climate science is a bad fiction writer.
This is where I look to keep track of what's happening with the north pole:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Best graph is :
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
My friends refer to it a climate-porn...
Can't say I strongly disagree since it has the feel of watching a loooong slow train wreck...
Maybe that Point Barrow beachfront track that Florida sales guy sold me some time back isn't that bad of a deal after all!
This is just Mother Nature helping the shipping companies with the high price of gas. Opening the NW Passage saves having to go around that whole South America thing or go through the Panama Canal. See, it is all part of W's plan for stimulating the economy!
today is spelling optional day.
Aren't there valid arguments that say that this is just a cyclic phenomenon linked to solar activity?
This is great news for international shipping.
Just when fuel prices are skyrocketing, global commerce gets a 50% break on shipping distances.
On the North Pole web cam.
Think of the children! What will they do for Christmas?!
Damn straight! The Republicans need to hear this! Maybe a "Think of the Children" argunt will get then in shape.
Mod me down if you will, but I heard one report that ice levels right now are higher than at the same time last year.
The NW Passage has been open in the recent past from (1905 - 1948). Accurate measurement of the "melting" began in 1979, probably about the time ice coverage peaked. As a cursory search will show, it has also been open in the more distant past as well.
The freeze/thaw of the arctic is clearly cyclic. Whether it is clear evidence of global warming or not is a question to be considered. Man's impact on this warming, if the warming is actually happening, is another question altogether.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
After the ice melts, the poles flip. Eventually we'll be in the next iceage... It has nothing to due with my SUV or your solar panels, it is the nature of the cycle of destruction. After the mass extinction, the strong will survive and slowly rebuild. Our Children and generations more will forget what came before. They will worship our relics and call God by his new name: ComPewTur
Am I kidding? Maybe, Maybe not...
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
I hope it all melts so we can see if Al Gore's doomsday prediction of Manhattan being 10 feet under water holds true or not. We need more "sky falling" incidents to show the "sky is falling" crowd that it isn't always as bad as they think (cough, hope).
The NY Times' environmental blogger has a bit of an analysis of this including a great animation of sea ice growth and melt from 1980 to 2007.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/whats-really-up-with-north-pole-sea-ice/index.html
From my read of his post, it sounds like the Independent may have over-stated its case and mis-represented the words of the experts they interviewed. Which isn't to say things aren't bad...
Next they'll be telling us that poorly-built levees cause flooding and mosquitoes cause Malaria. I'm glad the White House ignored that pesky EPA with their science.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Sung to the tune of Santa Clause is coming to town "Santa Clause is going to drown"
Polar bears already have problems. Ice freezes later and thaws sooner, so bears have to swim further and many drown. Seals, their primary food source, are also under pressure because they need the ice to birth. Your wiki source also includes this:
Finally, the National Geographic was a little glib, if not intentionally missleading, when it said:
Any reasonable person quickly realizes there will be no ice to "push" if it's all gone in the center. Models that have not predicted the rapidity of ice loss need to be recalibrated as do politicians who deny global warming and it's impact. The alarmists are alarmingly correct.
The Cryosphere Today is a web site run by the University of Illinois. It gives daily information on the extent of polar sea ice.
As shown here and here and here, the arctic ice extent is actually greater than last year, although lower than historical averages.
We seem to have conflicting data.
So we can grab our bathing suits and head for the north poll by next summer?
right now the cap is 10.5mm square kilometers, vs. 7.5mm this time last year. Hacks.
!#&*
A new ice age.
Now, have we had a long warm period?
You stupid fucker.
If things are melting, why would we get into an ICE age?
Anyone not taking immediate drastic measures to curb their emissions is CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT.
you were a good bunch. some other place, time, dimension, whatever, see ya.
Read radical news here
Has anyone thought that Global Warming is just an excuse to get power and control? It goes all the way back to the ancient world as described by Herodotus. Croesus told Cyrus to take the loot from the looters, but to tell the looters that he was taking it for Zeus. That way the looters wouldn't blame Cyrus, but think of him as righteous.
Consider that it's a moral good to give the enlightened few power and control. Almost 3000 years of history and we still fall for the same trick.
Skeptics tell us that the climate models are riddled with errors, and cannot be trusted. It it turns out that the artic does indeed become ice free this summer then this would prove them right.
