Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away, At Davis Station

schwit1 writes "A report from The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research says that Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away. Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m. A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded."

Comments

Welp,

[James Skarzinskas]

All thanks to President Obama.

Re:Welp,

[powerslave12r]

He solved the issue of Global Warming? Already?

Re:Welp,

[dogmatixpsych]

No. Al Gore did. Pres. Obama just gets the credit just like other people received the credit for "the internet." ;)

Re:Welp,

[Wonko the Sane]

He solved the issue of Global Warming? Already?

The audacity of hope.

Don't worry, they are still going to implement the carbon tax. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Re:Welp,

[Weedhopper]

Yeah man. Every parallel universe is missing a tall, skinny half Kenyan dude because in this universe, we have The One.

Re:Welp,

[jmorris42]

> Don't worry, they are still going to implement the carbon tax.

Of course. Because it has never been about global warming or CO2. Otherwise CO2 emitted by India and China would have been as bad as emissions in the 1st world. But Kyoto exempted them. It is about a once in a lifetime opportunity for the 'enlightened good progressives' to get almost total control over all aspects of life in the West and thus finally stamp out everything they don't like by taxing it out of practicality. And the things they don't like include pretty much all of western civilization.

Re:Welp,

[maxume]

Ranting about Kyoto would make a lot more sense if the United States Congress had ratified it.

I really don't think that the current Congress is a whole lot more likely to ratify it than any past Congress, but who knows.

Re:Welp,

[Kjella]

Yeah, damn him here he was promising change and first thing he does is to halt everything and preserve the status quo. Politicans, you just can't trust them.

Re:Welp,

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you should thank the Somali pirates. Now, I think we can all agree that, based on overwhelming evidence, piracy prevents global warming. There's UNDENIABLE PROOF for that. I mean, if you can't tell that correlation equals causation, well, you're just in denial, or being paid off. With the recent surges in piracy, how can that ice not grow? It is simple logic, stupid! Now, I know that the mainstream media will probably call them thieves and killers (because they are obviously in the pocket of Al Gore and Big Carbon Credit), but I'm going to call them what they really are: Heroes, righteous environmental crusaders, examples for all of us to follow. Somali pirates, I salute you!

Re:Welp,

[XavierItzmann]

Well, in his nomination acceptance speech on June 3, 2008, Obama did say that his presidency would be remembered as:

"the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Moses had nothing on this guy. He only parted one measly sea, let alone oceans.

Re:Welp,

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course. Because it has never been about global warming or CO2. Otherwise CO2 emitted by India and China would have been as bad as emissions in the 1st world. But Kyoto exempted them."

Yes. But you don't have any clue why.

It has something to do with the fact that it is the industrialized countries that have been emptying CO2 into the atmosphere in ever-greater amounts for the last 2 centuries or so before realizing it might be a problem. The premise of the Kyoto agreement is: they are the ones that have created the problem so far, they're the ones that are already industrialized and have most of the money. They are therefore the ones best positioned to come up with technical solutions and ways to meet lowered targets or at least flatten out production. The race is to do that before countries like India and China ramp up as fast as people are expecting given their populations.

How can we possibly say to countries that are in the early stages of industrialization "Oh, you can't do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, or it will be a disaster!" It's like eating 3/4 of the pizza at the party and then telling a skinny latecomer: "Whoa there. Don't go eating all the pizza that's left. It's bad for you and we also have to share", while still stuffing your face as fast as ever.

The whole point was to meet the goals of Kyoto and THEN say to India, China and other developing countries: "See? This can be done. Now it's your turn to meet the same targets." That was the bargain.

Ever since then there has been this myth that India and China are somehow completely and forever off the hook. Well, they probably will be because we're dragging our asses on what we committed to do.

Here's hoping the world can make do without any kind of agreement, and that the predictions expected from that scenario are wrong. Hope really hard.

Re:Welp,

[genmax]

I remember a quote from the former Indian prime minster Indira Gandhi - "Poverty is the biggest polluter."

Re:Welp,

[lseltzer]

Where's the logic in this? We can't complain about problems in a treaty unless we ratify it? The problems are the reason not to ratify it.

Re:Welp,

[moosesocks]

> Don't worry, they are still going to implement the carbon tax.

Of course. Because it has never been about global warming or CO2. Otherwise CO2 emitted by India and China would have been as bad as emissions in the 1st world. But Kyoto exempted them. It is about a once in a lifetime opportunity for the 'enlightened good progressives' to get almost total control over all aspects of life in the West and thus finally stamp out everything they don't like by taxing it out of practicality. And the things they don't like include pretty much all of western civilization.

So what you're saying is that our elected representatives oppose policies that they don't like? Sounds like the system is running exactly like it's intended to. If you don't like it, I strongly suggest voting for the other guy (and finding some more compelling reasons to do so)

Re:Welp,

[dzelenka]

All I can add is "Ramen!"

Re:Welp,

[maxume]

I read the comment I replied to as if Kyoto is part of the "once in a lifetime opportunity for the 'enlightened good progressives' to get almost total control over all aspects of life in the West".

Since it isn't in force, it can't be part of that particular problem.

I guess my post didn't explicitly make it clear that I was replying in context, but I was.

Re:Welp,

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Just because Kyoto wasn't ratified doesn't mean that a carbon tax can't be implemented in the future.

Re:Welp,

[maxume]

Really?

My point was more that it won't contribute to such a tax until it is ratified (specifically by the U.S.).

Re:Welp,

[Shivetya]

Honestly if we don't stop the up and coming countries from repeating our mistakes then what do we gain? A big fat nothing. A so hate this excuse of its not fair to them, well tough shit. We know better now and they can't claim to not know better either. If we get them off on the right foot it is going to be a lot easier for all of us. If we excuse them then we just push the problem off to the next generation. Of course that seems to be the aim of almost all politicians these days, push off to another generation what we are not willing to do today.

I have a more apt analogy than your pizza one.... just because Jack murders a dozen people doesn't excuse John from killing one.

Re:Welp,

[YrWrstNtmr]

I remember a quote from the former Indian prime minster Indira Gandhi - "Poverty is the biggest polluter."

Indeed. Images from Mumbai.

Re:Welp,

[homer_s]

if we don't stop the up and coming countries ... If we get them off on the right foot

I didn't realize that the idea of the white man's burden was still alive and well. The US and others claiming to exempt India and China is like an impotent man claiming to be chaste.

Re:Welp,

[TapeCutter]

"Check out the molecular weight of CO2 sometime."

Why? - Is there a problem with Earth's gravity?

Re:Welp,

[kbrasee]

I was shocked to see that this wasn't posted as Anonymous Coward, because it meets ALL of the criteria.

Re:Welp,

[russotto]

"Poverty is the biggest polluter."

That was back when pollution meant stuff like raw sewage. Nowadays, pollution means one of the inevitable results of complete burning of carbon-containing materials. Which, since there ain't no replacement for burning of carbon-containing materials (nukes ain't happening and the rest ain't sufficient), means pollution equals energy use. So in the guise of "stopping pollution", the EPA can ration energy. Cool, eh?

Re:Welp,

[mysticgoat]

You now have 186 freaks. And counting.

Re:Welp,

[dila813]

In my mind, the 1st world is financed all on credit. China and India are the ones with all the cash. In fact, to even attempt to mitigate co2, we have to borrow the money.

Re:Welp,

[bricko]

What the big stink anyway...the earth has only had ice at its poles for about 30% of its existence. It comes and goes with or without humans and has for millennium. Some are being a tad arrogant to think the human can affect such a chaotic large system.

Re:Welp,

[MrNaz]

Al Gore also invented general purpose computing. Why else do you think they call it an Algore-ism?

Re:Welp,

[Nutria]

no mention of the Arctic ice, which is the ice that's usually pointed to by climate scientists as a sign of global warming.

You mean the ice which "experts" authoritatively stated was going to all melt away, and that much of it was already gone, because their remote sensors said so?

Except that the people who actually flew out there, and the satellites that orbit the poles showed that the non-existent ice actually exists?

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/0420255

And that anchored ice in the Arctic?

Because dark Asian soot is blowing north and west, settling on (Arctic, Alaskan and Rocky Mountains) ice, holding heat and thus melting the ice.

Soot filters on those thousands of Chinese dirty coal-fired plants would do wonders for re-thickening the ice that really is thinning.

Re:Welp,

[Curunir_wolf]

It is about a once in a lifetime opportunity for the 'enlightened good progressives' to get almost total control over all aspects of life in the West

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I thought we had already decided slavery and indentured servitude were bad. Have you decided it's a good thing, now?

Re:Welp,

[Curunir_wolf]

What the big stink anyway...the earth has only had ice at its poles for about 30% of its existence. It comes and goes with or without humans and has for millennium. Some are being a tad arrogant to think the human can affect such a chaotic large system.

Why is he modded a troll?

Arrogant human with mod points

Re:Welp,

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes. But you don't have any clue why.

It has something to do with [...]"

Well, apparently you don't either, both self-admitted and as evidenced later in your comments.

The reason the other countries were left out had to with the expected slower development of their (industrialized) economies. As such, these countries were expected to develop later and hence when they did build their plants and industrialized bases, they'd be using *newer*, more efficient technologies from the get go. These newer technologies, without specification or enforcement in the exempted countries, were supposedly more efficient, more cost effective, etc., so the *expectation* by Kyoto was that the exempted countries would use them implicitly over the old (which alone shows how shoddy Kyoto is).

So the old, inefficient, CO2 and other greenhouse gas belching plants and the like would not be built in India and China. But they were...Kyoto assumed increased efficiencies over time (which does happen), but it missed the RATE because Kyoto itself caused unexpected consequences similar to the corn to ethanol law in the US.

"The whole point was to meet the goals of Kyoto and THEN say to India, China and other developing countries: "See? This can be done. Now it's your turn to meet the same targets." That was the bargain."

Liar. There is nothing in Kyoto that forces any current signees to sign a future agreement. It's a glaring loophole in Kyoto, one of at least two major ones, and the big reason Kyoto is a good idea but implemented horribly.

"Ever since then there has been this myth that India and China are somehow completely and forever off the hook. Well, they probably will be because we're dragging our asses on what we committed to do."

They're off the hook, you moron, because the international community let them off the hook and continues to do so. They're off the hook because it allows the signees to offload their carbon to those countries.

You want to know the reason why the US has higher CO2 emissions than, say, most if not all European countries? Because despite being a huge importer of China made goods, comparatively and relatively to the EU, we have offloaded less of our manufacturing to China compared to the EU.

The EU countries largely have shut down their dirtiest industrial complexes to meet Kyoto. But they simply buy the parts and chemicals and products that were previously made at these now closed plants from, yup, China and India. Which are exempt.

This had at least 5 effects, which Kyoto DIRECTLY FRACKIN CAUSED--

(1) China and India do not have the political will or experience or experienced manpower to implement pollution regulations that the EU and US had and continue to have. Some or similar process, more pollution, simply not in the EU.

(2) There is no effective intra-national monitoring body in China.

(3) The EU and other signees bash the US for not signing Kyoto, and stupid people like yourself think the US is a bad actor, by ignoring the fact they have offloaded their carbon to India and China. A more effective way would be to take the goods imported per person from these countries or any country and factor in their production and CO2 costs on a per capita basis, instead of the current method of actual usage in the country. This would represent a more accurate CO2 usage per country count.

(4) Because of the trade imbalance that resulted, as well as cheaper labor, in India and China, there has been a major explosion in industrialization in these unregulated countries. This came a) larger than expected and b) earlier than expected (maybe there will be a followup post mod'd funny). As such, the supposed efficiences did not manifest. First, China uses older equipment anyways. Second, even if they used current equipment, the efficiencies are not as mature as Kyoto expected--China is probably a decade or two ahead, and hence using equipment the Kyoto protocol bean counters expected would have been MORE efficient since they would

Re:Welp,

[Paltin]

Yeah, and us humans have only been on Earth for 0.00002% of it's existence.... species come and go, mostly without humans. So why worry?

Except, there is a problem in your logic. We can understand what has caused the coming and going of many of the global glaciations over the history of the world.

For example, the glaciation that occurred in the late Devonian is linked to the spread of plants on land. Before this time, there were no trees. They captured a large amount of atmospheric CO2, triggering global cooling and glaciation. The result was one of the "big 5" mass extinctions on the planet, with about 50% loss at the genera level.

Guess what? Humans have spread all across the planet! Guess what? It's not arrogant to collect data that shows we are actively changing the system and try to make predictions based on it.

I'm not advocating any certain policy; but I am saying it is foolish to assume that we can't change the world, and that we can't understand complex systems.

Re:Welp,

[Toonol]

Slavery is a lot more appealing to people who envision themselves as masters.

Re:Welp,

[geekoid]

"They are therefore the ones best positioned to come up with technical solutions and ways to meet lowered targets or at least flatten out production."

Except that is wrong.

"How can we possibly say to countries that are in the early stages of industrialization"

easy, don't do it that way. Countries do not need coal, they need electricty. Help them generate electricity a different way, and build their new grids intellegently. Not happhazzardly as was done when the moving of electricity was new.

It's better to show them how to generate electricity using solar thermal plants.

Add to that 'letting them' do it they was we did is very harmful and disasterus.

"somehow completely and forever off the hook. "

There is nothing in the agreement that says otherwise.

Considsering the amount of wealth China has, it's inexcusable to exempt them.

If everyone at that able suddenly found out the eating the rest of the pizza would destroy coastlines, displace millions, and wreck global havoc, then yes, they can say it.
Of course, they should help that person find a cleaner pizza.

Re:Welp,

[Gerzel]

The North West passage in the last three centuries was a fabled myth that many explores risked their lives and often died trying to find, all in vain.

This century it is almost a yearly occurrence.

The difference? The ice.

Global Climate Change due to manmade influences on nature is occuring, and seeing as how we depend on climates remaining stable throughout nearly all parts of the world it is a big deal.

Climate changes in good growing region means no food for cities supplied for that region. Yes another region may pop up with better climate but without the access roads and modern technology infrastructure to use and harvest it.

So even if Climate Change/Global warming is a zero sum over all, it is still a major issue to be dealt with and not just some "liberal" conspiracy.

Re:Welp,

[shutdown -p now]

How can we possibly say to countries that are in the early stages of industrialization "Oh, you can't do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, or it will be a disaster!"

Of course we can say that, because if they will do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, it will be a disaster. No amount of political correctness bullshit can change that.

Ever since then there has been this myth that India and China are somehow completely and forever off the hook.

There's no myth, because there's no hook. If, as you say, Western countries impose those limits for themselves just to set a righteous example for everyone else to follow, then the most likely reaction you'll get from comrade General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party is, "gee, these guys are even more stupid than we thought". Since there's no obligation for China to follow suit, according to Kyoto, then why would they?

Of course, this all is no excuse for doing some serious changes for the sakes of ourselves - like switching to mostly nuclear, investing heavily into thermonuclear, and using solar/wind/tidal wherever there's opportunity. But that's a whole different kettle of fish; and, I suspect, eventually, when time comes to bring China in line with regard to emissions, it will have to be done at a gunpoint, and no "gestures of goodwill" today will change that.

Re:Welp,

[Galois2]

He solved the issue of Global Warming? Already?

No, in fact the scientific consensus is that this kind of result is consistent with a growing global warming problem.

Here is the reason, in simple terms. Global warming leads to increased rates of evaporation from the ocean. Despite global warming, it is still freezing at the poles, and when the higher vapor levels reach the poles, it tends to snow more, leading to increased ice in those areas.

Overall, however, the amount of ice in the world is dramatically decreasing, and oceans are predicted to rise by up to three feet by the end of the century.

Re:Welp,

[Gerzel]

Except Humans have been around for much less than 30% of the earth's existence are are HIGHLY dependant on the current state of the earth's climate.

We need the climates in farming regions to remain stable or else no food. Even if a different region becomes farmable there wouldn't be the physical infrastructure to take care of it let alone the socal infrastructure.

Shifting growing regions means shifting populations and power and that means conflicts and wars.

Re:Welp,

[wwwillem]

"Poverty is the biggest polluter."

I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter, thanks to ACs, SUVs, etc. and the lack of sidewalks, staircases (you must have been in an office building where people take the elevator from the 8th to the 9th floor), to name a few.

The real fear for the environment is that India and China are coming out of poverty.

Re:Welp,

[BrokenHalo]

It's getting a bit late to ratify it in any case. IIRC its recommendations were supposed to have been put in place by 2012. Now everybody has denied the existence of the problem for so long, the problem has got that much bigger, and Kyoto is not enough, and maybe never was.

Re:Welp,

[BrokenHalo]

Of course we can say that, because if they will do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, it will be a disaster.

Trouble is, the model some countries (particularly Australia) are adopting is to pretend to out-source reductions in carbon emissions to the developing world, meanwhile writing blank cheques to the heaviest polluters at home to carry on along their merry way. No real change is going to be made through dodgy accounting exercises like this. It's just like moving food around on the plate to make it look like you've eaten more.

Re:Welp,

[Rei]

Did you even read the source article?

