Slashdot Mirror
Huge Arctic Ice Shelf Breaks Off
knarfling writes "CNN is reporting that a chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan has broken away from Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic. Just last month 21 square miles of ice broke free from the Markham Ice Shelf. Scientists are saying that Ellesmere Island has now lost more than 10 times the ice that was predicted earlier this summer. How long before the fabled Northwest Passage is a reality?"
It realy is amazing that those who seek to deny climate change point to regionalized changes as an indication that "it's not getting warmer".
That's not the point. The point is that it is getting warmer on a global average and that some areas will be more affected than others.
The melting of polar ice caps to the extent they are will have impacts such as potential changes in ocean currents. The impact of that change will have even greater affect on regions where climates are moderated by the heat brought in or removed by those currents.
How it all plays out remains to be seen but it's likely to have dire consequences for some regions and relatively little affect on others.
But at least we can get our taiwanese crap even cheaper!
Check out my sysadmin blog!
The climate change proponents will probably try to make a bigger deal out of this than it really is. I take the stance that I'm not educated enough on Earth's climate to have a valid opinion on climate change, but I do find it strange that they never mention the tropics have been colder than usual these past few years. I live in Mackay, Queensland, and this year's winter was probably the coldest I've seen here (though I have only been here eight years).
I find it worrying that people say "I don't know enough, so i don't believe it" about climate changes.
I'm the first to admit that i haven't got the faintest clue if we are rapidly accelerating a climatechange. However I think it is better to err on the side of caution than hoping it all blows over
No, we have our field days when so-called "sceptics" follow up every story that even remotely concerns climate with stupid non-sequiturs, and point to single points of "evidence" against global warming as if they somehow were relevant. Like when junkscience.com presents a "global mean temperature" with sharp differences between day and night and summer and winter, or some idiot on Slashdot points to the weather in fucking Queensland.
No, sorry. By then, our currency will have dropped in value even more. Our wages will be on par with the Taiwanese. On the positive, the goods we ship to our Chinese overlords will be that much easier.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I've noted this a couple of times, and every time I'm modded down or ignored in the circle-jerk of "open ideas" that is any Slashdot comment section.
I find it incredibly arrogant that people attribute symptoms that are several levels removed from the "cause" to a model like global warming.
This has nothing to do with whether or not I think global warming is real or not... as far as I know, the reality of CO2 retaining heat in labs is very well studied.
The thing is that before we paid much attention to this stuff, there was ONE real model that predicted a global temperature increase: global warming. It was not ignored before because "the man" was trying to hide science, it was ignored because there was NO effort to show an actual cause and effect relationship.
But eventually we got such sensational anectdotal information that the science of global warming was assumed. This becomes embarressing when things like the carbon retention of the Sahara are studied, as we discussed weaks ago, and suddenly billions of tons of carbon disappear from the air in our models, but the temperature hasn't changed at all.
I think it's one of the surest signs ever of our arrogance as a species that we had ONE well studied theory predicting temperature change, and when it did, we attributed it to that theory without much in the way of a causal relationship study.
The reason this worries me is that, while fighting pollution and emissions is never a bad thing, we could very well be ignoring the elephant in the room, simply because the global warming discussion has become so political, (and that's the activists faults, not the scientists). What if, although our carbon certainly doesn't help, most of this is due to cyclical sun output? No matter what we do, we would be screwed then, and we'd be focusing on the wrong questions.
You know what caused the onset of the iceages? North and South America connected at Panama, cutting of the Pacific-Atlantic currents, which cooled the entire Northern Hemisphere. I fear we may be missing something equally as subtle in our hunt to show how wrong those big, ugly troglodytes in the [insert commodity] industry are, and it's being enabled by our need as a species to vindicate ourselves at the expense of accurate information. (See: Bush)
FanFictionRecs.net
Global warming does not imply that all areas will be warmer, just that the world, on average, will be.
In fact, one of the reasons people are so concerned about it is because such warming could (and almost certainly would) alter current weather patterns, causing some areas to become much warmer, or colder, or much dryer or inundated by rain.
Much of that danger is sheer unpredictability. Places in the world that currently support major agriculture could dry up; dryer areas, or coastal ones, could be flooded or washed out.