Just last year, the models were predicting summer 2013. That would be about 60 months to be ice free. If it happens this summer, then that would be less than 10 months. The time predicted by the model would be 500% greater than reality (if it happens).
How can you base environment policies on models that are shown to have such large errors? We obviously need to postpone any action until the models are much more accurate! [/sarcasm]
Opinions my own, statements of fact may contain errors
If you'd like to simulate this yourself, the EdGCM project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2 or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM.
Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.
Space and Computers.
If Al Gore's audiences truly were capable of rational thinking, would he get the Nobel PEACE prize for his fight against global warming?
Interestingly enough, I read this today. Remember when the big scare in the media was the hole in the ozone layer?
The more scientists learn the more they realize that the environment is far more complex than the simplistic and alarmist notion that human activity is changing the climate.
Where did the ice go?
Tom Collins's.... Turns out...
Who cares about what happens in 5 years? We'll pretty much run the world by then!
Umm, we're China, right?
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?
Yes to all of the above.
I love multiple choice when all of the answers are right.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
The chart in the article includes plots of historical melt, 2007 melt, and 2008 melt. The 2008 line falls between the 2007 and historical lines. The 2007 and 2008 lines do overlap at several points, but the most recent plot points show the 2008 line moving back between 2007 and the average. How is it that 2008 is on pace to be a record year when 2007 currently shows more?
Aren't there valid arguments that say that this is just a cyclic phenomenon linked to solar activity?
No. Increased solar output appear to only account for a small portion of the increase in temperature. Of course some of the 10,000s of scientists involved may by liberal, so we can just ignore them...
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
But he has p-p-p-powerpoint!
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Correct me if I'm wrong, (and I'm sure some of you will try), but when ice melts into water.. it does not displace the volume of the water.. correct?
What that means is New York and DC will (sadly) not be submerged in the ocean.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
The photo shown in this story was taken nowhere near the north pole and is undated, why is it even there?
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
If the Earth keeps warming significantly, I intend to buy a bunch of coastal land in Alaska, where someday soon it will become prime temperate oceanfront property when all the rich folks want to migrate to up there.
Global Warming is unfalsifiable. No matter what happens, the experts will find it supporting global warming. Can they give us ONE possible event that can falsify Global Warming? Nope. Can you imagine any event that could convince the experts to drop their theory? Nope.
There. Fixed it for you.
Remember Sonny Bono! Remember what's-his-name Kennedy!
You should be able to watch what happens from webcams near the Nort Pole station. Now, if the North Pole does melt you you won't see much anymore from those cams, of cause.
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
All you'd need to show is a trend that, over time, the average temperature of the atmosphere and ocean is dropping, or at least stable. It might also help to show stable or increasing glacier masses (over a large collection of glaciers distributed all over the world, and over a somewhat large period of time - doesn't have to be stable in a one year cycle - one would *expect* glaciers to shrink during 'summer' [which is going to differ between northern and southern hemisphere's, of course], and grow back during the winter - but at least over the course of a decade or two).
Welcome my new algae plankton cod fishing baby seal thank god the bears are gone overlord masters!
This is my sig.
So, the N. Pole is growing while the S. Pole is growing new ice despite a big hole in the ozone and chiken little claims of global warming. Yep - we live on a dynamic Earth, and I'm convinced that most of these scientists don't really know jack.
I bet it doesn't even come close.
The Earth stopped warming in 1998. Even the notoriously unreliable IPCC says so. Crazy people and wild speculation doesn't make for good journalism.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Considering many places are having record ice GROWTH
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap-growth-reaches.html
how is this bad for us?
Where did the ice go?
It's now all at the north pole of Mars. What, does nobody read the other articles here?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Technically, if the world was to flood, then Religion would not be based on the Bible, And then the Bible would not exist.
It's not under debate by the real scientists. Funny people still try to spin that.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Has anyone thought that this is just the planet recovering from the ice age?
Gee, I've only heard that theory about a thousand fucking times from the oil companies and people in the Republican party.
The biggest debate about global warming is in regards to "Natural vs. Man-made". So yeah, people have thought about it.
They could just mod you down instead!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
So even global warming backers say global warming is in hiatus but they'll point to this as proof of global warming. Which they admitted is in hiatus.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
It never ceases to amaze me how many useful idiots mod posts at Slashdot.