On February 18, we reported that the F15 sensor malfunction started out having a negligible impact on computed ice extent, which gradually increased as the sensor degraded further. At the end of January, the F15 sensor underestimated ice extent by 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) compared to F13. That is still within the margin of error for daily data. By mid-February, the difference had grown to 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), which is outside of expected error. However, that amount represents less than 4% of Arctic sea ice extent at this time of year. When the computed daily extent dropped sharply on February 16, the sensor failure became obvious.

NSIDC stopped displaying the problematic data, and recalculated sea ice extent using data from the DMSP F13 satellite, an older sensor in the same series of satellites. The recalculation changed the January monthly average ice extent by less than the margin of error for the sensor. As we reported in our February 3 post, growth of Arctic sea ice did indeed slow in January because of unusual atmospheric conditions. Using F13 data instead of F15, the September daily minimum that we reported on September 16, 2008, changed from 4.52 million square kilometers (1.74 million square miles) to 4.54 million square kilometers (1.75 million square miles), within the margin of error for daily data.

The F15 sensor drift does not change any of our conclusions regarding the long-term decline in Arctic sea ice extent. Such scientific conclusions, published in peer-reviewed journals, are based on quality-controlled monthly to annually averaged data. We have quality-controlled the final data through 2007; a thorough audit of the more recent data from 2008 shows that any discrepancies fall within the margin of error.

It's one thing to be a denier, but at least don't be so obvious about your attempts to distort the data. It was one, brief problem which was immediately recognized and only caused an approximately 4% error at its peak.

You're going to have to deal with the *fact* that not only is Arctic ice extent far less than it has been at any point in recorded history, but that it's far thinner to boot. If you hate what peer-reviewed science says, that's your problem. Build your *own* network of sensors and satellites and monitor the Arctic for decades if you don't like the results the current hardware is giving.

And as for the Slashdot article in question? Let me sum up: "Ice is growing at a single Antarctic station. Therefore, tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers which never predicted that ice would shrink at every station are still wrong (because it's "global climate change", not "local weather change"), and global warming is a scientific conspiracy to destroy capitalism."

Re:Welp,

[okmijnuhb]

Weâ(TM)re so self-important. So self-important. Everybodyâ(TM)s going to save something now. âoeSave the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.â And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we donâ(TM)t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We havenâ(TM)t learned how to care for one another, weâ(TM)re gonna save the fucking planet? Iâ(TM)m getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. Iâ(TM)m tired of fucking Earth Day, Iâ(TM)m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there arenâ(TM)t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists donâ(TM)t give a shit about the planet. They donâ(TM)t care about the planet. Not in the abstract they donâ(TM)t. Not in the abstract they donâ(TM)t. You know what theyâ(TM)re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. Theyâ(TM)re worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesnâ(TM)t impress me. Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. Weâ(TM)ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And weâ(TM)ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow weâ(TM)re a threat? That somehow weâ(TM)re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball thatâ(TM)s just a-floatinâ(TM) around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the polesâ¦hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice agesâ¦And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planetâ¦the planetâ¦the planet isnâ(TM)t going anywhere. WE ARE! Weâ(TM)re going away. Pack your shit, folks. Weâ(TM)re going away. And we wonâ(TM)t leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planetâ(TM)ll be here and weâ(TM)ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planetâ(TM)ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance. You wanna know how the planetâ(TM)s doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planetâ(TM)s doing. You wanna know if the planetâ(TM)s all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room. The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after weâ(TM)re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, â(TM)cause thatâ(TM)s what it does. Itâ(TM)s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if itâ(TM)s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. Th

Re:Welp,

[cheezedawg]

Except Humans have been around for much less than 30% of the earth's existence are are HIGHLY dependant on the current state of the earth's climate.

If there is one thing that we humans have demonstrated in our existence, it is that we are adapt to the constant changes to our environment. Do you really think that we would just sit in a paralyzed fear if the earth warmed to dangerous levels?

Re:Welp,

[Kumiorava]

Fair enough, let the developing countries have similar emissions as developed nations per capita. Guess what, China can still increase their emissions four times more until meeting the pollution levels set by the US citizens.

Re:Welp,

[KDR_11k]

China and India are gigantic and were underdeveloped compared to their population size, telling them to reduce their emissions when they have almost none would mean freezing them in their then-current situation and basically say that the ceiling you get is based on how much CO2 you already produce and if you weren't already a major producer you're out of luck and can remain in the stone age while the supremacy of the first world nations gets solidified due to their larger capacity caps and thus higher ability to develop their industry even in the future. Yes, if they wanted to reduce emissions they'd have to cap those countries too and make the total cap lower than the current output but it'd end up with first world countries having to cut more than 50% of their emissions and they simply wouldn't sign then.

Re:Welp,

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a more apt analogy than your pizza one.... just because Jack murders a dozen people doesn't excuse John from killing one.

Unless he kills jack.

Re:Welp,

[Trogre]

That is quite possibly one of the silliest explanations for exempting parties from a policy that I've ever heard.

Re:Welp,

[nusuth]

I have a more apt analogy than your pizza one.... just because Jack murders a dozen people doesn't excuse John from killing one.

You think this analogy is apt because you have no clue what poverty is. These countries are not trying to develop so that their people can buy a second car or a PS3. It is literally a matter of life and death. There is a great amount of undernourished people without access to proper education and healthcare, especially in India. The development effort to lessen their poverty is not a greedy choice, it is the morally correct choice even when that is done at the expense of the global environment. If the countries responsible for current state of affairs (who does not suffer from poverty nearly as much as undeveloped ones) can come up with better technologies such that development need not pollute the environment as much, better for all of us. But if you want to argue that underdeveloped countries should sacrifice their current and future generations for lessening a global problem, for which they have almost no responsibility, you must be a very selfish and arrogant person.

Re:Welp,

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see, broad generalizations with no proof that attacks the "big bad United States" = positive mod-points. CHECK.

Any response to his statement that asks him for proof, citations, of facts to back up his statement = negative mod-points. CHECK

My pointing out this inconvenient truth = mod-troll. CHECK


Welcome to the era of Obama where the facts don't matter, just your intentions. Fuck, even Carter wasn't this bad.

Re:Welp,

[Burnhard]

Carbon Dioxide isn't a pollutant and for that reason I declare this entire line of argument idiotic.

Re:Welp,

[Snaller]

"How can we possibly say to countries that are in the early stages of industrialization "Oh, you can't do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, or it will be a disaster!" It's like eating 3/4 of the pizza at the party and then telling a skinny latecomer: "Whoa there. Don't go eating all the pizza that's left. It's bad for you and we also have to share", while still stuffing your face as fast as ever."

No its not. If you must use a lame ass metaphor you could say its like being addicted to drugs, you can't just stop cold turkey, but have to get of it slowly - but new people shouldn't start.

The west couldn't just drop it from day to day or society would collapse. That doesn't mean other countries should just start doing it.

Of course people are idiots, so the world is probably going to hell in handbasket

Re:Welp,

[Hurricane78]

So you just repeat the same tired unimaginative copypasta jokes year after year unanonymously? ^^
Hey, you even rant like a troll. ^^

Re:Welp,

[FatherOfONe]

I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter, thanks to ACs, SUVs, etc. and the lack of sidewalks, staircases (you must have been in an office building where people take the elevator from the 8th to the 9th floor), to name a few.

Have you seen Mexico? How about China? China may be a bit far for you (if you live in the U.S.), but take a trip down to Mexico city if you dare and then come back and make that same statement. If you can go over to China and see their mfg plants and their towns that have been all but killed by taking the computer junk, you may also change your tune.

Why did a lot of the mfg go over to China? Low cost labor is one point, but little to no regulation is the other. So the "greens" sort of got what they wanted in the U.S.A., but at the cost of jobs. Go out to your local Target, Sears, Best Buy etc and try to find something produced in the U.S.A. If you have a child, go try to find a toy that isn't made in China.

Now the real question is "if" you believe China, Mexico and even Russia to a degree, is getting accurate reports of their pollution levels.

Now back on topic.
The ice is growing? Does this mean global cooling that everyone believed in the 60's?

Re:Welp,

[shakuni]

Insightful... really. The analogy sucks at best. First of all it is not murder that is being carried out. If it is developed world continues to carry bulk of the murder even today. If that is the analogy then we should all stop dead on our tracks.

The consumption analogy is more apt here and there is no way the developed world will be able to get the developing world to adopt to new standards unless they take the lead and solve the problem they created in the first place. Tough shit huh!!

There is just no political structure to make that happen in India or China.

Re:Welp,

[shakuni]

Gunpoint china... you must be smoking heavy duty. The biggest threat to Chinese Party is from the inside than outside. China is not a pushover like Iraq and while may not military might of the US the key is that it doesn't need to. It has more than a credible level of deterrence.

Re:Welp,

[drinkypoo]

Of course. Because it has never been about global warming or CO2. Otherwise CO2 emitted by India and China would have been as bad as emissions in the 1st world. But Kyoto exempted them.

That's why the USA is not party to the Kyoto Protocol.

The simple truth is that our lifestyle is not sustainable. Another truth is that the powers-that-be have no plans to live sustainably, but they don't mind making us live more than sustainably so they can life their life of excess. Their plan will never work because you need a certain population to maintain a technical base. The moneyed upper class has always become inbred and ineffectual throughout history. The Bushes in particular already look pretty inbred — they claim to come from royalty, which is pretty much the same as saying "a lot of our very successful relatives had sex together when they were already related, and if you go up enough, our family tree is all trunk." When this happens you have to import talent to keep your system going, or you fail massively. Which is why those people aren't still in charge of countries. Instead, they are in charge of something more troubling — corporations, which never die naturally, and which we in America are singularly unwilling to invoke the so-called "corporate death penalty" on. It's seriously amazing that Americans seem to be in favor of clinical murder in the prison system, but calling the estate tax the "death tax" or calling revocation of corporate charter the "corporate death penalty" is enough to stigmatize it.

Re:Welp,

[drinkypoo]

I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter,

Well, no. China is now the world's biggest polluter. The USA is still the biggest per-capita polluter, but that is changing rapidly. China is building coal plants as fast as they can. Don't look now, but the USA is no longer in "first place" on every chart.

Re:Welp,

[CrimsonAvenger]

Ever since then there has been this myth that India and China are somehow completely and forever off the hook. Well, they probably will be because we're dragging our asses on what we committed to do.

Of course, last year, during the early discussions for the Kyoto follow-on, China and India told the committee that they wouldn't agree to any binding limits on their CO2 emissions this time around either.

Note that China is already emitting more CO2 than the USA. Not more per capita, but more overall. Note that if we wait till China and India are fully industrialized to regulate them, those two countries alone will be emitting more CO2 than the entire world is today (they have a considerably higher population than the entire industrialized world does today).

Re:Welp,

[drinkypoo]

It's also foolish to assume that we humans can't cause significant perturbations in weather, which is one mistake most deniers seem to make. We put out about ten times as much CO2 as volcanism, and CO2 from volcanism is known to affect both local and global climate. Let's do the math, here.

Re:Welp,

[CrimsonAvenger]

I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter, thanks to ACs, SUVs, etc. and the lack of sidewalks, staircases (you must have been in an office building where people take the elevator from the 8th to the 9th floor), to name a few.

Never took the chance to tour Eastern Europe or Russia at the end of the Soviet era, I see. Those areas were like the USA BEFORE the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

Re:Welp,

[sskinnider]

and the lack of sidewalks, staircases (you must have been in an office building where people take the elevator from the 8th to the 9th floor)

show me a single building in the US with an elevator that doesn't have a staircase. People take the elevator because they are lazy, not because they do not have another means.

Re:Welp,

[Burnhard]

*fact* that not only is Arctic ice extent far less than it has been at any point in recorded history

That history is around 30 years of data. Really, 30 years. Let me say it again so you understand, "30 years". It's not outside of the bounds of natural climate variation, given that 80% of the Earth's history has gone by with no ice-caps whatsoever. I appreciate that in your strange value system having ice-caps is considered "good", but I would suggest you do some further reading at least to attempt to fight this intellectual virus you seem to have caught.

With respect to "peer reviewed papers", please read yourself the Wegman report. Peer review is no guarantee of correctness. At most, in Climate Science, it means you have lots of friends in the area and are towing the party line. Moreover, a source none othe than RealClimate, has explicitly made it clear that Antarctic sea ice extent would be expect to increase according to the AGW theory. Later, when data showed it was warming (Steig et al, which now turn out to have been more statistical shenanigans), RealClimate said that of course warming was expect in Antarctica according to the AGW theory. Do you not register the contradiction? Does the data not now falsify the theory? Anyone with a brain would have to say so.

Re:Welp,

[qaqa]

Honestly if we don't stop the up and coming countries from repeating our mistakes then what do we gain? A big fat nothing. A so hate this excuse of its not fair to them, well tough shit. We know better now and they can't claim to not know better either. If we get them off on the right foot it is going to be a lot easier for all of us. If we excuse them then we just push the problem off to the next generation. Of course that seems to be the aim of almost all politicians these days, push off to another generation what we are not willing to do today.

I have a more apt analogy than your pizza one.... just because Jack murders a dozen people doesn't excuse John from killing one.

Well, the developed world needs to *help* the China/India not repeat their mistakes - just crying "Stop!" isn't going to help one bit.

Look at it this way - the west needs to pay for what it has done to the environment. Why not do it through funds / technology transfer to developing countries to help them develop clean industries?

Where's Jack's punishment?

Re:Welp,

[Bombula]

Particulate matter that settles decreases albedo (reflectiveness) of ice, and causes heating. But airborne particulate matter and aerosol emissions _increase_ albedo, making the atmosphere more reflective. The net effect, as I understand it, seems to favor reflectivity, which suggests that cleaning up PM10 and PM20 air pollution, and especially SOx emissions, would result in more rapid warming.

Re:Welp,

[BlueStrat]

It is about a once in a lifetime opportunity for the 'enlightened good progressives' to get almost total control over all aspects of life in the West

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I thought we had already decided slavery and indentured servitude were bad. Have you decided it's a good thing, now?

Slavery is a lot more appealing to people who envision themselves as masters.

Godwin post in 3..2..1..

Re:Welp,

[nusuth]

I think I have already answered your "what?" question in the parts of my post you decided not to quote. The people are already alive and they are already suffering from poverty. Lessening their suffering is the morally correct choice, even if it exacerbates an already existing problem for the future generations. Following quote is exactly what I mean when I say "selfish and arrogant": The world can't sustain their populations without industrialization, and certainly cannot sustain them with it.

They have more important and more pressing issues to worry about than world's pollution level. It is certainly easy for you to say that they should not industrialize when you are comfortably sitting in your chair, worrying about future. I don't think you would be able to do that if you were hungry, or penniless, or sick and without healthcare. Telling them to take eco-frienldy route (which does not really exist for carbon emissions anyway) is also telling them not to industrialize. If it were possible to lessen poverty while going eco-friendly, they would already do that. Being nice to environment in general, and reducing carbon emissions without reducing production in particular, has a cost. It is just not possible to industrialize nearly as fast if you do that. They don't need anyone's permission to live better lives. None of the industrialized nations ever asked for one. Moreover, they certainly don't need your permission, as your country is one of the responsible for the current state of GCC in the first place. So if you want to solve the problem, reduce your own carbon emissions, do that cheaply and show the developing countries that going eco-friendly has economical merit in the short term. If you can't do that, you can create incentive by directly paying them to not follow your example. Right now, there is no other realistic option.

Re:Welp,

[Viper Daimao]

the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter

Not quite. In fact, the US and Canada are net carbon sinks.

Re:Welp,

[causality]

I read the comment I replied to as if Kyoto is part of the "once in a lifetime opportunity for the 'enlightened good progressives' to get almost total control over all aspects of life in the West".

Since it isn't in force, it can't be part of that particular problem.

The point was that it shows the intent and it also gives an idea of who has that intention. If you intend to bring something about and the first method that you try fails, you will probably respond by trying something else. That can also be expected here.

Re:Welp,

[maxume]

Right, but, at least in the U.S., it is an item on the list of failures. I would think that gasoline taxes provide another reasonable window into the attitude of Congress towards energy consumption, and they were all set to repeal them when gas was hitting $4 a gallon, not raise them to levels comparable to 'the liberal West'.

I guess I don't think complaining about an instance of failure is a good way to complain about a particular agenda gaining traction.

Personally, I though Kyoto would have faired better if it had stuck to environmental regulation and left the economic fudging to another agreement. Hopefully developments in solar panels make them economic (say, an unsubsidized, 5-10 year payoff) sooner than later, making the whole issue much less interesting (because people will choose carbon neutral power in order to save money).

Re:Welp,

[Quiet_Desperation]

you must have been in an office building where people take the elevator from the 8th to the 9th floor

Yes, but to be fair, it's often an issue of building design. The elevators tend to be centrally located while the stairwells are often less well positioned and even tricky to find, which has always raised emergency/evacuation issues in my mind. The better buildings have stairs right next to the elevators.

Re:Welp,

[gwait]

Read Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" if you want a historical sampling of how well we humans adapt after trashing our own ecosystem.

