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.
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.
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...
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
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
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.