Global warming is a scam.
Weather Channel Founder Wants To Sue Al Gore For Global Warming Fraud
http://www.infowars.com/?p=805
http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Global+Warming+is+a+Scam1.pdf
CO2 is a life giving element not a poison.
http://home.earthlink.net/~root.man/warming.html
According to the Yahoo report this morning, the North Pole will be ice free for the first time in human history. Really? People were recording the ice flows 6-10-25 thousand years ago? We've only been a full scale sea exploring people for ~500 years. The first man reached the north pole in what, the early 1900's?! Wow, first time in human history the north pole is water. There are ancient Roman port towns that are over 1 mile from the current shore line. How do global warming experts explain that? That was 2000 years ago. Obviously, the ice caps were much smaller back then, for the ports to be a mile from sea.
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!!!
If you'd watched "An Inconvenient Truth", you'd have known he has been interested in the environment since taking classes with professor Roger Revelle who was a frontrunner in the field of climatology.
right quote is: "nuke it from orbit. Is the only way to be sure"
REALLY take a look at Georgie Carlton he says the planet is OK and is here to stay so this is bunk and needs to be stopped being placed on here by whacked out guys North Pole Ice will not melt at all this is so FREAKING STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
North Pole Ice On Track To Melt By September?
A project that is on schedule! Somebody is in for a pay rise.
Oh wait, that was a question. Nevermind, I'm sure I can bring the project to schedule if I work evenings and weekends for the next three months. I'll be in my cubicle hatching evil plans if anybody needs me.
"Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
Mammals are a huge reservoir of the disease, all the medicine in the world wont clear the disease from an area..
Storm
Could just be over fishing, my uncle went out ice fishing and caught 72 pounds. I think that is totally unreasonable myself.
"better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07
Science used to be about theories that could be falsified. Now its all about opinion and consensus. Anyone care to calculate the time constant required to melt the ice sheet on the North Pole assuming that heat is transferring from the ATMOSPHERE to the ice sheet? Daily air temps are available, the mass of the ice can be calculated. If you are a critical thinker you should do the math -- you'll find it illuminating. Better yet, do this experiment, build up a pile of ice on land in May in Miami and make it 2Km thick. Go back in September. Let me know what happened. Any thermodynamics majors out there? The only mechanism that could be at work here is transport from the ocean water to the ice sheet perhaps in combination with radiative heat transfer from the sun to the ice sheet. This is why you're not seeing the AGW Climate Scientists jumping all over this one. Rather than confirming AGW, this falsifies the global computer models. Much like the lack of tropic troposphere warming falsifies the global climate models.
Does this mean Kevin Costner gets forgiven for that movie?
1) What bearing (if) anything does this have on Russia's controversial territorial claim of the region?
2) Is there oil? (Serious question)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
It is absolutely amazing how easily people are being deceived by this global warming nonsense. It is probably going to lead to an economic breakdown throughout the world. The ridiculous constraints on people and industry would be the cause. When you are starving in the streets as a result of this, it will be your fault only and so be it. I personally have prepared for such a possible calamity. A godless people fall into this kind of trap.
Loss of cropland? How about GAINING cropland? In places like northern Canada. What was permafrost, is now agriculture.
start considering what all the emissions its causing by waging wars against the third world is doing to the climate, in Iraqi alone it has devastated the natural habitat and increased sound dunes and the green house effect by at least 30 times more prior to the war.
A ten year cooling period proves that the globe cooled for 10 years. It's perfectly correct to say that during that 10 year period, we experienced global cooling. It might be that after that 10 year period, the globe then experienced another period of global warming. The thing about trends is, it always depends on what time frame you are actually interested in. One could go to the other extreme, and look at the last X thousand years of global history, say, from the peak of the last warm period, through the ice age, and up to the present and say that during that time frame, there is no average global warming or cooling, and that would be correct too.