If every nation in the world was affluent, then you might have a point.

If the ocean level rises by 10 feet, and it does so over a period of say two years, then millions of people who live in river delta farmland along coastlines will have to pick up and move inwards, where someone else already lives.

We also loose a whole bunch of decent farmland, some of the best in the world.

Pressure like that on a civilization will almost inevitably lead to a local collapse bringing war, disease, and more political instability to the world, generally considered a bad thing by most people.

If you think the western world can stay isolated from such events, then you need to look at the artificial pressure by the US and USSR using Afghanistan citizens as pawns in a cold war, leading to 9/11.

Re:Welp,

[maxume]

It is a lot easier to reverse or modify bad legislation than it is to back out of a economically painful international treaty (I agree that Kyoto would have shifted a great deal of productive activity to India and China; at a minimum, it would make them even more attractive to new investment).

Re:Welp,

[drinkypoo]

They don't need anyone's permission to live better lives.

Well, not exactly. They require forbearance. The degree to which anyone is capable of interfering is of course another story entirely. On the other hand, it's clear that their activities are not going to lead to better lives in the long term. Rather than concentrate on pointing fingers and saying "your country is predominantly responsible" let's figure out how to stop the US and China and India and everyfuckingbody else from putting out too much of anything that we're currently polluting with!

If it were possible to lessen poverty while going eco-friendly, they would already do that.

That begs the question, would they already do that? And since it is possible (which I realize, is another can of worms, yes) and yet they are for the most part not concentrating on eco-friendly means of improving their lot... I submit that you are wrong. They don't even employ basic concepts of sanitation (in terms of sewers etc) in much of China, honestly. Not that we're too brilliant about it here, but our systems don't tend to spread disease. They just poison you... But theirs often do both.

Re:Welp,

[rts008]

The better buildings have stairs right next to the elevators.

No, No, No. A thousand times, No.

The buildings having stairwells next to the elevator are trading a lot of structural strength for lazy people. These buildings are not as structually sound as when the stairwells are away from the elevator shafts.
There was a lot of engineering thought and experience with past disasters that results in few buildings being built with stairwells near elevator shafts.

Re:Welp,

[Hucko]

Not paralyzed by fear, we are paralyzed by economics.

Re:Welp,

[tony1343]

Also, much of China's and India's pollution is created from factories. Factories making stuff for us at exceptionally cheap prices.

Re:Welp,

[Ferretman]

Heh...clearly! Okay then, on the List of Things Obama Has Done Right--that's one.....

Re:Welp,

[Troed]

the problem has got that much bigger

Global temperatures have dropped in the last decade, please explain what you mean by the problem having got "bigger" .. ?

Re:Welp,

[arkane1234]

My god, man. You've included 2 sections of the word "ain't" on a public forum and in the same sequence included nuclear power not ever happening, along with everything else but carbon containing material being used.

So pretty much, you've turned yourself into a nascar fan... here, let me buy you a busch beer... lol jesus

Re:Welp,

[arkane1234]

The United States has a population that far surpasses most countries, and the size which pushes the boundries of most countries, also. This has a bunch to do with the amount of money the country has.
HOWEVER, since air conditioning isn't really needed for half of the country (and if it is, only during select months), and SUVs aren't heavy polluting but merely high fuel use... well.. you get the picture. Sidewalks are all over America, unfortunately it's not possible to walk 5-10 miles via sidewalk to get to where you want within the allotted amount of time needed so vehicles are used. In tight areas such as New York, bicycles and walking is used. Here in Phoenix, Arizona, most of the time you will drive 5-10 miles (or more) to get to work.
As far as staircases, I doubt that has much to do with pollution. Saying that more CO2 is emitted through power use by lifting an elevator a floor rather than hefting items up the stairs while your in dress clothes (which forces the body to overheat, and you will push out more CO2), or even thinking this is anywhere near emissions causing is pompous on top of silly.
Besides, most people don't use elevators to go one floor. They go from 1st floor to 4th or more, and multiple times during the day. (such as myself which goes from the 3rd floor to the -1 floor server room about 5-6 times daily)

Somehow, I'm thinking that's far less pollution than say... a pile of trash burning, or wreckless dumping of pollutives.

India and China can come out of poverty when they know how. They stop themselves simply on the basis of paying their people a laughably low amount.

Re:Welp,

[arkane1234]

Obama points out facts.
The rest of the world outside of America has been flailing their arms wildly for years :)
We've just been trying to calm them down and asking them... "okay, now WHAT did you just say?"

Re:Welp,

[arkane1234]

Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant in the fact that it's stored in the earth (or some object in the earth) and has been dumped into the air in some form.
Much like every other pollutant.

Pollutant - Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.

The very definition of a pollutant is something that pollutes.

Re:Welp,

[Thangodin]

Exactly. Two points:

Precipitation tends to happen in weather which is warmer than what you normally expect at the poles. If the temperatures in the Antarctic rise, we would expect to see more precipitation, leading to thicker ice, because Antarctica is an actual land mass that can support it. The Arctic, on the other hand, is floating in the ocean, which is warming. So thicker ice in the Antarctic is entirely consistent with global warming, although it's good news for sea levels. Now, if only we can get Greenland and Northern Canada and Russia to stop melting...

Secondly, rather than paying attention to media boilerplate, watch where the oil producers are putting their money. They are all jockeying for position for Arctic Oil. Russia, which flatly denies that Global Warming is happening, planted a Russian flag under the Arctic Ocean at the North Pole. Canada's current government, who only recently admitted that Global Warming might be happening, stationed troops in the far North to protect Canadian Oil claims up there as one of their first initiatives four years back. And you might recall, if you're over 40, a joint American\Canadian venture of two ships trying to make it through the Northwest Passage: a Canadian ice breaker and a modified American oil tanker. It was a bust--they got through, but the tanker got ripped to shreds (it wasn't carrying oil, fortunately.) Now, all the oil companies are competing for rights in the Arctic--rights that are worth nothing unless arctic ice recedes to an unprecedented extent.

So, pay no attention to what they say--watch what the oil producers are doing. What do they know that we don't? That, more than anything, convinces me that global warming is real.

Re:Welp,

[lena_10326]

Pollutant - Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.

The very definition of a pollutant is something that pollutes.

Plants pollute. Let's eradicate them before they fill up the atmosphere with all that pesky flammable oxygen. Think of the children.

Re:Welp,

[ShakaUVM]

The premise of the Kyoto agreement is: they are the ones that have created the problem so far, they're the ones that are already industrialized and have most of the money. They are therefore the ones best positioned to come up with technical solutions and ways to meet lowered targets

Lol, what a load of crap. The solution industrial nations come up with is to move their industrial production to China.

Re:Welp,

[ShakaUVM]

The buildings having stairwells next to the elevator are trading a lot of structural strength for lazy people. These buildings are not as structually sound as when the stairwells are away from the elevator shafts.

Huh. Most of the hospitals (in California) I've seen have stairs next to or close to the elevators (for doctors to run up and down). I'd think that hospitals would care about not falling down in earthquakes.

Re:Welp,

[c6gunner]

I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest pollute

Depends on how you define it. First off, if you accept that CO2 is a pollutant, then as far as total CO2 output goes, the US is first. However, on a per-capita basis, the US comes in 5th. If we exclude CO2 and look at real waste, the situation is even better - on a per-capita basis the US comes in 4th amongst 16 first-world nations, which puts it ahead of such wonderfully progressive nations like the Netherlands, and the UK. And if we look at freshwater pollution, the US comes in 30th in a list of only 68.

So, all in all, I think it's safe to conclude that you're completely wrong.

The real fear for the environment is that India and China are coming out of poverty.

Yes - which is why they should never have been excluded from the Kyoto protocol. Indira Gandhi was wrong; there is a bigger polluter than poverty, and that is the step out of poverty. Why? Because the sources of pollution which exist in an impoverished state don't immediately disappear as soon as you start industrializing, and, worse yet, emergent economies are unlikely to implement the environmental protection measures which 1st world nations now use as a matter of course. You can expect pollution output of India and China to dwarf the rest of the planet combined for at least a few decades before they're able (or willing) to implement the kind of measures which we take for granted.

If the Kyoto members really wanted to make a difference, they would have figured out a way to encourage these nations to reign in their pollution during the industrialization process. Or, better yet, they could have created an international organization for research into sustainable energy. If each of the Kyoto signatories contributed just $100 million a year for 10 years, you'd have a budget of 183 billion dollars. Obviously you'd have to screw with the numbers and adjust them by GDP, but even if you end up with only half of that number it will still buy you a hell of a lot of research. The total cost of the LHC is something like 9 billion. The ITER fusion-research effort will cost about the same.

Re:Welp,

[c6gunner]

I didn't realize that the idea of the white man's burden was still alive and well.

It's not the white man's burden, you stupid bastard; it's the burden of all of humanity, and, more importantly, it's our own self-interest. It doesn't matter whether the people who fuck up the world have skin that's white, black, brown, yellow, or a pinkish shade of turquoise, the end result is the same.

Re:Welp,

[aliquis]

No, he started global cooling :/

Re:Welp,

[amit.lzkpa]

Add one more quote from yet another Indian, me
-"Wealth is the biggest polluter, of our minds"


If you follow the long chain of the causes for Global-Warming, you'll end up in the middle-east.
They supply us with oil. We burn it and progress, with Global Warming as the by-product.
With the prices of the oil the ME sell they practically CONTROL the economies of many a country.
Then they use the same money which we gave them for the oil to fund terror-people and blow us(and themselves) apart.

So, you see the two main global problems in the current world- Global Warming and Terrorism have their roots in the Middle-East.

Re:Welp,

[CarpetShark]

"Poverty is the biggest polluter."

Indeed. Images from Mumbai.

Except all that junk was created by wealthy, wasteful people, and poor people are living off and essentially recycling every part of it that they can.

Re:Welp,

[Troed]

I'm sorry, but your post is simply factually incorrect.

http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/april-2009-update-on-global-temperature-uah/

(The reason for using satellite data vs surface data is because of the strong UHI influence - as seen on http://surfacestations.org/ )

Re:Welp,

[Troed]

Overall, however, the amount of ice in the world is dramatically decreasing

I'm sorry - but can you please source that statement?

The global sea ice anomaly is positive:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Re:Welp,

[YrWrstNtmr]

This points to governmental poverty, rather than the poor souls in the images.
Poverty as in the city/national government not having the resources or desire to handle the trash problem.

Re:Welp,

[Galois2]

That is not a link to a peer-reviewed article, it is a link to a PNG image. Anyway, it is only for sea ice, which I agree may be growing. What causes ocean levels to rise, however, is glaciers melting and running into the ocean, which has been well-documented. You can look at the paper of Eric Rignot, for example, in Science 2006. The effect from Greenland alone is estimated to contribute 1/4 inch rise in ocean level per decade. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5763/986

Re:Welp,

[Anonymous Coward]

I shouldn't feed the trolls, but what the hell.

Gore was never elected president. Many voted for him, but that doesn't matter. Take some time to learn how the election process works in the U.S. before spewing your nonsense.

Re:Welp,

[Troed]

(I was expecting you to be able to parse the link to the image - but ok: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ )

I'm still waiting for you to source your original statement about the amount of ice in the world dramatically decreasing :)

Re:Welp,

[huckamania]

Maybe the OP was thinking of a Goregasm, which is the sensation future arm chair eco-warriors have when first seeing "An Inconvenient Truth".

Re:Welp,

[Troed]

I'm not sure you understand what you're looking at then :)

Or, maybe you don't know what "peer reviewed research" is in reality.

Re:Welp,

[CarpetShark]

That's certainly an aspect of it I'm sure, but you might not be aware that many kids (and adults) live on trash heaps, finding and selling scraps for a living (if you can call a bowl of gruel every day or two, shared between a family, a living). I could be wrong, but those images look like a fairly typical instance of it. There are less usual instances too, such as the poor people in Bangladesh who make a living selling scrap from (dangerous) old ships that are sent there from all over the world.

Re:Welp,

[c6gunner]

Whooosh

That was a completely inappropriate use of that sound. I've heard/seen his joke before, however, it's always told using the word algoriTHM not algoriSM. Using an inappropriate word kills what little humour value was present to begin with.

Re:Welp,

[nusuth]

I think we are arguing from different perspectives. In my belief system preservation of the environment is not a goal on its own. I recognize changes to the biosphere, even when it results in extinctions, is the normal state of affairs. I also subscribe to the idea that Earth does not need my attention to its well being. Even though the geologic history of the Earth makes it obvious that constant change in environment, with some major changes every now and then is the norm, I realize that one could -rather than accepting the continuation of history as inevitable- arrive to the opposite conclusion that life is fragile and need our attention to preserve. That is not my view at all.

I am on the same side with preservation policies only as far as they relate to well being of human beings. If some policy helps human beings, that are alive and living right now, its environmental cost may or may not be acceptable. That has to be decided in its own context; the "right" case cannot be argued from a general principle such as "we should preserve the environment". From this perspective, your suggestion that industrialization efforts of less developed countries need your forbearance sounds ridiculous. Those people owe nothing to you and need jobs. It is your responsibility to make sure that their short term well being does not harm your long term well being. After all, you have already endangered their long term being (without knowing the consequences, I'll give you that) and still reaping the benefits of prior industrialization (why do you think you have much less poverty? because money rained from the sky until 90ties?) Now that all real manufacturing has gone to third world countries, with the rich getting richer by producing nothing but "services" to each other, you can't just say "hey, you need our forbearance for doing exactly what we had done, for exactly the same reason why we have done it. We may even forbid you from doing it, because it is GLOBAL environment and we have to PRESERVE it!" It is exactly the opposite, IMNSHO. You need their forbearance to let them you continue polluting.

Re:Welp,

[Galois2]

I'm not sure you understand what you're looking at then :)

I guess I don't. What I see is a web page that contains a bunch of plots based on data from NOAA, updated daily, and therefore not going through any kind of peer-review process. I don't see any journal articles on that page.

Or, maybe you don't know what "peer reviewed research" is in reality.

"Peer-reviewed research" refers to journal articles and dissertations which have undergone a scholarly review process prior to publication.

Re:Welp,

[drinkypoo]

I think we are arguing from different perspectives. In my belief system preservation of the environment is not a goal on its own. I recognize changes to the biosphere, even when it results in extinctions, is the normal state of affairs. I also subscribe to the idea that Earth does not need my attention to its well being.

I agree with both of your statements. The Earth does not require your attention. However, if vast numbers of humans are not going to be killed off by secondary effects stemming from global climate change, I believe we will have to give Earth's atmosphere our attention. Whether this is the result of human interference is almost irrelevant at this stage. If CO2 is acidifying the oceans past their ability to sink it, does it matter whether the CO2 is manmade, or not? Either way we need to deal with fixing carbon, and reducing carbon emissions.

I am on the same side with preservation policies only as far as they relate to well being of human beings. If some policy helps human beings, that are alive and living right now, its environmental cost may or may not be acceptable.

I'm concerned with the humans who are yet to come, and that level of concern is what's missing in general.

the "right" case cannot be argued from a general principle such as "we should preserve the environment".

Again, that's only if you are such a self-centered prick that you don't believe that anyone who comes after you matters.

From this perspective,

Which perspective? See, "we should preserve the environment" has never been my principle. You are attacking a straw man, probably the single most common logical fallacy committed on slashdot. I have always said "we should preserve the environment so that we can live in it" which is a different thing. It's not for the environment's sake. It's for everyone's sake. Why should the spotted lemur (or whatever) die for your amusement or convenience? About 75% or more of all medicines are derived from or synthesized based on biologicals. How many potential medicines have we destroyed unknowingly? And for what? So that McDonalds can offer a burger cheaper?

your suggestion that industrialization efforts of less developed countries need your forbearance sounds ridiculous.

Too bad it's fact. Not just my forbearance, but that of everyone who can stop them — which can only be done collectively in any case.

Those people owe nothing to you and need jobs.

No, they need FOOD, CLOTHES, and SHELTER. Jobs are one way to get there, but not the only one.

It is your responsibility to make sure that their short term well being does not harm your long term well being.

Yes, that's what I said. And I (well, we) will do that if they don't — taking responsibility.

After all, you have already endangered their long term being (without knowing the consequences, I'll give you that) and still reaping the benefits of prior industrialization (why do you think you have much less poverty? because money rained from the sky until 90ties?)

No argument with this point. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm working to cut my consumption, and working on an alt power startup.

Now that all real manufacturing has gone to third world countries, with the rich getting richer by producing nothing but "services" to each other, you can't just say "hey, you need our forbearance for doing exactly what we had done, for exactly the same reason why we have done it. We may even forbid you from doing it, because it is GLOBAL environment and we have to PRESERVE it!" It is exactly the opposite, IMNSHO. You need their forbearance to let them you continue polluting.

Well, that's also true. AND we nee

Re:Welp,

[Doc Ruby]

No, he was elected. The Supreme Court interfered with the election to abort it without counting all the votes cast. That's why he wasn't inaugurated.

You Republicans have nothing to teach us about the US election system except how it can be abused, so catastrophically for the country.