Think of it this way: pumping more *heat* into the atmosphere is in many ways functionally equivalent to adding more *energy*. You shake up a system, you drive it harder, and it can change in surprising ways, amplifying some behaviors and damping out others. In a system as complicated as the entire Earth, the changes could be dramatic indeed.
The chunk that actually broke off was 10 times the size predicted.
They probably downplayed the size to keep getting their grant monies.
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
You understand of course that extra energy in the system causes larger fluctuations right? The global average will increase, but so will the variance. Your colds will be colder, and your hots will be hotter. This might also change weather patterns so rain might no longer fall where expected, or might fall where it's not expected. All that ice is a hedge against huge and quick climate change. When ice freezes it releases heat into its surroundings. When it melts it's absorbing some of that heat. If it runs away, the system will race to a new thermal equilibrium which could take any number of forms we can only guess at. What we do know about the new thermal equilibrium is it will probably be drastically different to what we're used to, what we evolved to exploit, and it won't be interested in whether or not we find it suitable. I'll be dead before any such eventuality comes to pass so it's literally not my problem. I've no illusions about the universe's impression of my snowflake character. But if we can agree that it'd be a good idea for humans to avoid a massive selection event, then now is the time to start addressing some of that. While it's still a choice.
Could you possibly explain how the weather in Queensland is more of a single point of "evidence" than an ice shelf breaking off?
Both are arbitrary anecdotes, which I believe was the parent's original point.
My guess is, any scientist who tries to predict the outcome of a small event that is influenced by many, many, many large factors will more than likely miss something and be off.
This is a knock at climate scientists or scientists in general, I'm sure they tried to look at every factor they could think of. But after you look at all those factors (spent all that time and money) you are required to make a prediction whether you think it'll be close or not. You can't just walk away and say I'm really not sure. You make a prediction and if its wrong you say what you said.. well we must have missed something, get more funding and do it again.
While I agree wholeheartedly with what you have written, you have to keep in mind that it would be somewhat impossible to directly proof cause and effect on such a scale as this. It would be better to error, I think, on the side of caution and simply reduce pollution. Pollution rates are something that we can practically control in comparison to other influences such as the sun are concerned. We should all just pray that we're not near any of the tipping points commonly talked about. Sometimes I really worry that we've all had it too good for too long and a much grimmer future is just over the horizon...
Actually, Slashdot *REPORTED* that the *NORTH POLE* *MAY* be ice free by September. Not that the entire area north of the Arctic Circle would be tropical. But sensationalist hyperbole is fairly common around here I suppose.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
This is news because 70% of the arctic ice is one-year old, 1 meter thick, and this is very old, 130-foot thick ice. This is also news because it is permanent ice that broke off, not any part of the ice that melts and refreezes every year.
This is exactly my argument for my anti-Godzilla policy proposals. Better safe than sorry!
-Peter
Because they need to eat and pay rent, scientists will follow the corporate line and rave about the emperor's new clothes just like the ignorant.
As a species we seem to love having these waves of hype up problems: SARS, Bird Flu, etc. Global Warming has been the biggest of these because everyone can relate to it.
Politicians love Global Warming because it stops people from thinking about other political issues. Many scientists love it because they finally get some of the spotlight and almost all scientific disciplines can be somehow linked to global warming. Just work GLobal Warming into your research title and it becomes trendy and "important".
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Reminds me of an advert for breakfast cereal in the UK:
May keep your heart healthy as part of a balanced diet.
Every time I hear that, the words may, keep, healthy, and as part of stand out. If you are unspecific enough, of course things'll come true.
I predict that someone, somewhere, within the next 200 years will die of choking on a mouse. Remember, you heard it hear first.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Global Warming Industry
There's mad cash to be made in asking people not to drive their cars or run their AC so much. Telling people to stop spending money on energy is big bucks, man.
I wonder how many copies of An Inconvenient Truth were sold...
When we ditched R12 there was money to be made with R134a. When we ditch oil, the energy will come from something else and there's always money to be made. There are new construction materials, hybrid cars, efficient appliances, etc.
There might not be a "Global Warming Industry" per se (excluding political lobbying, government grants and university studies I suppose) but change always brings about new industries and where there is new industry, there is money to be made. Combatting global warming requires change like those mentioned above. There are industries that will have to adapt, others that will benefit directly and others that will lose depending on which way legislation and the sway of society goes. That's just the reality of things.