The fact is, we know the earth is warming, because that is based on verifiable observations. You can't falsify observations. Now, there is something else also called Global Warming, which is the theory that man is *causing* the Earth to warm. That's a lot tougher nut, but there has to be a way to falsify that theory. One thing we can say is that the theory of Man-made Global Warming is based on the theory that certain gasses, which are released by man into the atmosphere, trap heat. That is a falsifiable theory, which has not been falsified. Experiments have indicated that the hypothesis that Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and other gasses trap heat in the atmosphere. There is another theory, that plants and other types of life forms (I think algeas and other lifeforms in the ocean) remove Carbon Dioxide, in particular, from the atmosphere, and that is a falsifiable theory. Since we know that mankind is, overall, reducing the surface area of the planet that is densely populated by plants, we can say, not absolutely surely, and possibly not falsifiable, but with with a high degree of confidence, that the earth's ability to reduce Carbon Dioxide is reduced from what it could do in the past (there is still the matter of the oceans; it may be possible that, even though the plantlife on the surface is not removing as much CO2 as it used to, maybe the ocean is removing more than it used to).
My point is, that while the big, complex 'puzzle' that is a theory like global warming, maybe cannot be falsified as a whole, you can certainly falsify the constituent pieces of the theory. If you have not been able to experimentally falsify the pieces (which are falsifiable), then the most reasonable assumption is that the theory is correct, until you have some concrete evidence or theory to show why the theory was not, in fact, correct.
That said, we should not commit economic suicide because of fear of global warming. As far as I can tell, the only reason people who are 'anti-global warming' even care about the issue is that they fear that we will enact regulations which will have a harmful effect on the economy, without really having a need to. The way I see it, global warming is, to some extent, a long term issue, and we should be thinking about long term solutions. We absolutely should be continuing to pour resources into energy research (e.g. improved designs for solar power, wind, fission, fusion, biomass - we need to explore every possibility to find cleaner, renewable energy), research into efficiency/consumption reduction, etc.
We shouldn't deny global warming, when there is so much evidence for the theory, but we also shouldn't make drastic bad choices that impoverish people, out of fear of global warming.
"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.
what the propagandists aren't telling you is that there are UNDERWATER VOLCANOES erupting in the Artic. Hmmmm wouldn't that cause ice to melt?
http://xkcd.com/54/
I use a laptop and run it off the battery as much as possible, so most of the time it doesn't use any electricity.
Even though climates worldwide have been in flux since the creation of the planet and we have developed tools in the last 100 years to measure the climate and its changed by half a percent we should all panic and believe that we are causing it and save the planet!!!
what ever will will dooooo????? :P
And YES i'm posting anonymously because I'm tired of hearing it all....
AAAND yes, the run-on was definitely intentional.
I dont't know if is on track, here is the chart comparing today with the last 6 years.
From the chart is difficult to say if we are or not on track.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Their predictions were wrong. It's melting faster than anyone anticipated. That's fine, how does this get to "it's exactly what we said was gonna happen but worse!" when it should be "we were wrong and we obviously don't have an accurate way of predicting these things."
So, the N. Pole is growing while the S. Pole is growing new ice despite a big hole in the ozone and chiken little claims of global warming.
MYTH: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
Read the whole article.
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?
Actually, I would do nothing. Not by choice, but because I wouldn't have time. If the car were traveling at 100mph, that translates to approximately 147 feet per second. Ergo, if the car were 50 feet away when the physicist began to warn me, I would be dead before he finished uttering "There's a..." So if we go by your analogy, we've been warned far too late and we're going to die anyway. Unless of course the physicist is wrong. I'm also curious as to why he's saying "Maybe you should move out of the way" rather than "LOOK OUT!!!" Typical physicists...
Well, if you are joking that would make you a libertarian. If you are serious, then you are a republican. I you had not said anything, it would make you a dem.
Quote -- This is Unix! I know this!
Dude... your lack of indication on the movie or the book leaves me to reference the funnier one.
Maybe...and I know I'm going out on a limb here..it's possible that this has a little something to do with it...?
Ferretman
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
So just to prove Al Gore wrong, we've resorted to alternate theories for the exact same problem. Great. Now by blaming underwater volcanoes, we can die in our oil guzzling Hummers eating cheap beef.
There's the text in the article:
Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally ice-free North Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by huge swathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.
Whether the analysis is correct, I can't say, but there are clearly more variables being taken into the account in the analysis than just looking at the raw surface area number and drawing a line.
I thought there was open water at the North Pole in 1966 or 1967.
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?
Depends if moving out of the way means you have to jump off a 35' cliff.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
As the whole UFO and crop circle situation unraveled, I think it taught us a great lesson.