Re:Welp,

[BrokenHalo]

Kyoto is an utter failure on this point, which makes me glad the U.S. didn't ratify it.

The former is a valid point, but the latter has nothing to do with any principle. G. Shrub was simply continuing his (and his Republican Big-Oil-Money cronies') policy of denial that there is/was any problem... on the principle that if you stick your head up your ass for long enough, sooner or later you'll learn to enjoy the view in there.

Re:Welp,

[Troed]

... and what data will such articles reference?

NOAA, et al.

When not drawing conclusions, "peer review" has no meaning.

Re:Welp,

[Headcase88]

But let's face facts, if everyone who meant to vote for Gore voted for Gore, Gore would have won.

Re:Welp,

[Dread_ed]

The problem with using industrialization as the yardstick is that it disregards all other costs and incentives. Industrialized countries already have a drastically higher labor cost than the underdevelpoed nations. Add in the additional, one sided burden of strict CO2 controls and those manufacturers in industrialized nations would move their operations to China or India. This mass exodous of jobs and manufacturing woud cause massive unemployment and unprecedented trade deficits in the industrialized nations.

In short you would see the economies of "underdeveloped" nations skyrocket while their labor foce would experience ever worsening conditions. When the dust settles and all the Kyoto protocols have been met by the industrialized nations they won't be solvent enough to force China and India to jump on board. And why would they? The example of bankrupted and impoverished industrailized nations would testify to the error of those ways.

Re:Welp,

[eleuthero]

...um, maybe it's just me, but isn't the whole point of this thread to note that there is no "global warming" problem... maybe it's just a "populated region warming" problem. It would become really serious if the penguins in Antartica started using outboards and McMurdo actually had people in any great quantity.

Re:Welp,

[mrmeval]

No it's been scientifically proven there is no such thing as Algore Rhythm, he's not black enough.

Re:Welp,

[mrmeval]

In a building with the stairs next to the elevator the elevator shaft catches fire and renders the stairs unusable. There's good design reasons for having the stairs away from the elevator. There's also a reason some taller buildings have short run elevators and stairs. They break up a fires path.

Re:Welp,

[wwwillem]

Number 1: I'm not living in the US and I never have. Number 2: I've lived for longer periods of time on three continents: Europe, Far-East Asia and Northern America, so I think I know a little bit about the environment in different places of the world. Number 3: Yes, I've been to Mexico City and I loved that city. :-)

OK, let's get real now. This wasn't a US bashing exercise. I simply used the US as a counter-example that "poverty countries" are not the biggest polluters.

China is indeed a big world-scale polluter, not because it is a poor county, but because it is coming "out of poverty".

It is my opinion, and you may disagree with that, that "developed nations" are still a bigger problem for the environment than the countries that live "under the poverty line".

Temperature

[RichMan]

The antarctic is supposed to be a desert because it is too cold to snow.
The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation.

The ice sheets have increased their outward flow. Also another indicator of increased precipitation and warmth.

One has to be very careful what one looks at for indicators of global warming/cooling.

Re:Temperature

[highvista63]

This is exactly what I've heard should be happening, as well. Global warming would evaporate more of the ocean's water, which falls on Antarctica as snow, resulting in more ice.

Re:Temperature

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that it's been cooling the last few years points to Global Warming. The fact that the ice sheet is getting larger points to Global Warming. The fact that there are Solar Cycles points to Global Warming.

In fact, there are NO observations that could possibly disprove Global Warming.

Geez. It is a religion, not a science.

Re:Temperature

[alvinrod]

I don't mean to discredit what you say, but could you possibly give a better explanation of what's occurring and how it's related to global warming.

It seems that some times every event is a sure sign that X is occurring, whether or not there's actually any scientific proof behind it or not. It reminds me of whenever something happened it would be attributed to God, the gods, or some other deity supposedly controlling the fate of mankind depending on the time period.

I just don't want things to devolve to that point. I have no reason to doubt what you're saying, but could you provide some links that explain the science behind your comments or provide a more thorough explanation yourself. I don't mean to call you out as my own knowledge of climate science is largely non-existent, but I still tend to take statements without further explanation with a grain of salt.

Re:Temperature

[Anonymous Coward]

Too Cold to Snow? WTF are you talking about:

http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/weather-climate/ever-too-cold-snow

The entire area of Antarctica gets some snowfall every year, less in some areas but it still snows:

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=107920

Re:Temperature

[thesandbender]

Just because it's a desert doesn't mean it gets no precipitation, just very little. It's been averaging 4" a year at the south pole since they started taking measurements. Besides, the idea of it being too cold to snow is a myth: http://www.weatherimagery.com/blog/too-cold-to-snow/

Re:Temperature

[RichMan]

Actually the bit about snow was misleading. The article was about sea ice thickness. Sea ice is caused by cold air flowing from a pole toward the equator and cooling the ocean. More about that in a bit.

Back to the bit about "to cold to snow". Really cold air carries very little water vapour.
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/222/

Now back to the article. The article described 1 year sea ice thickness. This is ice that forms on the sea over one winter and is essentially a measure of how cold the air was that winter. So first thought is that more ice implies a colder winter. Yes I agree with that. The question is what is the average global temperature. Global warming (called climate change by those who think explaining all the details will confuse people) does not mean it warms up everywhere.

Fact: Cold air does not come from the polar regions. Cold air comes from high in the atmosphere where air radiates heat to space. Warm air comes from contact with sun warmed ground and sea.
http://www.rcn27.dial.pipex.com/cloudsrus/wind.html

So the polar regions are cold because they get more cold air dropped on them from high in the atmosphere. What pushes the whole cycle is "heat". We like to think of hot and cold as relative to our norms. Real tempeature is degrees Kelvin. So the polar regions just have less heat than the equatorial regions.

Back to the circulation putting more heat into the system results in a global warming but also in an accelerated wind system. This will push more cold air down at the poles. Essentially making the poles colder and the polar winds colder. This will make the polar regions colder --- when they are not heated by the sun.

So from global warming we can actually expect colder winters at the poles. Overall they will be shorter due to the added heat. There are lots of balances and more complex things. Particularly the global air circulation is not 1 cycle equator to poles, but banded. But the general idea is there.

Re:Temperature

[Ronald Hummelink]

The article claims its getting colder at that specific location. Which kindof disagrees with your statement of being a snowdesert ;)

Re:Temperature

[RichMan]

> Besides, the idea of it being too cold to snow is a myth:

The article you quoted says --
    Once it drops below -20F, your chances of snow are virtually nil (but still possible).

I will take that "virtually nil (but still possible)" and say that effectively it does get to cold to snow.

Re:Temperature

[RichMan]

Did a more detailed reply above. See that. Article was also about sea ice and not snow so my stuff about snow and desert does not apply.

I agree that it is colder at a specific location for a the winter.
Local cooling near the poles is expected as a result of global warming.

Re:Temperature

[shadowofwind]

The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation.

Sure, but many climate change alarmists, including Al Gore, have been hyping the threat of rising sea levels due to melting ice. So if global warming is going to cause ice to grow in some areas and shrink in others, as it will, then that still weakens their argument.

Re:Temperature

[JordanL]

Davis is not in central Antarctica. Nice try though.

Re:Temperature

[RichMan]

Sea ice has a minimal affect on sea level. So anything about more or less sea ice is to a first order irrelevant to global sea level.
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/04/ice-and-sea-level.html

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html
---
    In terms of the ice, there are five identifiable reservoirs, only one
of which is expected to be able to have catastrophic effects on sea
level. They are sea ice, mountain glaciers, the Greenland ice sheet,
the East Antarctic ice sheet, and the West Antarctic ice sheet. The one
expected to be potentially catastrophic is West Antarctica.
Catastrophic is taken to mean meters of sea level in a few hundred years
or less.

    First, why can't the other four be catastrophic? Sea ice cannot
change sea level much. That it can do so at all is because sea ice is
not made of quite the same material as the ocean. Sea ice is much
fresher than sea water (5 parts per thousand instead of about 35). When
the ice melts (pretend for the moment that it does so instantly and
retains its shape), the resultant melt water is still slightly less
dense than the original sea water. So the meltwater still 'stands' a
little higher than the local sea level. The amount of extra height
depends on the salinity difference between ice and ocean, and
corresponds to about 2% of the thickness of the original ice floe. For
30 million square kilometers of ice (global maximum extent) and average
thickness of 2 meters (the Arctic ice is about 3 meters, the Antarctic
is about 1), the corresponding change in global sea level would be 2
(meters) * 0.02 (salinity effect) * 0.10 (fraction of ocean covered by
ice), or 4 mm. Not a large figure, but not zero either. My thanks to
chappell@stat.wisc.edu (Rick Chappell) for making me work this out.
---

As an indicator of other things 1 year sea ice thickness is relevant on a second order. It is an indicator of the local winter average temperature. Local temperature changes are not global. I say that this indicator of a more cold winter shows an increased polar air circulation which is actually a positive indicator for global warming in general.

Re:Temperature

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't been involved in any climate research, but what matters is WHY this is hapening.

Is it, as suggested above, because water falling there as snow instead of in Australia and Texas as rain is increasing volumes? Other explanations include:

  - Thermal expansion of the ice
  - Ice melting lubricates glacial movement
  - Ice sheets detatching allows faster glacial movement
  - Lower temperatures resulting in greater freezing of seawater.

Honestly though, conceptually this isn't amazingly complex. If we see temperatures rising, as measured by reliable equipment, thats called warming. If the ice thickens as the termperatures rise, that means something interesting is happening; It doesn't mean things aren't getting warmer.

When presented with scientific data, vested interests say "Oh yeah!? Prove it!". Instead of simply suggesting that they read the science reports and papers, many have tried to find anecdotes (permafrost, ice sheet collapse, etc etc) but these things don't 'prove' global warming any more than an ice thickening disproves it.

If only the population at large had an education sufficient to allow public discussion of the data found through research, there would be a great deal more consensus on this and other issues.

Science is not subjective.

Re:Temperature

[radtea]

The antarctic is supposed to be a desert because it is too cold to snow.

False. It is never too cold to snow.

The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation.

Right, so if ice thickness is declining that is evidence that the climate is warming because the only possible cause is increased melting due to higher temperatures, but if the ice thickness is increasing that is evidence that the climate is warming because the only possible cause is increased snow accumulation due to more precipitation that results from warmer temperatures.

One has to be very careful what one looks at for indicators of global warming/cooling.

Since apparently any change whatsoever can be used as evidence for global warming it would seem that the only care required is that you never let your contradictory positions get juxtaposed too closely, as that might allow someone to notice they are contradictory.

"Environmentalists" sometimes argue that the decrease in a species' local population is evidence that humans are killing them all, and an increase in a species' local population is evidence that habitat destruction has forced it into human-inhabited areas. Anyone who makes this kind of argument is rightfully suspect.

The one signal that should be unambiguous with regard to increased global heat content is ocean heat content, which seems to be increasing and is free of most of the issues that make nonsense of so many of the climate signals that people get up in arms over. I really don't know why ocean heat content is so little discussed: anyone who actually cares about the science of global climate change will be led inevitably to it, and will be repulsed by the wild assumptions and poor science that goes into most claims about atmospheric heat content (or worse still, the thermodynamically meaningless "global average temperature".)

Re:Temperature

[adonoman]

And -20F is only just starting to get cold for places like Antarctica, (or even continental/northern Canada and Russia). Where I live, we regularly get 2-3 weeks with highs below -20F, and you can depend on those weeks to be sunny and dry.

Re:Temperature

[SnarfQuest]

In other words: If it gets warmer, that's because of global warming. If it gets colder, that's because of global warming. If it gets wetter, that's because of global warming. If it gets drier, that's because of global warming. If the ice is melting, that's because of global warming. It the ice is getting thicker, that's because of global warming. If the bees are dying, that's because of cell phones, err, global warming.

Also: Global warming is caused by man, especially by those driving SUV's. The only way to save us is to reduce our energy use to zero (Algore and friends excluded, they can each use more than what 50 normal households combined are allowed without criticism).

Did I miss any important rules about global warming?

Re:Temperature

[budgenator]

What we need to examine is precipitation records and ice depth, if the ice is getting thicker and the precipitation is the same then obviously it's colder and less ice is sublimating.

Re:Temperature

[Louis Savain]

Geez. It is a religion, not a science.

More like the biggest con game since organized religion. Oh wait! It is an organized religion. My bad.

Re:Temperature

[Illserve]

So from global warming we can actually expect colder winters at the poles.

Truly this is a theory that cannot be disproven.

When we thought the poles were melting, the infamous pictures of a wet polar bear on a little ice shelf were everywhere and we were told that this was the direct result of warming.

So now it seems the global warming theory can have its ice and melt it too.

Re:Temperature

[ultranova]

It is never too cold to snow.

The colder it is, the less moisture the air is capable of carrying, leading to less rain/snowfall. Basically, when it gets below about -10 degree Celsius, you can safely bet it'll be nice and sunny; there simply isn't enough evaporated water to form clouds.

This is my experience from living 30 years in a polar country (Finland); disregard it if you want.

Re:Temperature

[Belial6]

Al Gore did not say that you need to reduce your energy use to zero. He suggested that you reduce your carbon output to zero. Since this means no breathing or decaying, it calls for you to take a trip to a permanently frozen location with a plastic bag to suffocate yourself with. Clearly anyone unwilling to take Al Gores suggestion of zero carbon output either doesn't believe him, or doesn't care.

Re:Temperature

[gmuslera]

Depend what you call pole. Antarctic is pretty big, could feel the warming at the borders (that comes thru water mostly) and the bigger income of cold air from high atmosphere closer to the center.

What is clear is that the system is not trivial enough to point that something is happening just because in certain place is warmer or colder alone. You must take into account water/air circulation in the whole system at the very least too. Or choose to take the the butterfly or shit happens explanations.

Re:Temperature

[Nyeerrmm]

I'm pretty sure it means reducing the amount of net carbon you add to the climate system. Anything you breathe out or decay into is already in the system, with the natural balance of plant respiration to keep the overall levels even. The problem is when you release carbon thats been sequestered in fossil fuels for millions of years; thus the phrase 'Carbon Neutral'.

It's also the reason why biofuels make sense, even if the particular blend isn't much cleaner than a fossil fuel-based product, the biomass that goes into making it sequestered that carbon before re-releasing it, keeping the atmospheric balance at the level we're used to.

Re:Temperature

[Illserve]

You must take into account water/air circulation in the whole system at the very least too. Or choose to take the the butterfly or shit happens explanations.

What is clear to me is that our understanding of atmospheric dynamics is so awful (and rightfully so, it's complicated), that an explanation can be cobbled together using pesudo atmospheric lingo to explain any set of data as a result of man made influence.

The truth of the matter is that we don't really know what's going on. But that doesn't stop many people from boldly claiming that "X causes Y" with undeserved confidence.

What's also unscientific about this process is the way that the GW movement latches onto emotionally appealing icons to make their case (e.g. Polar bears, Katrina)

Re:Temperature

[drmerope]

The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation

That's a well known talking point, but unfortunately its wrong. The regions of accumulation are cooling, not warming. See this spatial distribution plot

Re:Temperature

[im_thatoneguy]

Of course it can.

Just like I can say we're getting less percipitation but more flooding in the northwest US. If there is a huge deluge of percipitation but then a 3 month drought then that can actually cause worse flooding later.

Similarly it could rain more often but still rain less.

That's why the leading worry about Global Warming isn't that you're going to need to get 3 more days of nice sunny weather every day. It's that Global Warming will cause UNPREDICTABLE weather patterns. Such as freak deep freezes. Unexpected ice patterns etc in addition to hotter summers and draught.

Maybe a region will see its weather patterns change such that they receive tons of percipitation during the winter but none during the growing season. That's a bad change for agriculture even if the region receives "more rain".

You're building a strawman against climate change that "Scientists claim that global warming will cause global heating in every point on earth." That's not a claim of global warming. And when shipping lanes open through the north pole (where polar bears reside) I would hardly be hasty to suggest that in general ice sheets aren't shrinking simply because one small region on earth is seeing increased ice.

There's increased ice in my freezer too... does that disprove global warming? Look at the data as a whole not cherry picked exceptions to the data trends.

Re:Temperature

[im_thatoneguy]

What's also unscientific about this process is the way that the GW movement latches onto emotionally appealing icons to make their case (e.g. Polar bears, Katrina)

So your counter argument that an observed weather phenomenon on the opposite side of the planet casts into doubt the mountain of data that the north pole is losing its sea ice (to the detriment of Polar Bears) is scientific?

Talk about appealing to false causality. Was Katrina caused by GW? Who knows. One point of data trend does not make. Is the Arctic Melting caused by the fact that it's getting warmer, along with the rest of the planet on average? That's a pretty hard thing to disprove with millions of points of data all pointing to the same thing "The earth is warming."

Re:Temperature

[tie_guy_matt]

Yes, you missed that it is called climate change, and not global warming. The earth is a very complicated heat engine. There are feed backs, inverse feedbacks, flows and currents moving heat around all over the place. If you dramatically change the climate then you may dramatically the way the heat engine works. This may mean that some places get colder even if on average the earth is getting warmer.

