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?"
I hope it wasn't abstract artic, or else we're all doomed.
YES! How long until it is 1906 again?
These icy, loveless relationships aren't meant to last. I'm glad that the arctic broke it off.
I just wanted an ice cube...
Ellesmere Island was once entirely ringed by a single enormous ice shelf that broke up in the early 1900s. All that is left today are the four much smaller shelves that together cover little more than 299 square miles.
So this is a process that has been going on for ~100 years now? And that means it is indicative of, or news because... ???
;) )
Nothing to see here... (except my dwindling karma...
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
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).
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
...are the screams of millions of spelling nazis.
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
The day the NWP is a reality is the last day of Canada as an independant country.
I'm not ready to give up my home and native land that quick. But how am I to stop US forces, or worse, Russian or even Chinese, should they set their eyes on the NWP?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How long before the fabled Northwest Passage is a reality?
From what I read the other day, it is open now...
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
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 don't have time to find a source right now, but didn't a linked-to-by-slashdot article one or two weeks ago mention the variations in some ocean currents as the cause? Something about them delaying serious global warming until the next decade or so.
...we're looking at ecosystems on the verge of distinction.
I know almost nobody reads TFA, but apparently no one edits them, either.
Impetuous! Homeric!
So arctic ice extent varies (seasonally) between about 4 and 13 MILLION square kilometers. I'm guessing it's at the minimum for the year (it is the end of summer after all) so lets say 4,000,000 km^2. Hmmm 100km^2.... what is that about 0.003%. Why is this news?
I much prefer the story of the Polar Defense Project! (Kayak guys who are stuck in ice 1000km from the pole).
Cheers,
_GP_
Large blocks of ice thousands of years old are breaking off and move along the ocean currents until they melt. During the winter months, the surface water freezes. Given that 90% of an iceberg is underwater, wouldn't this mean that the water itself is warming and not the atmosphere?
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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.
File this under "normal response." The quacks say warmer, and nobody sees it. That might be because we're talking about a 100 year average of +5 degrees. There's no way anyone would ever feel that minute of a change. Except glaciers, tundra lines, permafrost, and ocean temp. Mind you, I'm not saying you should believe, just that belief or even perception isn't required.
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 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).
You aren't educated enough. The climate models call for more extreme climate shifts both colder and warmer with the over all average being warmer. Also the tropics change the least and the Arctic regions change the most. The models have been around for years and so far the biggest errors have been underestimating the rate of change. There will be years when the changes will reverse simply due to yearly variations it's the general trend that has changed. Saying you had a colder winter so global warming is wrong is like saying it's warmer in August so winter cooling is a myth. Weather patterns are measured decades, hundreds of years and thousands of years not months and years. Yearly changes are meaningless when talking about long range trends.
"How long before the fabled Northwest Passage is a reality?"
And when can we start drilling for oil up there?
I read about it here.
"Anyhoo, global warming is good - it snowed last weekend."
Did you ahve a point besides showing everybody your complete ignorance of global warming and it's effect?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So what? We know for a fact when the dinosaurs roamed the earth several degrees warmer than it is now. We also know the average CO2 level was quiet a bit higher.
We know that the earth goes through periodic ice ages, does it not make sense that it also goes periodic warm cycles? or is such a fact beyond the ability of reason? Ice shelves routinely break off. We know this is true. how because they aren't millions of years old but only thousands.
If they melt and reform over the course of 100 thousand years and the human race is what 40,000 years old who are we to judge what is the acceptable rate for melting ice caps?
We Also know for a fact that ice ages tend to happen in a hurry. The initial ice forms quickly, grows slowly, and then melts. would it not make sense for the warm cycles to follow a similar pattern?
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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
From http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/01/30/DefendNorthwestPassage/:
If the US resumes that path, and there's no evidence they will right now, it'll lead to a fundamental change is the perceived "special relationship" between Canada and the US. Americans would be surprised at the change in attitude that would result.
However, I believe things are quite a bit different now compared to 1969. We have Russia making macho territorial claims all over the place and Canada (plus Denmark) are in the best position to legally defeat those claims, not the US.
Also, there might be some recognition in Washington that treating the NWP as the high seas could easily result in an environmental mess of biblical proportions because, for example, dumped oily bilge water in the cold Arctic water doesn't disperse like it does in warmer climates. A large oil spill up there would be an unmitigated disaster.
Finally one would assume the US would like to know, via Canadian tracking of ships in it's territorial waters, who's going where. Canada would have some rights to actually board and inspect ships which is much superior to what the US could find out if the passage was international waters in which case they would be limited to satellite, radar, or airborne tracking.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
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
The warmest periods on earth supported gigantic creatures and even larger plantlife.