The idea that every person who is reporting/informing/pushing/(whatever spin you like) the idea of global warming is altruistic and just wants to help by asking people to conserve a little is as absurd as it is naive.
The problem is it's not getting warmer across the globe.
Climate scientists are indeed aware of this, and the phrase "global warming" doesn't mean strict increase at each point on the globe, but that the mean temperature across measured points is rising.
They're also aware of the argument that some large subset of points might be affected by urban heat islands, and apparently, even when you factor this out, it appears the mean temperature is still rising.
Check into it. If you put as much effort as you have into imagining a world where the vast majority of climatologists are essentially falsifying research for personal gain, you might find out that they have considered and provided substantial refutations of nearly every single popular climate change denial talking point.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
The biggest problem is the very inconvenient truth that the climate is constantly changing, sometimes getting warmer, sometimes cooler. Right now, it seems to be getting warmer, even though there are reports about the ice in the Arctic covering more area than it has in decades. And, the most inconvenient truth is that we don't know why, although some people think we do. Frankly, I think we should be spending money on learning more about how the climate changes instead of just assuming that CO2 is the One True Answer. Until we have a computer model that can start from 20 years ago and predict today correctly, we won't know enough to say that we understand what's happening. And, I might add, it's not a good idea to make drastic changes until we do. I will agree, however, that an open-ended experiment of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is probably not a Good Idea.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Are you that naive? Let put it to you this way if you were a college professor and wanted a grant for the study of the breeding habits of say, pigeons... I guarantee you if you append the application with 'and the effect of global warming on them' you're far more likely to get a grant.
And BTW, there is mad money to be made promoting laws which force people to replace the air conditioners instead of repair them in homes and rental complexes to 'improve efficiency' when the size of the units in the complex do not not warrant such a change. The AC in my condo cost me a good 300$ more in 2006 than it would have in 2004.. all for a 900 sq foot condo with new windows..
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
Our planet is ~70% covered by water. It is (barring base temperature, more later) at atmospheric equilibrium and has been for millions of years. CO2 is NOT at equilibrium. Put more water into the atmosphere and it rains out. CO2 is measurably increasing since we are pumping carbon that was sequestered eons ago back into the atmosphere. How can this not make sense to anyone? When you upset the base line with a green house gas that is NOT in equilibrium you upset the base temperature, thereby raising the base line of water vapor and expanding the effect. You are pointing out a symptom while ignoring the base cause.
First, half of Canada's defence is sheer size and extreme cold. Any idea how difficult it is to navigate ANY kind of ship in the North. This problem effectively eliminates about 90% of navies.
Second, Canada is a far, far richer and able country than many give it credit for (even some Canadians). Particularly those of us in the U.S., where the parochial media makes it all USA all the time, ignorance of Canada's collective will as a nation, ability in war, and industrial potential is profound. Fortunately, there are also great numbers of Canadians and friends of Canada in the U.S. (as well as MANY Canada Studies programs) and these people have great influence over many aspects of U.S. policy. Not to mention that nearly everyone in Canada is related to somebody in the U.S..
Third, Canada's defence of the North is ongoing, active, aware, and more capable that some think. It already knows what ships are where, when, and why. It wouldn't take much to recover any fees owed though levies on countries that try to jump the turnstiles. This includes the U.S.. Planning on reducing dependence on Middle East oil? Then Canada is your very best friend. Don't piss her off.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
The problem is that this is unacceptable to the Climate Change movement. Any heretics are branded "deniers" and derided as backwards, retarded, and ignorant. Either that, or they simply continue redefining carbon dioxide-- which makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere-- as a pollutant, even though it is beneficial to green plants.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Recycling (except for aluminum cans and papers) uses more energy and costs more than creating new material. It is bad for the earth and bad for the economy.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Could you possibly explain how the weather in Queensland is more of a single point of "evidence" than an ice shelf breaking off?
Both are arbitrary anecdotes, which I believe was the parent's original point.