So yes, if it is colder in places that are supposed to be warmer, then it may be climate change. If it is warmer where it is supposed to be colder then it may be climate change.

Note also it is climate change. Climate means weather over a long period of time. So if it is freakishly warm one day, or strangely cold another day (or week or even season) then it may not be climate change. You need to look at trends over a long period of time before you can say anything about the climate.

Of course the fact that the earth is extremely complicated doesn't stop some people from using some FUD from oil companies along with a couple of hours of watching the Discovery channel to think that they know everything about an entire field of physics.

Re:Temperature

[TapeCutter]

How insightfull of you to put your words in other people's mouths.

The last few years have been warmer than any year in the 20th centry except 1998.

Antartic sea ice was PREDITED to expand using climate models.

The last one is just mindless.

As for religion, I'm afraid you are the one who's dogma is impervious to science. OTOH it's a free country and you have the right to make a fool of yourself.

Re:Temperature

[Blakey Rat]

Don't forget that global warming causes more hurricanes except for years in which it doesn't.

Re:Temperature

[Illserve]

So your counter argument that an observed weather phenomenon on the opposite side of the planet casts into doubt the mountain of data that the north pole is losing its sea ice (to the detriment of Polar Bears) is scientific?

Did the GGGP of this post not just say that global warming causes COLDER poles?

How can I possibly debate this issue with you or anyone else when the climate change camp gets to count both warmer and colder temperatures at the poles as favorable for their position?

It's an impossible position you've put your opponents in; none of the evidence counts against you.

Re:Temperature

[Blakey Rat]

Saying climate "change" implies that we knew how it worked before-- surely we can't judge whether something is abnormal without knowing what normal is, right?

Reading articles like this (and the posts in this thread) makes it clear to me that climate scientists frankly have *no clue* what is normal and what isn't. Thus, the grandparent's claim that virtually every point of climate data is "for" Climate Change.

Re:Temperature

[wasted]

Fact: Cold air does not come from the polar regions. Cold air comes from high in the atmosphere where air radiates heat to space. Warm air comes from contact with sun warmed ground and sea.
http://www.rcn27.dial.pipex.com/cloudsrus/wind.html

Your reference does not support your alledged Fact, and your alledged Fact ignores the concept of adiabatic warming. The poles are colder than the equator because they receive less energy from the sun, not because descending air is colder. This casts a LOT of doubt to the validity of the rest of your arguments as well.

*Note that the adiabatic warming reference is from an education institution site, not a property development site.

Re:Temperature

[theodicey]

What is clear to me is that our understanding of atmospheric dynamics is so awful (and rightfully so, it's complicated), that an explanation can be cobbled together using pesudo atmospheric lingo to explain any set of data as a result of man made influence.

No, what is clear is that your understanding of atmospheric dynamics is awful. So is mine, and the average slashdotter's as well.

That's why I don't post blather about the new climate article du jour until I see what real climatologists, e.g. the folks at RealClimate, have to say. (Especially because 75% of the reaction to any new discovery will be spin by the deniers, who are always looking for that magic bullet.)

What you're doing is like reading few YouTube comments and concluding that the process of making a video is poorly understood.

Re:Temperature

[Prhean]

So you are saying that our planet has the ability to absorb some fluctuations and still be habitable. The word equilibrium comes to mind. Aw, heck. Let's devastate the global economy, anyway, so that global warming scientists (oops! I mean climate change scientists) will have plenty of business, research grants, prestige, and power.

Re:Temperature

[ArcherB]

The last few years have been warmer than any year in the 20th centry except 1998.

(Citation needed). I only ask for a citation because I recall that 1998 was the hottest year on record and that these past few years have been cooler than normal. Come to find out, 1998 was NOT the hottest year on record, 1938 was.

Also note that 1938 and 1998 were both in the 20th century and both years were hotter than these past few years.

Actually, never mind. I did some searching and found out that 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 are all the hottest year on record, depending on what source you use.

And these guys wonder why we don't believe them??

Re:Temperature

[rtb61]

You really shouldn't confuse religious dogma with out and out greed. So the non global warming sponsors are not impervious to science, they simply don't care, the lies they spread are all about them sustaining and increasing their profits, they are completely and utterly indifferent to damage they knowingly do, don't think for a second that they don't employ their own scientists to analyse the data coming out so that they, ever so perversely, more effectively target their lies at it to obscure and taint the truth.

The most tragic thing that is going on at the moment is these same people are now using global warming and CO2 as a misdirecting focus so they can continue to pollute our environment with a whole range of other toxic substances. They are basically using the more complex science of global warming as a means by which to obfuscate the whole issue of all the pollutants created by burning various fossil fuels as well as biofuels.

While global warming is definitely an issue it is still in reality second to other the other toxic results of the 'infernal' combustion engine and the carcinogens that result which are currently basically being sequestered in our bodies.

Re:Temperature

[jadavis]

How can I possibly debate this issue with you or anyone else when the climate change camp gets to count both warmer and colder temperatures at the poles as favorable for their position?

I second this question. There is some kind of inconsistency in this thread.

Are poles made colder by global warming? If so, then why all the pictures of polar ice falling into the sea and polar animals losing their habitat?

If, instead, the poles are made warmer by global warming, why is the polar ice increasing in parts of the antarctic?

Re:Temperature

[ArcherB]

Oh, and in this comment, you said:

Either show me your contra-evidence that asserts Mann is incorrect, the ice caps are NOT melting, or the world is NOT getting warmer.

I find it funny that in one article, you ask for evidence that the ice caps are not melting, as if you didn't believe it, and now you are saying it was expected? Please, find a story and stick with it.

Please allow me to say, RTFA. There is your evidence.

Re:Temperature

[Shazow]

I don't know how cold it has to be for it not to snow, but I know that Canada has no problem with snow in -25 degree Celcius weather. One of many reasons I'm moving to California next week.

- shazow

Re:Temperature

[The Grim Reefer2]

Real tempeature is degrees Kelvin.

The use of "degrees" was dropped when measuring temperatures in Kelvin sometime in the late 1960's. E.g. 5 degrees Fahrenheit would be expressed as 258 Kelvin or 258 K.

Re:Temperature

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

since floating ice, well, floats on water, and when it melts it doesn't increase the volume that much.
You mean at all.

Re:Temperature

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I second this question. There is some kind of inconsistency in this thread.

No, that's just cause you weren't reading carefully enough to note the important parts of what he was saying.

Global warming gets you colder winters at the poles because of the increased air circulation. He also claimed that the winters would become _shorter_, and I assume the summers then would also be warmer.

Thus increased ice thickness wouldn't be evidence against global warming, and the theory is disprovable if you can show that the winters aren't becoming shorter.

Re:Temperature

[techno-vampire]

So the polar regions are cold because they get more cold air dropped on them from high in the atmosphere.

An interesting assertion, but false. As anybody who bothered to pay attention during Science Class in elementary school knows, the poles are cold because the sun is always low on the horizon and they don't get much heating from it even at high summer when the sun's above the horizon non-stop for six weeks. And, of course, the corresponding six weeks when there's no sunshine at all makes it even colder.

Re:Temperature

[tie_guy_matt]

Let's see, we have a couple of hundred years of people measuring climate scientifically. Next we have thousands of years of human history in which we can infer the climate even if it wasn't measured scientifically. Next we have things like tree rings that can map out how well a tree grew year after year for thousands of years which can tell us about rain fall and seasonal temperature. After that we have geological evidence left by the ways in which climate can alter the earth itself. Finally we have arctic ice. The thickness of a layer of ice can tell use much about average global temeperature year after year for millions of years. Not only that but the ice tends to dissolve things like co2 and aerosols that were in the atmosphere at the time the ice froze.

Oh and by the way the ice sheet shows pretty clearly that when co2 levels increases then so does the temperature (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html for those that have never heard of google -- but there are many other references besides Al Gore.)

But yeah except for the ice sheets, evidence left in trees and other geological evidence, as well as measurements made by humans either scientifically or not, we don't really have a freaking clue when it comes to what our climate is and what is normal and what isn't. After all, if it is from the oil company, or if you saw it on the discovery channel then that must make you an expert and everything you think must be true!

Note, I am not trying to slam the discovery channel. They make some good programs. But tv doesn't make you an expert!

Re:Temperature

[Z34107]

Did I miss any important rules about global warming?

"'Heads' I win, 'tails' you lose!"

Re:Temperature

[techno-vampire]

How can I possibly debate this issue with you or anyone else when the climate change camp gets to count both warmer and colder temperatures at the poles as favorable for their position?

At this point, the AGW camp is claiming that anything that happens is proof that AGW is true, making it impossible to falsify and, in the sense of Popper, meaningless.

Re:Temperature

[Illserve]

He also claimed that the winters would become _shorter_, and I assume the summers then would also be warmer.

You assume it? If the poles are made colder by warming in the winter, why do you get to assume it works differently in the summer?

I feel like I'm being sold a conspiracy theory.

Re:Temperature

[Walkingshark]

Typical of a religionist to miss the point: the evidence will trend toward pointing out facts.

Re:Temperature

[Walkingshark]

So from global warming we can actually expect colder winters at the poles.

Truly this is a theory that cannot be disproven.

Not really, you just don't understand it. You probably could if you cared to though.

Re:Temperature

[reedk]

I do want to discredit the parent. If the ice melts, it's global warming; if it doesn't, it's global warming. The inability on the part of those proposing global warming theory discredits them itself. They can't stick to a single story, except to invent new explanations along the way in a religious way.

Re:Temperature

[Nutria]

Global warming gets you colder winters at the poles because of the increased air circulation. He also claimed that the winters would become _shorter_, and I assume the summers then would also be warmer.

Let us then keep an eye on this sea ice graph. The peaks and valleys should get more extreme.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

How much of the melting, though, is caused by coal and wood soot from India and China?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/16degrees.html>

black carbon ... recent studies estimating that it is responsible for 18 percent of the planet's warming

But the awareness of black carbon's role in climate change has come so recently that it was not even mentioned as a warming agent in the 2007 summary report by the (IPCC) that pronounced the evidence for global warming to be "unequivocal."

BTW, if 1/5 of the cause of AGW was "discovered" less than 2 years ago, what are scientists going to discover 2 years from now? That it's really 2/5 of the cause? Or something else that's totally unexpected?

While the developed world spends even more money that we don't have on projects with dubious worth?

Re:Temperature

[Rockoon]

Let me get this straight...

The AGW camp is predicting that things will be unpredictable...

..in spite of the fact that no methodology has ever shown skill at predicting the climate before.

Here is what I have observed:

A few years ago hurricanes were all the AGW rage. They predicted more and stronger hurricanes as a result of AGW (the "more energy" arguement), but when that failed to happen they then predicted fewer and weaker hurricanes as a result of AGW (the "more energy produces windsheer" arguement.)

Then, they predicted increased melting of the polar ice due to global warming (the "warmer atmosphere" arguement), but now we find out that when that didnt happen that they now predict a decrease in melting of the polar ice (the "warmer atmosphere causes greater circulation" arguement.)

Here is the way I see it:

Whatever data comes in, there is a pro-AGW arguement waiting to support it, and that tells me quite clearly that nobody has a god damn clue what the fuck is going on, but that AGW = DOLLARS FOR CLIMATOLOGISTS.

Re:Temperature

[WalksOnDirt]

You failed to understand the first sentence in your link: "1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA". If you'll check, 1938 was not close to the recent global temperatures.

And you wonder why we have no respect for those like you who ignore the science.

Re:Temperature

[Nutria]

there would be a great deal more consensus on this and other issues.

Consensus is not scientific, it's social, and can be strongly influenced by those who make the most noise or have the greatest stature.

Science is not subjective.

But it is (usually, and especially in cases like this) lacking in adequate knowledge. (Soot, which reports now say causes 20% of AGW, wasn't even mentioned in the 2007 IPCC report.)

Re:Temperature

[Toonol]

Well, it's greed for the few, a religion for the many. If it wasn't a potent tool to sway the masses, the political and cultural figures leading the movement would look to something else.

Re:Temperature

[Paltin]

You're right.

But do we still have an obligation to try and make the world a good place for ourselves to live right now?

Re:Temperature

[TimSSG]

Personally I believe the northern hemisphere is getting warmer; but, the evidence, in my opinion, that the southern hemisphere is getting warm is not there. The number of reports of the southern hemisphere that say it is same or getting cooler seems to me to be much greater than the number saying it is getting warmer. Note, I am just a person how pays attention to reported new stories, so the scientific reports might differ. Tim S

Re:Temperature

[Toonol]

I fear, though, that Climatology is more like Economics than it is like physics; it's modeling a chaotic system, and we can't do that very well.. I suspect that the majority of climatologists have an awful understanding of atmospheric dynamics. In some fields, we simply aren't very advanced yet. Look at psychology, for an example; we're barely past the "bloodletting and prayer" phase in that area.

Re:Temperature

[John Jamieson]

Thanks for letting us disregard.
Just north of me in Canada where I have done some consulting it gets nice and cold, and -10C is not that cold.

There may be a whole month where they don't get above -10 C, and they get a crapload of snow. Heck, in the Upper Penninsula of MI, there are spots that get yards and yards of snow at temps below -10C.

Example? Herman MI. averages 6 Meters a winter, and gets up to 10 Meters.

BTW, as a Finn you should know this, the U.P. has the greatest concentration of Finn's outsinde of Finland.

Re:Temperature

[LordKazan]

no climate scientist claims that we are the sole instigator. However to claim we're not involved, given that since the industrial revolution the CO2 load in the atmosphere has increased by 50%, is simply dishonest.

Re:Temperature

[alemaco]

So now it seems the global warming theory can have its ice and melt it too.

You're wrong. Images from NASA.

Re:Temperature

[k8to]

You're arguing for false simplicity.

The responders are simply talking about how it could make sense that global warming could cause colder temperatures in antarctica. They're guessing, granted, so I wouldn't put a lot of weight on what they say. Still though, it's one possible reason, and a possible reason that would correlate with global warming. The real story is probably different, but that doesn't mean their guess is necessarily wrong.

This turned to: hey, it's getting warmer at the north pole, so this argument can't be right. Well, the north pole and the south pole are not the same place. Obviously if the ice is growing at the south pole and shrinking at the north pole, something is happening differently in those two places. Does the disparity directly support global warming, of course not. Does it undermine it? Of course not! If the specific reasons for the growth of ice in antarctica were better understood, then maybe that would do one or the other.

Just because a set of facts isn't sufficient to show global warming is inaccurate doesn't mean that it's proof that it is accurate.

The thing you have to realize here is that global warming is really so widely recognized that's it's essentially a fact. As a result, people who are aware of this may respond to "challenges" in a somewhat ill-considered and hostile manner.

Re:Temperature

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, at minus 20 F and below you get powder snow. Good for skiing.

Re:Temperature

[msevior]

So your counter argument that an observed weather phenomenon on the opposite side of the planet casts into doubt the mountain of data that the north pole is losing its sea ice (to the detriment of Polar Bears) is scientific?
Talk about appealing to false causality. Was Katrina caused by GW? Who knows. One point of data trend does not make. Is the Arctic Melting caused by the fact that it's getting warmer, along with the rest of the planet on average? That's a pretty hard thing to disprove with millions of points of data all pointing to the same thing "The earth is warming."

Here are the latest Arctic Sea Ice anomaly results.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
Worth watching IMHO.

Re:Temperature

[im_thatoneguy]

RTFA. The data wasn't saying "The continent of Antartica is seeing increased ice." It says "At a base in Antartica we have seen an increase in ice."

Extrapolating an entire continent's data from one site is a strawman argument. The weather varries from mile to mile in my region. So much so it's described as one of the most complicated and unpredictable weather systems in the world. Taking data from one hill vs the next wouldn't even be a terribly great plan of attack.

Re:Temperature

[seek31337]

I think the real question is:
      Do you give a shit that the earth /IS/ becoming warmer?

If so, take any and all actions to stop it. Don't wait for catastrophic disasters. Until then, run with the science we HAVE. Ignore who may be financially impacted by a change to not make our lives MISERABLE AS A SPECIES, at best.

Then again, most of the asshats here don't give a shit. I hope most of you die in the heat.

Re:Temperature

[houghi]

There's increased ice in my freezer too... does that disprove global warming?

A bit perhaps. I have a tiny fridge with a very small freezer compartment on the top. It ices over all the time in about one months time.
After a defrost the temperature is lower then after a month with the same conditions outside of the fridge.

The more ice there is in my fridge, the warmer it gets, even though it is still below 0 Celsius.

Re:Temperature

[houghi]

So you move so you can have problems with snow?

Re:Temperature

[Kumiorava]

You are wrong, water increases volume when heated up. Quite significant (read: small fraction) amount of sea level rise is attributed to water expanding in higher temperature.

Re:Temperature

[Anne Thwacks]

Bloodletting and prayer are much more advanced than economics.

We know for sure that:

a) If there are N economists, there are N! explanations of what is happening, of which < 1 are probably correct.

b) The more qualified an economist, the less likely his predictions are to be right.

