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.
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.
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.
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...
This is exactly my argument for my anti-Godzilla policy proposals. Better safe than sorry!
-Peter
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.
Its not the science that is not objective its the spin / media surrounding it - don't blame the scientists if they put out a paper and some reporter blows it all out of proportion - instead read the original paper.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
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.
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.
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
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.