The ice shelf breaking off is more than just a "single point of data" because the forces that caused it have been acting consistently for several years. It takes many years of warming to weaken and melt an ice shelf. The decay of this ice shelf indicates a trend being exhibited at a single point over several years. The trend exhibited at that point is also indicative of a broader trend of arctic warming.
The Queensland temperature for one particular season is not indicative of a trend. It is just the weather for one place during a single season.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
When international summit after international summit after international summit all recognize global warming and the human influence how can you still deny it? When from every article in a referred scientific journal about climate change from 1993 to 2003, there isn't even ONE that disagrees with the consensus that that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities, how is it not obvious? When even international panels like the InterAcademy Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can agree on the human impact, what "controversy" is there?
It is so painfully obvious that we do make a difference, that CO2 concentration is much higher than ever seen before, as shown by the Keeling Curve. And I can only hope most people understand that high CO2 levels lead to high temperatures and I don't have to spell that out.
It's not a debate. There is no "maybe." There's no confusion. The entire world's academic and scientific community have come to a consensus on it, but apparently some people here just don't get it.
Its at the point where both U.S. presidential hopefuls have made it both policy and goals to cut down on emissions, its not even politically dividing.
Global warming is real, it does exist, we do contribute, and if you think otherwise you're honestly in denial.
Except for the fact that for every plastic bag or tire that gets recycled into a usable product again, it's one less that's just sitting in the ground for thousands of years, being swallowed by birds, or floating out in a huge garbage dump in the south Pacific.
In terms of energy, you may be right. But in terms of net environmental impact, you're dead wrong.
Are you that naive? Let put it to you this way if you were a college professor and wanted a grant for the study of the breeding habits of say, pigeons... I guarantee you if you append the application with 'and the effect of global warming on them' you're far more likely to get a grant.
Actually, he could make a huge fortune if he added "and proof that there is no man-made Global Warming".
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Either that, or they simply continue redefining carbon dioxide-- which makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere-- as a pollutant, even though it is beneficial to green plants.
Non-sequitur alert. Just because something exists in small percentages, it doesn't mean it's not bad to increase that percentage.
Yes, green plants like CO2, but they can only handle so much anyway. If we were to increase the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere to 0.5%, there's no way green plants could handle it, and we'd all almost certainly die (note: we're nowhere near even approaching that kind of level and it's nearly impossible that we ever could get it that high even if we tried, but I just wanted to point out how ridiculous your argument looks)
Just because something can be good, it doesn't mean it's not ALSO capable of being bad. Your statement that carbon makes up less that 0.04% of our atmosphere is correct, but in NO WAY does that imply ANYTHING about whether it's a pollutant or not.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
If the carbon dioxide makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere (which it is), increasing it to 0.05% won't make a difference in the water vapor.
If the alcohol makes up only 0.04% of your blood, increasing it to 0.05% won't make a difference in your soberness.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
The problem isn't that we do not know what happened 70 million years ago, but that we don't even know what's happening today ! Both statements ('the ice age started because of oceanic currents changing', and 'current warming is caused by CO2') are equally speculative.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
You appear to believe that it means reducing emissions "just in case", while many of us believe it means not crippling the US's economic and military power.
Bush is doing quite well crippling the US's economic and military power. As for reducing emissions meaning crippling economic power what many don't or won't see is that it could actually increase the US's economic power. Businesses developing alternative energy sources would mushroom creating well paying jobs then the technology can be exported. Even Texas Oil Billionaire T. Boone Pickens has proposed a plan. Saying "Don't get the idea that I've turned green. My business is making money, and I think this is going to make a lot of money" he's planned on investing $10 billion on wind power. Environmental Engineering is a growing field as well. How many jobs has NanoSolar created? Whether it being solar, wind, or another area renewable energy jobs are being created today, even in installation.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
What this assumes, of course, is that finding a possible answer is the same as finding the correct answer.
Since there's evidence of multiple cycles of warming and cooling on the planet, another reason might be that cycling warming and cooling is a normal pattern for our planet.
I'm not against taking preventative action in the event that the current theory of global warming (greenhouse gases) is correct, but I think that some healthy skepticism is warranted.