Why is this a bad thing? I love the cold and I really can't see a negative to seeing india and florida flood in exchange for bumper crops across the globe, or giant forests, or what have you.
Dinosaurs would be cool too.
Uh, cus I'm neither gigantic creature or plant? I'm just a homo sapien whose society and thus basic necessities rely on a huge network of interconnecting aspects that can get severely screwed by global climate change, like when fuel supplies get stopped by a hurricane hitting the gulf coast only bigger. I don't fancy starving to death because drought in the midwest has stopped the growth of crops and there's an extra couple hundred million people sharing my space and my food because coastal areas are flooded.
Look, the planet earth, and life itself, are going to survive. We could unleash any catastrophe, like if WWIII had occurred at the height of nuclear stockpiling, and life would go on. Humans might not. Especially not humans like me.
So yeah, I'm not ready to give the dinosaurs another chance at supremacy quite yet. :P
The enemies of Democracy are
Yes, ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. But due to global warming, the amount of ice in the Arctic has been decreasing dramatically over the past few decades. In several years, the Arctic could be ice-free each September.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I too have been worried about Godzilla of late. Then I realized, that there is a rock in my backyard and that the whole time the rock has been there, Godzilla never attacked my home! Its amazing, but its true. I am willing to sell you this rock and take the risk of a Godzilla attack because I feel its only fair that others may benefit. I must charge for it, so that I may use the funds to research other anti-Godzilla measures and fund my anti-bear attack research. Let me know if you are interested.
When all else fails, try.
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.
I have NO idea what the heck is going on with the planet anymore.
There's too much conflicting information. The waters have been successfully muddied to death. I am ready to curl up into a comatose ball and watch re-runs of mindless TV shows and will allow you to inject me with whatever 'vaccine' you want, and my phone calls will be mumbles which I no longer care if you tap. You WIN!
Actually, I'm just kidding. -Because while the messages and science are claiming this and that, Global Warming, Global Cooling, Sunspot Minimums, Oceanic Saline Maximums, Gulf Stream, Greenhouse Gas and on and on. . . It all adds up to one thing and one thing only. . .
Ice Age.
And that, my friends, is the only thing which counts in the end, and it's what The Powers That Be are having to plan for. Having everybody on the planet paralyzed with confusion just helps keep them. . , well, paralyzed so that the various plans can move forth without complication.
-FL
Yes, the water is warming. Most of the current rise in sea level is due to the water warming, and thus expanding rather than to ice melting. That won't be significant until Greenland goes. Floating ice melting doesn't change the sea level, but merely absorbs the heat required to melt it. This is significant for absorbing energy without raising the temperature. But after the floating ice melts, then the seas can raise their temperature without the hindrance of needing to melt ice. (Note that this is also a block the other way to water cooling.)
A given volume of water can hold considerable more thermal energy than the same volume of air at the same temperature. As a result the oceans act as a ballast on the thermal variations...but as they warm, the balance point of the scale shifts. It takes a long time to warm the oceans, and then it takes a long time to cool them. This is important in understanding climate change.
Note also that warmer air can hold more water. This is important as a thermal transport mechanism. (I'm not a climate modeler, so I can't understand why this would turn some places into deserts...but I've seen complex interaction of subroutines, so I'm not surprised that things like this happen.)
But it's not that either the air or the water is warming, they both are. Just at different rates, and with differing stability.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
That's not a prediction of the IPCC, who gather together and summarise the peer reviewed literature. Climate is variable because there are a lot of things that effect it, from solar influences, to the La Nina/El Nino cycles. Regional variation is greater than global variation. Due to that variation we can still expect extremes to occur: some years are just very cold (for a number of factors not related to anthropogenic warming), and some are hot, and that will continue, regardless of warming. However, as noted in IPCC assessment reports (TAR WGI 9.3.6):
In other words, individual cold days or years are not evidence against global warming, since they may well be a result of natural variation caused by other factors (and would have simply been even colder without global warming). To count as notable evidence against global warming you would need a significant sustained cold spell (5 to 10 years at this point). However, extreme cold days or years are not predicted effects of global warming. They may well happen, but there isn't any significant evidence that they are caused by global warming.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I find it more worrying that people use their backyard thermometer a proof that global warming is or isn't happening. That's meteorology, not climatology.
Climatological has been showing a pronounced warming trend. Just because it is cold in your backyard doesn't mean the rest of the planet is not warming up. On top of that, a warming planet doesn't mean it's going to warm up everywhere (it's not).
If you have a choice between believing the world scientists or your own opinion in regards to climate change, I would suggest listening to the scientists. They know ALOT more about it than you do.