I would say climatology is in the same boat.

Re:Temperature

[KDR_11k]

Of course the climate changes by itself, the problem is that it's changing faster than it should and it's doing so because of the greenhouse gasses. Often people here act like they're the first ones to ever think of factors like sun activity but those have been calculated and found insufficient to explain the change we're seeing.

Re:Temperature

[KDR_11k]

You know, I'm not sure we can point at a complex system like that and go "it can't be factor X because it's factor Y" as it's entirely possible that there is more than one factor involved.

Re:Temperature

[JugglingMascot]

Climate models show a steep increase of temperature at the north pole and flat or even slight cooling at the south pole. I have never understood the reason that the poles are different in this regard. These results are no surprise to the IPCC, more sea ice at the North pole would really be surprising. The projections for the future showing high warming at the north pole and less at the south can be found at the bottom of the summary for policy makers; http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf The IPCC physical science report showing a high probability of short-term warming at the south pole http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

Re:Temperature

[sodul]

Rick will know who to thank for the spike of junk mail he'll get starting tomorrow.

Re:Temperature

[bencoder]

he said he was moving to california, not canada

Re:Temperature

[TapeCutter]

Stop stalking me with your idiocy, wanker!

Re:Temperature

[sjs132]

"Often people here act like they're the first ones to ever think of factors like sun activity but those have been calculated and found insufficient to explain the change we're seeing."

Actually, it isn't the CO2 that is the main Greenhouse gas, it is H2O, and the lack of sun activity explanation is wrong, there is a link, but scientist with an agenda refuse to acknowledge it... Take a surface COVERED with Millions+ tons of ice back 18,000 years with the ice age... Eventually melting that ice results in increased water vapor in our atmosphere. Over 18,000 years, it will accelerate... more water vapor, faster "global warming". If you go to the website I gave, you'll find fact, not fiction.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

The earth is over 700 Million Years old.. we are but a flash in the geological pan...

Re:Temperature

[sjs132]

By ruining my economy and saddling the backs of my children with huge bills to pay for something we cannot effect.

How is that a better place to live?

NO.

Re:Temperature

[CheshireCatCO]

Actually, that's not entirely true. The poles gets the most solar insolation over any given 24 period of any place on the globe. (The given period is the summer solstice, of course.) So they *do* get quite a lot of heat from the Sun sometimes. The trouble is that the snow reflects much (most?) of the incident energy and the energy that they receive is never enough to undo the rest of the year's lack of heating.

Re:Temperature

[sjs132]

Your Source?

What is your source for "given that since the industrial revolution the CO2 load in the atmosphere has increased by 50%"

CO2 in atmosphere has been increasing for 18,000 years... "Long before the smokestack" "Climate Scientist" seem to ignore that fact...

Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of total greenhouse effect, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% . So total human contribution to greenhouse gasses is @ .28% (less than 1/4 of 1% of TOTAL greenhouse gasses measured in atmosphere.) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Re:Temperature

[ArcherB]

Sorry it was 1934, not 1938

Re:Temperature

[ArcherB]

Stop stalking me with your idiocy, wanker!

The idiocy is all yours. First you say that the Antarctic ice cap is melting and that the ice mass is decreasing. Now, you say that the increase of ice mass in Antarctica was expected. So, which one is it? Which time were you lying? If it was expected, you had to know it was increasing when you said it wasn't, right? If you was not expected, then you are lying now... So let me ask you again, which time were you telling lies? There is absolutely NO WAY you were telling the truth both times.

And you seriously don't know why you and your "temps are rising, sky is falling" types have lost your credibility? "When it heats, it's because of global warming. When it cools, it's because of global warming." Sorry, but you've lost credibility not just for yourself, but your entire religion.

Re:Temperature

[Paltin]

You prefer that to mass starvation... hey dude, that's cool.

Except, the preventative cost of repairing anthropogenic global warming won't do any of the things you claimed. Estimates are about 1~2% GDP of the world for the next 50 years. Consider that during WWII the US spent ~40% GDP for 4 years on things with no practical purpose... and we know how that turned out. It's pretty clear that large projects will not ruin the economy or generate huge bills like you claim.

Of course, I don't think that AGW is going to result in mass starvation either, but if you get to make up facts, I figure I should too.

Re:Temperature

[dzelenka]

I did read TFA and came to the exact opposite conclusion that you did. The article notes that the ice is decreasing on the west side of Antarctica, and that's where all the attention is focused. The ice is increasing elsewhere.

And it's not called a strawman argument, it's called cherry picking your data.

The east side of Antarctica is three times the size of the west and it is seeing an increase of ice. The snow pack over all the continent is also increasing. That ice increase is greater than the decrease on the west side. According to TFA it's you that are cherry picking data and extrapolating it over the rest of the continent.

On an unrelated note, how can Antarctica have a west and east side? Isn't the whole coast on the north side?

Re:Temperature

[dzelenka]

Let's see, we have a couple of hundred years of people measuring climate scientifically. Next we have thousands of years of human history in which we can infer the climate even if it wasn't measured scientifically. Next we have things like tree rings that can map out how well a tree grew year after year for thousands of years which can tell us about rain fall and seasonal temperature. After that we have geological evidence left by the ways in which climate can alter the earth itself. Finally we have arctic ice. ...

You missed the point of the parent and the article. You correctly describe the data points that are being collected by the experts, as well as some of the theories. But science requires verification. The climate models are supposed to make predictions that can be verified. One MAJOR claim of the Al Gore camp is that the ice caps will melt and cause sea levels to rise. This prediction is based on the current climate models. If we have significant evidence that the ice caps are NOT melting, then it shows a flaw in the climate models.

Those climate models are being used to plan our national energy policy. Can't you understand why a reasonable person would be worried that those models might be wrong?

Re:Temperature

[Garse Janacek]

He suggested that you reduce your carbon output to zero. Since this means no breathing or decaying, it calls for you to take a trip to a permanently frozen location with a plastic bag to suffocate yourself with.

A bunch of fish lived in a tank. There was a faucet just above the tank, and some of the fish liked to leave it on. Scientist fish warned that if this continued, eventually the tank would overflow. Skeptical fish mocked the scientists: "You want us to stop adding water to the tank? Well, I guess you just want us to stop peeing!" Everyone had a good laugh, and the faucet was left on.

No matter how much a fish pees, it will not fill up the fish tank. That only happens when outside water is added to the system. No matter how much you breathe or decay, it will not add carbon to the atmosphere. (Unless you've been drinking fossil fuels.) That only happens when outside carbon is added to the system, such as the carbon that is present in most of our energy sources.

Pretending to misunderstand the concept of carbon output so you can make fun of the other side is not a good way to resolve this argument. Actually misunderstanding the concept of carbon output means you should think carefully about why you're so confident that you understand the situation better than climatologists. You can decide which of those two you were doing in your comment.

Re:Temperature

[Belial6]

That is some fine irony you have there...

Re:Temperature

[Belial6]

It's really sad that after all that effort to make an educational documentary, and all of the hype the education documentary got, that when it is all done, people are being told that what it says in the movie isn't REALLY what they meant. That they meant something else.

Re:Temperature

[Garse Janacek]

If you think I'm misrepresenting the meaning of "net carbon output", by all means elaborate. As it is, you seem to be trying to claim victory by fiat. Do you really think that when people talk about someone's net carbon output, they include carbon exhaled when breathing, but don't include carbon intake from eating? And that everyone somehow overlooked this massive absurdity, until you finally pointed out in a web forum that the emperor has no clothes?

Re:Temperature

[IICV]

How can I possibly debate this issue with you or anyone else when the climate change camp gets to count both warmer and colder temperatures at the poles as favorable for their position?

You're looking for debate? Oh I'm sorry, this is doctoral level Earth Systems Science. Debate is down the corner to the left. Seriously, thinking you can actually debate this topic without spending years of your life studying it is like thinking you can seriously debate whether P=NP just because you took a class on computation theory once.

Re:Temperature

[tie_guy_matt]

No you are correct. The only way to really prove global warming is to go back in time and then set up a control earth. In this control earth you will need to kill all humans before the industrial revolution happens (or at least set them back to the stone age.) After the control earth ages back to 2009 we can compare its climate to the climate we are now observing.

Let me know when you guys have that set up ...

In the mean time what we could do is take a look at the overwhelming evidence that burning fossil fuels is changing our climate (along with the computer models and calculation from our best scientist that do as good of a job of creating a control earth as you can without actually going back in time.) We could use that evidence to motivate us to switch to other forms of energy.

In case you hadn't noticed over the long term the price of fossil fuel based energy tends to go up, and up, and then up some more. That is because we are burning it a lot faster than the earth is making it. You may have also noticed that some of the people who have oil on their land don't like us very much. If we could switch to green technology then we could stabilize the cost of energy while keeping the money other countries pay for energy for ourselves.

I guess our other option is to bury our heads in the sand and say that we won't really know what is happening until we are finished with our control earth. We could look at the evidence that might show that global warming isn't real (well it only really shows that if you work for an oil company, don't know what you are talking about, or are a moron.) We could continue to release co2 into the atmosphere and could continue to burn fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow. If we are lucky, the worst that will happen is that energy will become so expensive that our western lifestyle will no longer be possible and we will have to go back to a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle. Of course if we are really really unlucky then the worst that could happen is the earth no longer sustains life the same way it did before. But hey when you are talking about the insane amount of money oil companies make each year then it certainly seems like a risk worh taking! After all destroying the only planet we know of that can sustain life really is the worst that could happen.

Re:Temperature

[KDR_11k]

Water vapor is a fast cycle. Obviously there are many factors involved in the climate and if you were to remove, say, the water vapor the Earth would look vastly different but these factors are insufficient to explain the results. Sun activity also changes but again not enough to explain the data. That the climate has feedback mechanisms is not disputed. However these mechanisms cannot by themselves explain the speed of the change we're seeing. Of course the climate changes by itself but not this fast.

Re:Temperature

[gwait]

Yep, and we can't possibly wipe out all the fish in the ocean, and we can't possibly use up all the oil, can't possibly pollute the great lakes,
or cause a continental US sized raft of plastic and garbage to grow in the middle of the pacific and so on, and so on..

What is your motivation for ignoring hard evidence of our direct effect on our environment?

Are you like the guy who cut down the last tree on Easter Island?

Re:Temperature

[msbl03ss]

therefore we should all burn trees

Re:Temperature

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

You are wrong, water increases volume when heated up.
Sorry, the discussion was not volume change between warm water and hot water. It was volume change on ice/water equilibrium going to an all water scenario. There the volume change is negative, don't believe me try it with some ice cubes and a glass of water.

Re:Temperature

[Belial6]

Ok, since you seem a little dense, here is the Irony. You said:

Pretending to misunderstand the concept of carbon output so you can make fun of the other side is not a good way to resolve this argument. Actually misunderstanding the concept of carbon output means you should think carefully about why you're so confident that you understand the situation better than climatologists. You can decide which of those two you were doing in your comment.

This is in response to pointing out that a media whore claimed that you can have "Zero carbon output". Notice I did not say "Net zero carbon output". There is a HUGE difference between the two. You obviously are pretending to misunderstand the concept, or are actually misunderstanding the concept. Thus, your doing exactly what you are accusing me of in the prior post. Hence, by definition, "IRONY".

This becomes even more pronounced when you bring up climatologists, as I was not discussing the opinions of climatologists. I was making fun of the completely absurd statement made by a media whore. So, again, you are either "Pretending to misunderstand the concept" or are "Actually misunderstanding the concept".

The final bit of irony is:

And that everyone somehow overlooked this massive absurdity, until you finally pointed out in a web forum that the emperor has no clothes?

Does it really need to be explained to you how defending a statement that you can reduce your carbon output to zero while at the same time claiming that the other individual is "Pretending to misunderstand the concept" or is "Actually misunderstanding the concept"? And hence the very definition of IRONY?

Re:Temperature

[Garse Janacek]

If you can point me to anything suggesting that anyone, let alone Al Gore, is actually advocating "zero gross carbon output" rather than "zero net carbon output", I will be very surprised. I'm sure you can find some quote where someone, speaking loosely, omitted the "net" qualifier, even though that's far from implying that they must have meant "gross" instead. My impulse would be to say that concluding they meant it the way you're saying, without more explicit evidence, suggests that you're deliberately misinterpreting them. But your most recent reply seems so fervent and sincere in the assurance that that counterintuitive interpretation is the only possible one that you may sincerely think that other people are that stupid. In retrospect, I think I regret feeding the troll.

Re:Temperature

[Gunzour]

Talk about appealing to false causality. Was Katrina caused by GW? Who knows. One point of data trend does not make. Is the Arctic Melting caused by the fact that it's getting warmer, along with the rest of the planet on average? That's a pretty hard thing to disprove with millions of points of data all pointing to the same thing "The earth is warming."

Why is the burden of proof on the side of skepticism? If someone wants to claim that arctic melting is caused by man-made global warming, it is up to them to make their case, not the other way around.

FWIW, shipping lanes through the north pole have been possible several times in the past, and never previously have they been considered a sign of global warming.

Re:Temperature

[sjs132]

Make up facts? Actually, I fear that some of the proposed solutions will contribute to mass starvation. Such as converting a food product to a fuel source. Such is the U.S's conversion of corn to ethanol. Not only is the end result more costly than straight gas, but the mileage is worst so it costs more to use the E85 for the same distance. The end result is the destruction of food for an in efficient process. Food prices will spike as farmers switch to Corn for E85 production to meet the demands mandated by the past and current administration.

Honestly, I'm all for recycling, makes sense... Finding a better battery tech for E-cars, makes sense.... Better way to generate electricity with refined nuclear designs, make sense... But converting Food > Fuel? where is the sense in that?

Wind farms? only works till the wind slows down...

Solar? Only works during the day... nasty chemicals and long break even periods...

Actually, I'd say Nuclear and Batteries are the two biggest things that people should be looking into right now.
(But, that is only MY opinion, so feel free to take it as such... :)

None of the above is because I feel we contribute to Global Warming.... It is only the next step to making a more efficient process of generating what our society and future societies need the most of: free electrons.

(Note, not as in beer.)

And yes... Yes.. I know that nuclear has bad spent fuel, but there are ways to get rid of that... Or at least I recall various ways that were being explored to refuel other reactor types to recover 90% of "spent" fuel, etc.. So the tech is underway to make Nuclear the better and greener solution.

Re:Temperature

[sjs132]

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are..."

former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-based business that sells carbon credits)
(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)

Translation is that Basically, "They sky is falling"

Re:Temperature

[rtb61]

You have to remember that the targets of the propaganda are the other half of the IQ spectrum that also vote. For them science isn't really understanding it is belief, you really have to appreciate the difference in understanding between some one in the 125 plus range versus some one in the sub 100s still 50% of the population.

So out and out lies and distortions are targeted at them and they will accept what they 'want' to here rather than difficult truths. There is also the anti-intellect factor, it really does irritate them no end when someone with high IQ picks up a book, flips through it and grasps and understands it and no matter how much effort the lower end of the IQ spectrum put in. They never really understand it at all and lack of understanding is not their fault they just don't get the same brain chemical kick from thinking that /.ers do.

Then of course lies have always been to tool to sell anything and everything with high profit margins, ahh, the ways of the modern mass marketing PR=B$ machine.

Re:Temperature

[terjeber]

and, as the volume increases and increases, it slowly begins to approach the volume the water had when it was ice. Liquid water reaches the volume it had when it was ice somewhere around "never".

Try it your self, heat water to about 100C (max temp for liquid water - depends a little on pressure of course) and drop some ice in it? Does it float? If it does, ice density is lower than boiling water density, which means that melting ice that floats will never contribute to a rising water level.

Re:Temperature

[terjeber]

water increases volume when heated up

You are wrong. We are talking about moving from solid to liquid, and liquid water never reaches the volume of solid water, no matter what temperature. Try it your self. Liquid water has a max temp of some 100C, and the highest volume it can have in liquid form. Drop some ice into boiling water. Does it float? If it does you are (in this context) wrong.

Re:Temperature

[KDR_11k]

Random american media whore whores himself out for the media, entire branch of science invalid! What Al Gore says does not shape reality.

Re:Temperature

[Belial6]

When someone says "zero carbon output". That means zero carbon output. By your logic, my car has zero carbon output. Perhaps you are just so set on wanting someone famous who is pushing your agenda to be right, that you are just unwilling to accept that he very clearly said something incredibly stupid.

Re:Temperature

[Troed]

Lots of people die everywhere due to cold (more soe than from heat waves). In fact, we'd gain as a species from having a more temperate climate.

You want to read "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg.

Re:Temperature

[Troed]

Oh and by the way the ice sheet shows pretty clearly that when co2 levels increases then so does the temperature

No, they don't. They do however show that when the temperature changes so do the CO2 levels. They're a lagging indicator, not a leading one. You want to look into the oceans as to why.