"When international summit [royalsociety.org] after international summit [pik-potsdam.de] after international summit [nationalacademies.org] all recognize global warming and the human influence how can you still deny it? When from every article [sciencemag.org] in a referred scientific journal about climate change from 1993 to 2003, there isn't even ONE that disagrees with the consensus that that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities, how is it not obvious? When even international panels like the InterAcademy Council [interacademycouncil.net] and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [bbc.co.uk] can agree on the human impact, what "controversy" is there?"
Because the statement of a scientific consensus is, among other things, propaganda. And furthermore, a number of climatologists have been caught making specious claims for what appears to be publicity's sake. The findings of the IPCC have also been called into question, in peer-reviewed journals.
So, let's go through some of the list here...
First, the "hockey stick" graph was discredited a few years ago when two Canadian mathematicians tried to reproduce it, and found that the data used had been cherry picked - only the lowest data points were used for the Medieval Warm Period, and only the highest data points were used for the 1980s onwards. For more information, see http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
That, however, is nothing compared to how the "hockey stick" got into the 2007 IPCC report. That verged on fraud: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
The IPCC report itself was based on faulty mathematics. Christopher Monckton, a physicist, decided to examine the climate model used for the 2007 IPCC report, and found that the math was wrong, and that the impact of CO2 on climate had been overstated by anywhere from 500-2000%: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Looking away from the science for a moment, why is it that Al Gore got a Nobel peace prize for a documentary that either misled or got a large part of its science wrong ( http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html )? Why is it that the skeptics who point at the problems with climate science suffer from ad hominem attacks, while the skeptics themselves are just looking at the science? Shouldn't the argument be in regards to the data - and for that matter, isn't the ad hominem attack usually used by the person whose argument is weakest?
The climate is changing - it always has been. In fact, the last eight years have been very abnormal due to the fact that the overall surface temperature of the Earth hasn't actually changed during them (the only measurement station noting an increase in temperature is from NASA, which relies on ground based thermometers which have been overrun by urban centers, which raises the local temperature anyway - sorry, but I don't have the link for this data on hand and I'm running out of time, so you'll have to google for this information yourself). And while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is a very minor one. Climate-wise, we have been on an upswing for some time. But how much of that is our fault?
I don't know. But so long as the "science" that is being spouted on this is based on discredited graphs, cherry-picked data, and faulty mathematics, I don't think I'm going to find out any time soon. This "scientific consensus" is propaganda double-speak, and what's needed is honest science where theory is based on data, and not the other way around.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Of course it turns out that we CAN measure the effects of the solar cycle, and they aren't nearly enough to account for the changes in temperature on Earth. The solar cycle accounts for the changes in temperature on other planets, but not on Earth. Weird, huh? Almost like there's something different about Earth.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I hope your wrong (especially since I'm about to become a grandad) but GW is just one of many signs that we are racing toward a global population crash of biblical proportions.
Even without indicators such as GW, anyone who cares to think about the situation the global population is in can clearly see that we're headed for a large die-off.
... , in essence we can support more life than before only because we have a source of fuel with a large net gain of energy. Fossil fuels artificially increase the Earth's 'carrying capacity' for human life. Looking in the indefinitely long-term future, fossil fuels are a limited quantity. Eventually, and the science isn't in yet with a reliable prediction of when, we will run out of these fuels. When that happens, the carrying capacity of Earth will go back to the normal level. We will no longer be able to produce food or to shelter as many people as before, and people will die until the population decreases enough.
If you look at the historical trend of global population growth you can see that the global population has exploded in the recent past. One major cause of this population growth is the use of fossil fuels; using fossil fuels it is possible to produce more energy burning the fuel than it takes to retrieve the fuel. This energy allows us to produce food further from where it is consumed, to power farm equipment and produce more food with less farmers, to heat more homes with less raw materials,
Looking at another potential cause of a large die-off, one needs to only look at population density. Population density and disease rates are directly related. An area with a dense population will support the spread of disease more easily. See 'the black plague' for an example of what happened when Europe's population density hit that level.
There are now slightly more than twice as many people on Earth as there were when I was born. Population is the "elephant in the room" and the population/energy thing holds true for all life forms, not just humans. All other life forms with "unlimited" food and few predators will simply breed until the environment that supports them collapses. Humans are unique in that we are smart enough to recognise this threat, but our actions over my lifetime would seem to indicate we are not wise enough to defend ourselves against it.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.