~X~
~X~
In twenty years, we'll all look back on this and laugh, like we do now when we read old articles about how Africanized killer bees are going to kill everybody in the US.
There's nothing wrong with projecting possible outcomes given known quantities. It's one of our strengths as a species, but untoward fear is certainly unnecessary. Ice ages happen like clock-work, so yeah, 'weather' does cover it, I suppose.
It's a shame those Africanized killer bees weren't up to the job of resisting the various causes of colony collapse disorder which is currently killing farms. I guess that IS sort of funny, albeit in an ironic kind of way.
-FL
The "ice cover in the arctic is growing" claim is bogus, and they know it (or should). It keeps coming up and people point out that even the authors of the claim now say it's bogus (see linked thread) but the same claim keeps coming back, generally worded the same way ("the real inconvenient truth is that the ice cap is growing" or some such).
I used to think it was just cluelessness, but I'm starting to suspect trolls.
--MarkusQ
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.
These are really really rehashes of thoroughly debunked arguments. We already know that solar output effects the energy that the Earth absorbs, we observe the output of the Sun directly, we know exactly how different solar output changes from year to year. We know the variability between solar output during solar output peak and trough -- it's 0.1% The total solar forcing can be calculated directly it's 237 Watts/M^2. So from sunspot peak to trough the forcing changes by .24 watts/M^2. We know the effect of greenhouse gas change (in particular CO2) since pre-industrial times on forcing. It's 2.43 watts/M^2 see for example The 2001 IPCC Report.
It is true that solar output is high especially high for the past 80 years see solar variation but even the change between now and the Maunder Minimum (.2%) does not compare to forcing from greenhouse gasses.
Hah! We are now well overdue for solar cycle 24 and haven't had a sunspot for a month. Our theory is simple. If there are no sunspots, the planet cools, otherwise, it gets warmer. Fancy that, the planet has actually cooled somewhat this year, despite the increases in CO2.
Then why doesn't simply temperature go up and down in nice (aprox.) 11 year cycles? Maybe your theory is too simple?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
"err on the side of caution"
The problem with that policy is deciding how to err on the side of caution. 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. You say tomato, I say foodstuff ...
Glancing over the comments one can see yet another re-run of the same old arguments about why global warming isn't happening and why it isn't our fault anyway; and I wonder - does it matter what we think, in the long run?
Scientists are without a doubt those best suited to evaluate what is going on, and what they have to say makes more sense to me than all these denials. That is the whole point of science: the results stand up to close scrutiny, whether we like them or not. It is silly to imagine a conspiracy amongst climate scientists; the only conspiracy is the conspiracy to only accept research based on the scientific method.
The sad fact is that the climate is changing, that we are causing it and if we want to do anything to avoid a major cataclysmic breakdown, we have to swiftly take radical action. The habitual gluttony that we embellish with names like "consumerism" or "capitalism" is coming to and end, one way or another; the only question is whether we want to exert some influence over how it is going to happpen. If we do nothing or too little, too late - then we will have resource wars, starvation, epidemics and a general breakdown of society, even in Europe and America.
You may call this sensationalism, but that is the thing about looking at the fact objectively: you don't have to like me or my opinions - just check the data, the numbers are all there for you. And then form your own conclusion - but lay aside all the dreams about "we will find a way to continue our gluttony" because we haven't done so yet; which is why there is so much resistance against acknowledging the facts about climate change. Our whole way of life depends on the assumption that we are able to produce cheap energy and pollute without consequences for ever; that there will always be economic growth. We have always known this assumption to be false, and now we see it looming over us. Are we going to panic and hide under our blankets until the bogeyman goes away?
Not in the US. Many Republican politicians deny, or belatedly acknowledge, Global Warming. Mike Huckabee, I think but I'm not sure, speaking at the convention intimated Obama wants people to make sure their tires are properly inflated.
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".
That can work both ways, one groups of scientists getting big study grants for saying how bad Global Warming is while another group can get big grants also for disproving Global Warming. I haven't seen many of the later though.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Whether temps go up or down, you global warming experts are right. Is there *any* kind of temperature data that you will accept as actually disproving your theories? 2008 is the coldest year since 2000. How many years would it have to go down before you'd call it significant? I sure don't hear this "but it's only short-term change" argument after particularly hot years.