That many scientists are not to be trusted. They can be made to say anything, not even for money. They'd do it for fame, or to just kill time. Literally.
The worst part is, that many of these BS scientists completely believe in their BS science. When they speak with conviction, it is because they have it.
Of course, this lesson is followed by another great lesson.
That many scientists are to be trusted. They are acknowledged by their peers, their work is repeatedly challenged and tested, and backed with hard evidence. When they all agree on something, it is, by definition, true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is one thing competent scientists agree on, it is global warming.
With that said, is the debate over? The debate about what to do, how to do it, and how global warming is really happening will always be debated. But not global warming itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
No, not because it's been said before...I'm sure it has, somewhere. Instead, it's not news because a couple of "experts" (who are unable to predict properly a hurricane season, or next month's weather for my home) are making an assumption, and the media is running with it.
Remember all the flap about media bias? This is it. Most people (who don't pay a great deal of attention to the news, just headlines) think the housing market is so bad houses will no longer be for sale. They think gas is high, will only get higher, and that The Fed is the only one who can help.
(They've completely forgotten about the million stories of them paying $600 for a toilet seat, ruining health care with Medicade/Medicare, ruining the oil industry with over regulation, ruining higher education by allowing "the government" to pay higher tuitions each year, and pretty much everything but the military and post office. I haven't.)
The truth is that 1/2 of 1% of home mortgages are unpaid nationally. Not a big deal- we swung UP to a hot market, now we swing back to a cooler one. This is natural.
But no: the media must whine and complain (not merely *report* the news, as journalists used to do) but instead propagandize for their party, the liberals. This is a time of over-reporting and media push. The journalists have left the planet; Peabody Awards now go only to people who hate Bush, just like the Nobel Peace prize.
Why are polls news? They're snapshots, that's all, but they make news as if they were actual happenings- had meaning. They don't. But watch how much of the time "experts" are surprised by things they shouldn't be (currently like signs of a strong economy, like it is now) and how a couple of guys working at a dorm somewhere are taken seriously because they need to push GlobalWarming(TM).
Watch for yourselves: the broadcast media is now propaganda. Not hard news, not investigative reports of both parties, soft reports for their own, cheap shots for the other. Think critically the next time you hear a headline; it's time to notice the programming being passed out.
I knew a bunch of guys at a local apartment complex. Mentioning Ashcroft or Rove or anyone in the Bush admin would make their blood boil and their mouths foam...but they could never tell me *why* they hated them like someone who had killed a family member. The same thing goes on today.
There's not a nickle's difference between Bill Clinton, John Kerry, or Barak OBama: they're all poll-driven and sway with the wind. Barak is just the one on parade, today. How is that different? (Maybe the media is programming that in our heads, too?)
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
That is a false analogy, because the glass isn't filled with salt water. The sea level increase isn't substantial, but it is greater than zero.
http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html
The common misconception that floating ice won't increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration.
http://home.comcast.net/~pdnoerd/NoerdlingerBrower.pdf (the paper, provided by the author, that is referenced in the physorg article)
If all the extant sea ice and floating shelf ice melted, the global sea level would rise about 4 cm.
... many countries are eagerly hoping that there IS a permanent melt up north for precisely those reasons, though they'd never admit it publicly... it would revolutionize shipping. And Canada, Denmark, Russia... many countries think that a lot of natural resources are waiting for them under that melting ice. Canada is now actively planning out new shipping routes, and trying to establish legal ownership of many of those possible routes across the north.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The only people who bring up Al Gore in a discussion of the science are deniers, not skeptics - deniers, looking for an easy ad hominem retort in order to avoid actually thinking about the science.
Who needs scientific evidence when you can simply scream a one-liner from a cartoon comedy show, as one of the tags on this article attests?
Join the club!
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
1. Polar Bears should plan accordingly.
2. Sell your land in low lying areas.
3. New destination for Cruise Ships.
4. Nowhere for polar transit airliners to crash land.
5. The Northwest Passage is now open for business!
6. Arctic Fishing is a real possibility.
7. Eocene Climate coming to a biosphere near you!
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
The touchstones to use to make sure you're not getting bamboozled by an inappropriate appeal to authority ("I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV") are:
o Is the person genuinely an expert in the field?
o Is the statement within the person's expertise?
o Do the experts generally agree on the subject of the statement?
o Is the person decently unbiased?
o Is the field itself a sound, knowledge-based one?
o Is the expert identified?