Re:Temperature

[Headcase88]

A lot of people agree with you on ethanol. It could even be that the oil companies are pushing it because it makes for such absurd competition (like hydrogen cars... much more practical than straight electric~). Wind farms have the drawback you stated but over the long run they output a somewhat predictable amount of power. You don't want these running most of your country's power. Solar will only improve over time and is my personal favorite because it cuts down on "middle-men". Sun --> Energy. No doubt they will be safer and faster break-even in the future. Kids should be encouraged to get into this tech; if there's a breakthrough in TVs every couple years we should be able to get more going here. I sort of regret not thinking of going into it but then again I might not have the right mind for it. I agree with you on nuclear. Solar is still on its way, while nuclear is mature, except for toxic waste problems perhaps. Overall, much much better than the old stuff on the environment, and totally practical for today.

Re:Temperature

[tie_guy_matt]

I pointed out the co2 temperature correlation as just being that, a correlation. It doesn't prove anything but it does make you go hmmm. I was very careful not to say it proves anything and I just mentioned it in passing.

You on the other hand seemed to think that correlation equals causality. Temperature goes up, and so does co2 levels therefore co2 levels must go up because of temperature. Well it is true that oceans cannot hold as much co2 when global temperatures go up, but there are also other ways in which co2 levels could increase.

It really is a chicken and the egg thing. Did co2 levels increase the temperature? Or did increase temperatures cause more co2? Or is it likely that co2 in the ocean causes a positive feedback loop? Temperatures go up for whatever reason (maybe because of green house gases come from other sources -- or maybe not) this causes even more co2 to enter the atmosphere which raises the temperature even more. There are tons of positive and negative feed back loops like that.

Look, the earth's atmosphere is extremely complicated. Planetary atmospheres is an entire branch of physics. The only way to really prove cause and effect beyond a shadow of a doubt is to go back in time and build a control earth (how are you guys doing with that?) In the mean time the best we can do is come up with the best calculations and computer models we can, and they all seem to show that climate change is due to human activity and the climate change is likely to get worse in the future if we don't stop using fossil fuels. Fossil fuels that we will eventually run out of anyway and happen to be placed in land where the people don't like us very much.

Re:Temperature

[Troed]

they all seem to show that climate change is due to human activity and the climate change is likely to get worse in the future

Yes I know about those models. They have been falsified (i.e, predicted something that didn't happen) for about a decade now.

There are much better hypothesises on how the system works, and if we really were doing science we'd be concentrating on them now.

Re:Temperature

[Kumiorava]

Technicalities aside, we were discussing the effect of ice floating in the ocean and what happens when it melts. Once the ice melts it starts contributing the sea level rise through contraction/expansion caused by changing temperature. This effect is the same for all the water in the ocean. My original response was to counter the claim that melted sea ice doesn't have any effect at all to sea level rise, which is not true. It does and the reason it does is that the volume of water will change depending on the temperature once in liquid form.

Re:Temperature

[tie_guy_matt]

Ah, the same argument that holds true for bible thumpers when they say the earth is only 7,000 years old. They think the bible is either 100% true or 100% false so if the earth is older than 10,000 years then there must be no God. It is an all or nothing thing. I guess they use the same argument in science. Scientist must know everything or they know nothing. They do not understand how you can know a lot about the atmosphere but still not have god like powers to count every rain drop. So they conclude that either you can count every rain drop or you do not know what 1+1 equals.

So yes not only are planetary atmospheres an entire field of physics, it is a field of physics that is still being researched. There is good evidence that plowing tons of co2 into the atmosphere is going to change the earth's climate. We know that a little change in the way the giant heat engine that is the earth's atmosphere works could have a huge impact in the earth's climate but we aren't exactly sure how much we can screw with the atmosphere before there is a huge change in the climate.

What most scientists want to do is to continue to do research to learn more about how the atmosphere works so that we will one day make computer models so accurate that we will be able to know exactly what we can do to the atmosphere. In the mean time since we are going to run out of fossil fuels one day anyway (and thus they are already getting more and more expensive and also causing wars,) and there is evidence that green house gases are already affecting our climate, we have decided to ring some alarm bells.

I guess you have a better idea? Do tell! What is your idea?

Re:Temperature

[Troed]

Oh my idea is to do science :) I really don't see why you're mixing completely unrelated topics (like peak oil) into a discussion on whether our current climate models are accurate enough (science says "no!" btw) to base our whole economy on.

You want to read Bjorn Lomborg, "Cool It", for more discussions on the economics behind "acting before we know" btw ;)

Re:Temperature

[tie_guy_matt]

To do science? I guess that is different from what the professional physicist who are working in the field are doing? You must go out and tell all of those thousands PHD's that they only you know how to do science. Why all this time they thought they were doing science but they must really have been doing crossword puzzles. So if you had grant money to study the atmosphere right now, what would you do? I am afraid I will have to ask you to be a little more specific than just "to do science."

Why do I keep bringing up peak oil? Because I am pointing out that switching from fossil fuels is something we are going to have to do anyway! Why wait until energy is so expensive that it threatens our western way of life? Let's get a jump start so we can be the Saudi Arabia of green energy.

Ah, so I think I can see where you are coming from now. We must be 100% sure that fossil fuels have a negative impact on the earth before we do anything. 99.9% sure is not good enough. After all, who cares about the only planet we know of that supports human life? The economy is much more important!

Re:Temperature

[Troed]

You might want to study the concept of the scientific process before replying like that ;) To do science is to postulate hypothesises and then test them. If they fit, they might be of use. If they don't, you either modify them or throw them away.

Search for "scientific process" and "Karl Popper"

Re:Temperature

[tie_guy_matt]

So "To do Science" is to quote the definition of the scientific process. You didn't answer my question, if you had grant money what would you do in the field of atmospheric physics that the thousands of trained actual scientist in the field aren't doing? If you had grant money what would you do right now? Do you think they didn't take high school science classes as well before they got their graduate degrees?

Re:Temperature

[Troed]

I'm not sure I follow you. Do you believe in "the science is settled" or that there's no peer reviewed research that does not blame human CO2-emissions for "global warming"?

If so, you're wrong :) Now the _politics_ might be settled, but don't confuse that with science.

Again. The models (AGW, see IPCC) have shown to be inaccurate. A real scientists doesn't start talking about peak oil or that humans are dirty animals - but instead looks for other ways to describe the reality around us.

Sun -> winds -> oceans would be my bet. High correlation anyway :)

Re:Temperature

[tie_guy_matt]

Dirty animals? I think you have me confused with some right wing straw man. I never talked about humans being dirty animals.

So us scientist don't talk about peak oil? Tell that to the geologist whose job it is to estimate how much oil is left in the earth and how much there was before we started burning it. I guess you could argue that what happens at peak oil is really economics and economics really isn't a hard science. Wait, aren't you the one that quoted an author that is an economist that claims to know more about the earth's atmosphere than those of us who have spent our careers studying the problem.

What is my point in asking what you would do differently to study the atmosphere? My point is that I don't think you are an atmospheric physicist. In fact I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you have probably never read a real peer reviewed journal on atmospheric pyhsics and I don't think you would understand one if you did try to read it.

Anyone who claims that co2 does not warm the earth doesn't know what he is talking about. Of course water vapor is more of a green house gas because it isn't as evenly mixed, there is less of it, and it has more absorption lines thanks to its mickey mouse shape. And the affects of adding more co2 into an atmosphere that already has a lot of it is a little complicated. Well the atmosphere is very complicated, the only thing you can do is put all your findings into a large computer model/calculation that looks at all of the variables. As you add more data the models get better and better. Of course you seem to be pretty quick to dismiss all computer models so I am not sure how you claim to prove any theory. Are you going to go back in time and impliment a control earth?

Here is a quick calculation you can try: calculate all of the solar energy that hits the earth. Next use the blackbody radiation curve to see what temperature a bare earth would be such that the radiation going out equals the radiation coming in. Compare that to the average global temperature of the earth. There you just stumbled onto the fact that the green house affect is real.

Re:Temperature

[Troed]

I'm curious. Does it take much effort for you to completely misunderstand what someone writes?

If so, I hope you're not peer reviewing much :)

(I'm a researcher by profession)

1) I never said there's no science being done on peak oil
2) I never said there is a greenhouse effect ... so if you're serious about debating the topic at hand - please try again.

Re:Temperature

[Troed]

*sigh* .. "never said there isn't a greenhouse effect" of course ..

Re:Temperature

[tie_guy_matt]

Well you caught that one before I got to it. Here is the other one:

"1) I never said there's no science being done on peak oil"

Really?

[talking about me?] "A real scientists doesn't start talking about peak oil or that humans are dirty animals."

I make as many spilling and gremmer errrs as the next guy on /. and I would give you more slack because based on your bio it doesn't look like english is you first language? But don't get all high and mighty about me not understanding what you are saying if you can't say what you mean and mean what you say.

Speaking of your bio, are you really the director of research at Sony Erickson? And you have nothing better to do than to argue with some stranger on /. about something that is clearly outside of your main field of study? I will remember that next time I buy a stock ... or a cell phone!

Re:Temperature

[Troed]

Peak oil has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming. That doesn't mean that science isn't being done on peak oil :) You seem to argue that it's not important whether the science behind AGW is valid since we "have to" give up on oil anyway.

So, as you can see, even though it's true that English isn't my primary language - I have no problems deconstructing arguments into logical components and deducing valid conclusions from them ;)

The science behind AGW isn't sound. I like sound science.

Re:Temperature

[QuietObserver]

Good point. Furthermore, within the composition of the atmosphere, CO2 makes up only about 0.04%, and humans contribute, at the very most, perhaps a little less than 3% of that, so our effect on the CO2 in the environment is less than .001% of the atmosphere as a whole. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the levels of CO, and other deadly toxins rather than a simple, minor greenhouse gas (the biggest greenhouse culprit is DMHO vapor).

Re:Temperature

[QuietObserver]

Error correction: Sorry, I meant DHMO instead of DMHO.

how bout them apples

[superwiz]

inconvenient truth?

Re:how bout them apples

[synthesizerpatel]

For the record, I'd like to provider a short list of things that aren't cogent political arguments:

1) Television catch phrases

2) Proper nouns

3) Noises

5) Movie titles

Re:how bout them apples

[superwiz]

cogent political arguments

I was going for "funny".

Re:how bout them apples

[kohaku]

For the record, i'd like to provide a short list of things that aren't cogent scientific arguments:

1) Political arguments

Re:how bout them apples

[Snaller]

Its not inconvenient for those who under stand science.

Re:how bout them apples

[fermion]

A single data point is a guess. What science looks for is trends and patterns. A coin can land head up 5 times in a row. Three percent of the time this is expected to happen. This does not mean that I am going to bet food money that is will land heads up all the time.

What the uneducated conservative population is looking for are selected data points that proves what they want to believe. This allows them to make money doing what they always have done, and effectively eliminates any pressure to be truly innovative. We see this with record labels who still insist on basing an industry on plastic discs, a energy industry who still insists on basing an industry on non renewable resources, and an auto industry who still insists a product that has not fundamentally changed in 100 years still has a high value. Does a large percentage of the population of us typewriters, much less a manual typewriter?

So what does this mean. It means that, as always, countries that sit back and do nothing will fail. Countries that push for innovation will suceed. Look at Spain. Big fucking superpower until the US kicked it;s ass. Now #8. Why? Because it was more interested in money than wealth. That means that it was more interested in making money than innovation. U.S. last ten years. Same thing. Made money, but no wealth. Now we are down to one barely viable car manufacturer. Why? Because Ford was the only firm that felt the need to innovate. Everyone else was just making cash, most of it artificial.

We do not know what will come, but we know it will provide an excuse for innovation, and increases in efficiency, and better living. It will not be easy. We all want to save money but we do not even want to make nominal sacrifices. But we make sacrifices. In the US you can barely get a soft drink with real sugar. You can only get the mutilated milk, and real yogurt is very costly Try to get real bread, it costs over $5, so most of us settle for fake bread. This all in efficiency. I don't think we will miss our incandescent lights of cars the size of our living room, not in the long run. And if we can save out costal area, where, by the way, much of our chemicals and oil is refined, that would be a good thing too.

Re:how bout them apples

[superwiz]

What the uneducated conservative population is looking for are selected data points that proves what they want to believe.

From Wikipedia entry on "strawman":

Reasoning:

2.3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.

How bout not labeling anyone who believe that scientific evidence that goes against the dogma as "uneducated"? How about addressing the evidence instead of effects of hypothetical scenarios? Can we do that? Or must we reduce everything to the ad hominem level because some of the opposition does that? The joke that I made was precisely at the expense of the people like you -- people who panic whenever scientific orthodoxy is even remotely questioned because it might put in question the wisdom of their political commitments.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[Daimanta]

"It is time for science to be market-driven rather than socialist in nature."

Since IS market driven. There is a BIG BIG market for global warming and that's where the money is so climate scientists focus on global warming and not other topics or (God forbid) the heresy that is global warming denial.

Number juggling.

[the_other_chewey]

last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

So?

Re:Number juggling.

[sqrt(2)]

Shhhh! Don't let frivolous things like logic and facts get in the way of bashing the environmentalism movement. Protecting the environment is bad for business and in a truly free market there shouldn't be any restrictions on my megacorporation's right to pollute the atmosphere. After all, people are smart, rational, and think ahead so if my company pollutes they'll just take their business elsewhere and I'll go out of business. Can't you see how beautiful libertarianism and the free market is? It solves climate change better than those silly scientists and regulations ever could.

Re:Number juggling.

[JordanL]

I'd assume that it's an average of maximum thickness year to year.

In other words, the average of the maximum thickness each year from the 1950s until now is 1.67m, which admittedly doesn't tell you if it was thicker recently or in the 50s, just that one or the other pulled it about 10% lower on average than this year.

Re:Number juggling.

[thetoadwarrior]

The thing is, intelligent people realise, that being green is good for business. The middle east and a few other select areas own oil

But any place in the US, Europe, etc can become a dominate energy player by inventing new means to generate energy. The green movement, silly or not, creates jobs rather than takes jobs away.

Re:Number juggling.

[green1]

The green movement, silly or not, creates jobs rather than takes jobs away.

I wish I could believe this, it most certainly SHOULD be the case, but the green movement often spends so much time saying that EVERYTHING is bad that they don't allow the real "green" technologies to develop either:

Nuclear - Radiation!
Wind - Birds!
Hydro - Fish! Land!
Solar - Pollution/Energy used in production!

The only jobs they seem to proactively create are lobbyists...

Re:Number juggling.

[eggnet]

I assume that to mean the average yearly maximum.

Re:Number juggling.

[Dragonslicer]

Nah, those are just the Luddites that have taken over groups like Greenpeace. They don't have much to do with legitimate environmental conservation.

Re:Number juggling.

[whopis]

It is poorly worded in the article, but in this case, maximum thickness means the maximum thickness for that particular year and average thickness means the average maximum thickness for all years since 1950.

So they really are comparing this year's maximum thickness to the average of the maximum thickness for all other years.

But it was worded very poorly.

Re:Number juggling.

[Entropy2016]

Do not confuse tree-huggers with environmentalists or environmental scientists.

Nuclear is considered "green" by many simply because it's the lesser of two evils (compared to coal). It produces half as much CO2 (the reason it produces any is due to ore refinement). In reality, there's more ambient radiation surrounding coal plants than nuclear plants.

Regarding wind: Any bird that is clipped by a windmill is as good as dead, the tips of those sucks spin much faster than they appear, but ultimately, windmills didn't even come close the killing as many birds as windows do. For an endangered species of bird, I can see someone arguing against a wind farm in a specific flyway, but otherwise it seems silly to me.

Hydro: Moot. We've already put a dam in every place that we could think. I doubt anyone will be tearing any dams down for any reasons.

Solar: That is a strawman. No serious parties are claiming solar should be regarded as an undesirable option.

Re:Number juggling.

[the_other_chewey]

So they really are comparing this year's maximum thickness to the average of the maximum thickness for all other years.

Again: So?
You just put in "maximum" twice. Using any single point of a measurement in relation to its long-term average to determine a trend is entirely pointless.

Re:Number juggling.

[sikanappikiisseli]

All this will make energy more expensive and eventually we will see all our industry move to China. Energy is cheaper there and people are essentially slaves.

Re:Number juggling.

[cyn1c77]

last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

That discrepancy is sad. Looks like the Australian news agencies are scraping the bottom of the barrel for science reporters. Sadly, it's not much better in the US.

Re:Number juggling.

[borizz]

Please stop calling it a religion. It might be bullshit, but it doesn't have deities, holy books or churches, so lets not drag it to that level.

Good data point, does not reverse slope of line

[Phat_Tony]

Great data and interesting if it proves out. But all the "global warming doesn't exist people" are going to jump on this like every bit of news about cold weather to claim it contradicts the idea that there's global warming, which it doesn't.

Global warming is not a powerful enough trend to counteract all other factors- it still get colder in fall and winter in temperate zones, and it's often colder from one day to the next. While the majority of ski resorts have reported a trend of less annual snowfall per year for the past twenty years or so, some individual years buck the trend, and some resorts (like Holiday Valley in New York) have experienced the opposite trend. It's a hugely complex system with a lot of random variation and unknown factors. While the satellite data tells us that the average temperature of the earth is increasing every year, that leaves a lot of room for variation from the mean, and some parts of the world are actually getting colder. Due to the complexities of weather, some areas may experience more snowfall when the temperature rises. So don't make this out to mean more than it is.