And the climate models are bullshit, since they have not been empirically tested (CO2 emissions have only occurred in significant numbers in the last 50 or so). As you have said yourself, temp change can only really be measured over hundreds or thousands of years. That means your models must be empirically tested (as all theories must be) over hundreds or thousands of years. So get back to me in 4008 after your models have been properly vetted.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I don't know if you're being, or trying to be, sarcastic but there's a debate going on in the environmental communities on whether carbon credits are good or bad. Some saying are that they can help reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Others say people are just out for a quick buck. Still others say carbon credits are just a "feel good" measure, people can buy credits but then won't adjust their lifestyle to have a smaller carbon footprint.
As I see it, carbon credits can be all of them.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If we were to increase the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere to 0.5%, there's no way green plants could handle it
Actually science has shown it works both ways. Some plants grow slower in a CO2 enriched environment whereas others grow faster. For instance Poison ivy grows faster and bigger with higher atmospheric levels of CO2.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
"We also know that water vapor soaks up 25 times as much heat as CO2, and that there's a lot more of it, especially over the oceans. Of course, the Global Warming Industry doesn't mention this, because it would make people wonder how much effect CO2 really has, except over cold deserts."
You have been misinformed by the opposing "industry", scientists pretty much ignore water vapour for a very good reason. The atmosphere is saturated with water vapour. That means that the only way to change the amount of water vapour in the air is to change either the temprature or pressure of the atmosphere. In other words water is a feedback in a changing climate.
Now what the anti-GW "industry" never mentions is a little thing called the dew point that explains why dew drops form all over the world every night, even in deserts. In a (globally) stable climate you can pump as much H2O as you like into the atmosphere and all that will happen is that it will fall out as rain/dew over the next few days.
Here is a short list of some other old and tiresome misinformation that is midlessly regurgitated every time GW is mentioned...
Climate change on Mars/Jupiter
Sunspots.
Cosmic rays.
Volcanos emit more CO2 than mankind.
No warming since 1998.
Global cooling was all the rage in the 70's.
There are many more but the point here is that people simply spout off what they read in the opinion pages without having a fucking clue as to what they are talking about and a complete lack of desire to find out. They assume that the thousands of scientists that make up EVERY national science body on the planet are lobotmised fools who haven't got a clue about what they have spent a good portion of their lives studying.
A couple of minutes googling would have busted the ridiculous myth that you are propogating. If you or anyone else reading wants to be treated as a skeptic and not a 'denier', then act like a skeptic. Go and question your own assumption and try and prove yourself wrong. When you fail to do so then you may just be onto something worthwhile and ORIGINAL. Picking out pre-spun factoids that happen to fit your worlview is nothing less than the triumph of politics over science.
Disclaimer: I picked on you because I was looking for the H2O meme and you were the first one I saw. If you are interested in some genuine science I can give you some links but I suspect your mind is made up and firmly closed.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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?
Clouds WILL absorb and reflect and refract incoming energy from the sun. They will also absorb, reflect and refract LW radiation.
Water vapour will mostly only block LW.
But clouds DO block.
The modelling of water vapour is HUGELY modelled. There are radiative specialists trying to work out what the feck is going on. What ISN'T modelled is the formation of CLOUDS.
But since clouds are not water vapour (about the only thing you got right) and they can either cause cooling or warming based on height, their effect is to randomise the measures rather than force a bias upon them.
So they are OK to ignore for climate purposes. No climate forcing: no need to model in a climate model.
But water vapour? Modelled to hell and back.
Epically wrong.
You can see the sea ice as it is right now at the above website (or link here).
That said, it was last year that my brother sent me an email showing this, and showing that the NW passage was open at that time.
So how long before the fabled NW passage is open? Last year. Not the ultimate in slashdot old news, but yes... old.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
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
Sarah Palin says: "There is no such thing as global warming so this could not have possibly happened!"
No, there is less. As the graph from the article you site shows, the present sea-ice coverage area is very slightly larger than it was this time last year (which was a record low), but the thickness of the ice is steadily decreasing, and as a consequence, so is the total amount of ice.
In fact, as the ice melts and breaks up it tends to spread out, temporarily increasing the "sea area with > 15% ice" which is what the graph shows.
--MarkusQ
>A dictatorship of scientists?
That is the sort of politically charged comment I am talking about. How on earth am I suggesting this?
Submissions are made to the UN and other international organisations. Independant research needs to be done.
The papers are currently quoting "experts" with no experience in the field as authorities and swaying public perception of the scientific consensus.
NASA scientists are being supressed/fired for having a valid scientific opinion. (reports suggest a MAINSTREAM scientific opinion also??)
People are laughing at the issue based purely on the fact that they are "anti-green".
Turning it into a "I am green" and "I am not green" issue is not helpful.
If global warming IS a problem to the extent that people are saying, then it will not be a "green" issue. It will be a human survival issue - and I would expect the anti-green crowd are not a bunch of suicide psychopaths?!?!?