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?"
There isn't any debate. Read this:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
I don't care if people are tired of me posting it. I'm tired of people spouting baloney without backing it up.
For fifty years, Western nations have maintained the sheeple in state of perpetual fear. Fear of nuclear war, fear of the Communist menace, fear of the Iron Curtain and fear of the Evil Empire. Within the Communist countries, the same just in reverse. But then in the fall of 1989, it was all finished; The fall of the Berlin Wall created a vacuum of fear, and something had to fill it.
We now have radical fundamentalism and post-9/11 terrorism to make us afraid instead. Before terrorism took over as the lead cause and reason for the reduction of civil rights, we feared the toxic environment. Before that we had the Communist menace. Although the specific cause of our fear may change, we are never without fear itself.
Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health and comfort. Average life spans have increased fifty percent in the last century. Yet modern people live in abject fear. Afraid of strangers, crime, terrorism, disease, and the environment. We're convinced the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around us.
In the old days, citizens of the West believed their nation-states were dominated by the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower warned the Americans against it in the 1960's, and after two world wars Europeans knew very well what it meant in their own countries. But it was no longer the primary driver of society. For the last 20 years we have in fact been under the control of the politico-legal-media complex, dedicated to promoting fear in the population under the guise of promoting safety. Politicians need to control the population. Lawyers need danger to litigate and make money. The media needs scare stories to capture an audience. They are so compelling they go about their business even if the scare is totally groundless.
The world has changed in the last 50 years. Global warming is just one of our many New Fears to enable Governments to impose so-called 'green' taxes that do nothing for the environment yet lighten your wallet anyway, and permit heavy, if subtle control over your life. Ask any child what Global Warming is, I guarantee they will be able to tell you what it is, or what the government wants them to think it is. Scary isn't it?
Don't take my word for it either. There are hundreds of texts that will help show you enlightenment where global warming is concerned, if you throw away a life-time of prejudices and just go and find out for yourself. Our climate is cyclic, always has been and always will be. Our part in this round of cycling is so insignificant as to be almost entirely irrelevant.
Further reading:
Terrestrial Ecosystems Aber, John D. Jerry M. Melillo. Harcourt Academic Press 2001.
Creating Fear, News and the Construction of Crisis Aldine de Gruyter 2002.
Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet Climatic Change 63 (2004): 201-21.
Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change New York/Oxford University Press, 2000.
The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850 New York/Basic Books 2000.
Radical Ecopsychology: Psychology in the Service of Life State University New York Press 2002
After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North America Pielou, E.C. University of Chicago Press 1991.
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence Federal Judicial Center 1994.
Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate Singer, S. Fred. Oakland Independent Institute 1998.
The above was a different can of worm on "skepticism", it was not linked to any data or science, but rather to cultural problem. One could certainly argue succesfully that it is in no way linked to current cliemtn change skepticism, as this skepticism is linked in NO data whatsoever, just like skepticism against semmelweiß theory was not linked to data. In other word, your example is not an example of a crowd being wrong, but an example of a crowd ignoring data and science. In other word it is a perfect example for climate change on the contrary to what you think.
Furthermore comparing temperature trend which are calculated over 10's of years and requesting people make a prediction on average each year is STUPID. Repeat after me, it is STUPID if your variance can be higher than your trend, which is the freaking case with climate change temperature prediction (0.2 ) and year to year temperature average which can reach more than that. A more doable prediction would be to predict that the trend will continue in the next 10 years, no matter if there are anomalous peak or depth.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
way to backpedal on your whole parent post in one "post-modern" solipsistic sentence...
face it, you got pwned
Thank you Dave Raggett
I'm wondering if the visiting aliens will see a giant goatse from space, the melted hole surrounded by ice will look rather like that!
Brilliant.
Mod parent up.
BTW
Solar Cycle #24 is about 14 months late already and still not in sight. Expect a cold decade or more.
Are you so confident that this will have no effect on climate that you're willing to bet billions of lives on it?
And you've demonstrated yet again why global warming is a fire and brimstone religion. You just throwing that out there: Billions will die if you don't repent. *Cue scary music* Where'd you learn that? Your ouija board? Crystal ball maybe? Oh, oh, oh, I've got it... computer model! Right??
You don't have a shred of credible evidence to support that belief. You certainly have faith that there will be "consequences." REPENT! And ye shall be saved!
something like this?
High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program
he who controls the spice controls the universe
I know, but there comes a time where for all practical purposes you have to stop being metaphysical and accept that that cigar IS a cigar.
What IS a cigar, and how do you classify them?
That's not metaphysics, buddy.
Are you suggesting that to "stop being metaphysical", we have to unconditionally agree with your assumptions? Were you home-schooled or something?
Science has almost nil to do with metaphysics. They're damned near opposites of each other.
You appear to be unable to draw a distinction between philosophy and science.
Once upon a time there was a book named the Malleus Maleficarum.. it was a way to deal with a problem. But the problem wasn't there for everyone, only certain very wealthy folk were afraid of the problem. How did they achieve a solution? By turning their enemies upon each other, using prejudice and creating mythologies about every day occurrences. By this, I mean things like "your baby and your cows died because of witchcraft" or "flooding in U.S. midwest == global warming" Easy to say, hard to prove either way.
As you can see, the "twiddly bits" which we have heard argued over and over are the real focus of the Global Warming movement. Whilst we wax poetic about evil oil companies versus conspiring communists there are people continuing to take away human civil liberty (most offensively in places like the United States where liberty was the manifest national goal.) Greed for power hides in all walks of life and when we label any one group as the principal "evil," we are no better than sexists or racists: the new prejudices in the society I see around me today in America are revolting. Even though gays and other minorities are relatively free to enjoy equal liberty with others there is a new, less defined prejudice which focuses more on intellectual profile than physical.
I enjoy reading the thoughts of Slashdotters on the subject, and I realize that I am rehashing a little bit, but the level of misinformation (in both directions) is appalling. Television is almost completely a "lie-box" now; there is no fact or news, only offensive commentary and greed. Greed will exist in a capitalist system, greed will exist in a communist system.
Do not let the labels which we throw around so loosely trick you: People ARE out to get your money, and there's a %99 chance that you have no idea who they really are.
This is not a conspiracy theory, it is simply history. Read some.
Funny how the rabid deniers all post anonymously. Dude, you're dealing with the Evil Global Warming Religious Conspiracy here -- you think not logging in is going to protect you? We have infiltrated all the news media, including Slashdot! Our agents have already tracked you down, and BLACK HELICOPTERS running on SATANIC BIOFUELS are already on the way to your back woods compound to punish you for your BLASPHEMY! This is your last chance to REPENT!
<eyeroll>
even tho less than 30% of the heat gets to the surface, in its upper atmosphere where it is close to earth PSI, it is actually close to earth temps.
Also i bet you anywhere you compress a gas to that high pressure its going to get hot, ever feel a cycle pump or tyer ?
Thats what causes re-entry heat, the fast pressure build up, not friction as many people may wrongly infer from bad movies or cartoons.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
According to this article the North Pole has already been without ice a few years ago:
"In 2001, Russia made the first move, staking out virtually half of
the Arctic Ocean, including the North Pole. Moscow sought to bolster
its claim by sending a research ship north to gather geographical
data. On Aug. 29, it reached the pole without the help of an
icebreaker - the first surface ship ever to do so."
If you understood anything about climatology, you would know 1 C would be bad enough.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Fill a glass with water, take some of that water and freeze it, put the ice back in the glass.
The level of the water will be lower with ice (below the brim) than with water (at the brim).
The global water cycle started with water in liquid form which later freezed, not with water and ice, as you tried to show.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Ok, if everything going on right now is our fault, why are other planetary and satellite bodies in our solar system seeing unprecedented warming?
I don't get how this can be a field where you get to have personal opinions. You don't get to choose reality. You don't get to choose facts.
Also, it's obvious we need to move away from oil and fossil fuels. Pollution is bad no matter your religious, philosophical or political affiliations. The CO2 molecule behaves the same way for all of us. To drastically and so quickly increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere WILL have an effect, whether you want it or not.
Moderation 0
30% Insightful
30% Overrated
20% Interesting
Extra 'Insightful' Modifier 0 (Edit)
Total Score: 1
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/06/an_ice_free_north_pole.html
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/06/an_ice_free_north_pole.html
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/06/an_ice_free_north_pole.html