But it is very interesting, and could force changes to models claiming rapidly rising sea levels due to global warming.

Re:Good data point, does not reverse slope of line

[R2.0]

Great data and interesting if it proves out. But all the "global warming doesn't exist people" are going to jump on this like every bit of news about cold weather to claim it contradicts the idea that there's global warming, which it doesn't.

Excellent point. Can I quote it back to every talking head who screams that the latest hurricane/flood/drought/dead polar bear is concrete evidence of the effects of Global Warming? And will it shut them up.

Yeah - didn't think so either.

Re:Good data point, does not reverse slope of line

[Illserve]

But all the "global warming doesn't exist people" are going to jump on this like every bit of news about cold weather to claim it contradicts the idea that there's global warming, which it doesn't.

Global warming advocates are quick to leap on any image of an ice shelf falling into the water as if it supports the idea that there's global warming, which it doesn't.

Re:Good data point, does not reverse slope of line

[argStyopa]

"But all the "global warming doesn't exist people" are going to jump on this like every bit of news about cold weather to claim it contradicts the idea that there's global warming" ...as opposed to the Global Warming advocates, who jump on this like every bit of news about a drowning polar bear to claim that there IS global warming.

I see, it is a HUGE difference.

Re:Good data point, does not reverse slope of line

[swanriversean]

"It's a hugely complex system with a lot of random variation and unknown factors."

THIS is why I am always amazed when I hear people repeat the line about "scientific consensus is that man-made global warming is happening" ...

it is just too clear that not enough is known ...
it seems that a climate scientist is lauded for drawing conclusions that would make him a laughing stock in any other field (based on the level of knowledge, all the confounding factors, the inconsistent metrics, etc., etc., etc.)

actually, I do like to think that many climate scientists don't make the claims, but they are complicit in not calling out those that do
(unfortunately there is strong economic incentive to be studying a calamity)

Climate Change - not global warming

[Alain Williams]

It has always been known that some areas will get colder. The point is that the greenhouse gasses, etc, upset the way climate has been recently. This will change air flow, sea currents, etc. This means that some areas will get warmer and some will get colder. The overall effect is warming.

Another example is the North Atlantic Drift (or Gluf Stream) that gives us a mild climate in England. It is expected that the currents will wane with the result that we will have colder winters.

Don't anyone think ''Ohhh! look, something got colder therefor all of this talk of global warming is rhubarb!''. Unless we take drastic action we are in for some nasty changes.

Re:Climate Change - not global warming

[thetoadwarrior]

People don't realise that global warming never meant that the whole world turns into the tropics but that weather patterns shift (ie cold places get warmer but other areas could very well get colder) and that it's still a negative thing because everything in those environments depend on certain temperatures.

Not that it really matters. it's fact that pollution has a very negative impact on human beings so we should care even if there is no negative effects on the environment.

Re:Climate Change - not global warming

[ext42fs]

People don't realise that global warming never meant that the whole world turns into the tropics but that weather patterns shift (ie cold places get warmer but other areas could very well get colder) and that it's still a negative thing because everything in those environments depend on certain temperatures.

There are large seasonal temperature variations. A small change may be bad for some but will also be good for others. I hate this pessimistic view that every change is bad.

Not that it really matters. it's fact that pollution has a very negative impact on human beings so we should care even if there is no negative effects on the environment.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

West-Antarctica

[Yokaze]

To my knowledge, it is already known, that the ice thickens in West-Antarctica (News from 2002). Davis-Station seems to be located there.

I am interested, what new findings in West-Australia lead to Dr Allison's evaluation on the development of the whole continent of Antarctica. The posted article itself is a bit sparse on facts.

Whoop de doo!

[Dyinobal]

Global warming exists, but it doesn't scare me. The earth wasn't always this temperature, and if things get hotter we will just have to deal. An Ice age would scare me but not global warming, the earth was much warmer than it is now several million years ago, if it gets that warm again it doesn't mean we are all gonna die. Sure things might get hairy for a while but seriously global warming isn't that dangerous to our survival as a race. This how ever doesn't mean we should abandon working towards more energy efficient and cleaner sources of energy. This has to happen for us to progress forward as a race and while it should happen naturally I've no problem with a bunch of alarmists freaking out and spurring the desire for better sources of energy. When these alarmists start infringing upon my freedoms though I'll have a problem.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[alexibu]

Wow you are a unique specimen, I love discovering people with unique value systems.
Your not being afraid of things unless they threaten the extinction of your species is probably unique in the animal kingdom. It requires a high level of consciousness to distinguish whether the threat is in fact a threat to the species or just to your self. It also requires a level of altruism not observed before in even the most social of insects.
You don't fear car accidents, AIDS, sharks or any other threat that doesn't threaten the species.
I suggest that this value system can be proved to be an evolutionary dead end for two reasons :
1) Without knowing the fate of the rest of the race, the last member will still not recognise the threat to the species.
2) Inheritance of this value system is unlikely because of the lack of fear individuals possess almost certainly will result in their deaths.

When these alarmists start infringing upon my freedoms though I'll have a problem - Not exactly consistent with former "survival of race is all that matters" position. This is more consistent with a position of : I can't be bothered implementing the tiny changes to my lifestyle necessary to avoid dangerous climate change , so I will construct irrational value systems in order to justify my position.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Sure things might get hairy for a while

Look at where the coastline was during warmer spochs. "Hairy" is a polite word.

We also weren't trying to feed six billion humans last time it was seriously warm.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[Idiomatick]

"Sure things might get hairy for a while"

What if this happens:
hairy - temperatures rise high enough to boil the oceans off and dry our the earth
a while - a few hundred years

The earth in past has done so. I mean it is perfectly natural so who cares? We'll adapt I'm sure. I'm not saying I think that is likely to happen anytime soon. But saying it like wellll we'll have some longer summers w/e. It won't change your air conditioning bill. It could end up making it unsafe to be outdoor more than a few seconds at a time. Just because we have a comfort range doesn't mean the planet has to stick to it.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[intheshelter]

Whoa! You are like the Dalai Lama or something! Your calm, reasoned argument that the world will not end if it gets warmer is like a breath of fresh (albeit warm) air!

Too bad more people couldn't see the points you made in your post.

1. Global warming is not necessarily bad.
2. We can adapt.
3. It's been warmer than this before.
4. We still need to clean up our act.
5. The sky is NOT falling.

I'd like to shake your hand but we'd better do it quickly because you are about to get burned at the stake by the AGW Cult. Hope you wear Nomex underwear!

Re:Whoop de doo!

[Beelzebud]

Anonymous Coward sums you up perfectly.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[physicsphairy]

We also weren't trying to feed six billion humans last time it was seriously warm.

I would like to point out that if it gets warm enough we will have an entire extra continent to farm and live in, not to mention all the other land that is currently locked away under ice sheets.

And as has been pointed out extensively in the 'arctic snowfall' discussion here, atmospheric water content is related to temperature. Generally speaking, higher temperature == more rain.

I think increases in technology are more than capable of handling our food supply problem for the foreseeable feature, but in a desperate situation, perhaps increased global warming would be our best investment.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[vbsmagi]

Two words: Soylent Green

Re:Whoop de doo!

[Maxo-Texas]

The ultimate result of feeding 6 billion people... is at least 7 billion people.
The ultimate result of feeding 7 billion people... is at least 8 billion people.

it's a red queen's race-- and the longer we run it, the more horrifically it ends.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[Snaller]

"Global warming exists, but it doesn't scare me."

Of course not, because you have contrived a fantasy to feel comfortable. Not that it's related to how things actually work of course.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[Idiomatick]

Sarcasm on the internet :(

Re:Whoop de doo!

[dkf]

Sure things might get hairy for a while but seriously global warming isn't that dangerous to our survival as a race.

Now that is an interesting assertion. Do you have some evidence to back it up? (Also, I'd quite like civilization to survive too. Call me strange if you wish...)

Re:Whoop de doo!

[Maxo-Texas]

Developing countries populations are replaced by faster breeding populations (islamic europe... palestinian isreal... spanish texas and california).

View wealth and education as penicillin. It works for a while, then the part of the population that is immune to it outbreeds the rest and becomes dominant in the population.

You don't get my point- there is nothing we can do and it ends horrifically. Even killing large numbers of people would not result in a net drop in population.
i.e. We are doomed. Gather ye rosebuds while ye may. She dies, he dies, we all die.

I'm not proposing you do anything about it. We are 3 billion people past doing anything about it. I think there would be objections to a long term solution.

It's okay-- after any die off, the surviving population will adapt even if they have completely trashed the oceans, poisoned the environment with artificial estrogens, and destroyed most of the arable farm land. It's not like we are going to leave america to go find a 50 square mile arable spot somewhere else in the world. You mostly die in place.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[Remus Shepherd]

What continent are you talking about?

Greenland isn't a continent, it's an island, and it's unlikely to have very much tillable land underneath its ice sheet. Not to mention that proper colonization and utilization of a post-melt Greenland would take a century or more.

Antarctica is the same story, except it'll never be warm enough to farm. There will always be some ice cap, katabatic winds, and a general lack of sunlight over the pole.

Maybe you mean that, with added rainfall, there will be more arable land in Africa or Asia? No such luck. It takes thousands of years to turn sand back into soil, even with frequent rain. And the problem with Africa isn't the amount of land they have, it's their insane systems of 'government' to use the word loosely. They already have enough land to feed themselves, they just can't stop killing one another to use it.

Meanwhile we'll be losing land from Europe, Asia, and America. And *if* we get more rain, it's likely to come in the form of heat-driven storm systems -- more thunderstorms, larger and more frequent hurricanes.

Global climate change is going to be a bad thing, with very few upsides, for the vast majority of the human race. Trying to discuss its opportunities is like...well, you're talking about 'investing' in *catastrophe*. Only supervillains think like that. We should try to avert the catastrophe, if we can.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[Troed]

hairy - temperatures rise high enough to boil the oceans off and dry our the earth

[---]

The earth in past has done so

citation needed

Re:Whoop de doo!

[physicsphairy]

First of all, saying there is a 'general lack of sunlight' over the pole is misleading. Apart from some additional atmospheric filtering, it is not as if the sun shines less brightly there. A smaller angle of incidence means that the roughly parallel rays of the sun are spread over a larger area of absorption on a plane approximating the local surface, but something at the correct angle to that plane would still get the 1 kW/m^2 of radiant energy you expect. Also, there is some compensation to be had from the increased number of hours of sunlight. Doubtless, even when warmed, the polar regions will not be as prime for agriculture as the equatorial regions, but the difference is hardly enough to discount them.

Antarctica is not the only place you find a katabatic wind. There is, for example, the Santa Ana wind of Southern California, which frequently becomes warm by the time of its descent. I don't think you or I or probably anyone else can say off hand what the exact nature of the Antarctic winds would be in a significantly warmer climate, but it stands to reason that their overall effect would be significantly mitigated.

I would further point out that additional land of *any form* provides us additional farmland even if the new land is as barren as the moon and is guaranteed to stay that way. The reason is that in the modern technological era there is no need for people to live proximate to their food supply, and so we can reclaim arable land currently hosting human settlements by simple migration. Of course, as we are nowhere near exhausting our present capacity to farm, we have no existing plans to do something like this. But it is well within the domain of possibilities should the need arise, and a warmer earth would generate a great deal more land than it would lose.

It absolutely does not take "thousands of years" to reclaim a desert. Seriously, it takes less time for freshly cooled volcanic islands to develop vegetative cover. Maybe you could point out historical instances of deserts which have naturally receded over the course of thousands of years, but that is not the same thing as stipulating the amount of time fundamentally required, particularly with human intervention. Human beings don't have to wait for the natural incidence of topsoil to encroach on the desert periphery, they can haul in topsoil by the truckload, build wind and sand barriers, etc. Provided you have sufficient water, taking over a desert from its edges is well within the capabilities of contemporary human achievement, and in the sort of time frame in which we are liable to even considerate it, technology can only make the prospect that much more realistic.

If there is one unalterable truth here, it is that, given resources, humans can make use of them. If we wouldn't benefit from a warmer planet, then do you argue we would benefit from a colder planet? It seems highly improbable that in the range of temperatures the earth (and even humanity!) has existed, we just so happened to have stumbled upon the perfect temperature.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[Remus Shepherd]

I work in the climate sciences, so I just can't let your misinformation stand.

Re: Lack of sunlight over the poles.

There is a reason that large plants do not grow past the Arctic tree line. Permafrost, wind, and cold inhibit vegetation, and they will cause severe problems for agriculture. The angle of incidence of sunlight, in addition to the amount of sunlight per year, causes these effects. Antarctica will never get warm enough for agriculture to take hold -- if it does, the tropics and likely the temperate zones will be uninhabitable.

Re: Katabatic winds

You'll note that the Santa Ana winds are also devastating to vegetation. They are the reason that much of southern California is a desert. I would also point out that climate change is unlikely to mitigate the antarctic katabatic winds -- it's more likely to amplify them, because there will be more energy in the system.

Re: Desert reclamation

Natural reclamation of deserts takes thousands of years. Volcanic islands are not deserts -- the volcanic effluvium is mineral-rich, and they are by definition in wet environments with plenty of rainfall.

All that said, you may have a point with man-made desert reclamation. Those efforts are difficult and tricky (see the New Valley Project as an example) but they can be done. Technology *might* lift us out of the catastrophe. My point is that you should not depend upon so far fictional technologies as a reason to ignore an oncoming catastrophe. Even in your future world where we have terraformed the Sahara and covered Antarctica in greenhouses, those engineering feats will have come at the expense of other priorities, such as feeding the poor or preventing pandemics. One way or another, global climate change is going to be a catastrophe that will harm billions of people. It is not something to anticipate fondly, nor should we shrug and look for a silver lining. We should do everything in our power to mitigate it.

Re: Stumbling on the perfect temperature.

Read about the Anthropic Principle sometime. It's a cosmological principle, but it applies to the state of Earth's climate as well.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[physicsphairy]

You'll note that the Santa Ana winds are also devastating to vegetation. They are the reason that much of southern California is a desert.

You are a little confused. The deserts of that region are rainshadow deserts. They are not caused by the Santa Ana wind (which is not even a permanent feature). In fact, the Santa Ana wind is caused (partly) by the high deserts.

If we made the (incorrect) assumption that Antarctica is guaranteed a similar desert region, it would also be guaranteed a region of high precipitation. The water moisture doesn't just evacuate into space.

I would also point out that climate change is unlikely to mitigate the antarctic katabatic winds -- it's more likely to amplify them, because there will be more energy in the system.

This fits well with 'Day After Tomorrow' logic, but is ignorant of how the winds themselves originate:

"Katabatic winds are created by the cooling of air close to the surface of the ice sheet on the higher parts of the continent. As this cold heavy air sinks, it presses down hard, pushing away all the air that was underneath. This process creates a downhill wind which, by the time it reaches the coast, is blowing at great force."

The unusual energy of the Antarctic katabatics comes directly from the existence of high elevation ice sheets. Global warming voodoo will not make the winds more powerful when the continent thaws.

As it happens, I was just reading an article about how global warming is possibly diminishing the force of the Santa Ana winds.

There is a reason that large plants do not grow past the Arctic tree line. Permafrost, wind, and cold inhibit vegetation, and they will cause severe problems for agriculture.

Yes, you have accurately stated the status quo. That is not relevant to our debate of what happens when these regions are warmed. The problems of cold and permafrost no longer exist in this scenario.

The angle of incidence of sunlight, in addition to the amount of sunlight per year, causes these effects.

Yes, because as I previously observed, the same quantity of sunlight is spread over a larger area. But also as I observed, plants can theoretically absorb much the same amount of sunlight being at a proper angle. (they would however have to spaced out father) Not that it isn't possible to use low-sunlight plants.

But you are pairing an unrealistic conception of how much sunlight is diminished with an oversight of geographical warming effects. I'll bet when the sunsets, you don't freeze to death. The reason for this is the earth's ability to retain heat. You should be acquainted with this since as far as I know this is the most fundamental tenet of man made global warming--that the suns energy remains constant but our activity causes more heat to be retained. In fact, there is a fairly intricate 'heat cycle' for which the initial bombardment by the sun is merely the first step. But it is a widely held theory that Antarctica did not ice over until warm ocean currents were deflected from the continent, which is the opposite of your theory that ice and cold temperatures must necessarily exist in the low sunlight conditions.

Antarctica will never get warm enough for agriculture to take hold -- if it does, the tropics and likely the temperate zones will be uninhabitable.

So why are we fearmongering over the possibility of ocean levels rising, when it seems to me that frying to death at the equator would be a much worse effect of the ice caps getting warm enough to melt?

It is because, for reasons mentioned on the last point, temperature does not distribute the way you think it does. The arctic can get 30 degrees warmer without the equator bursting into flames.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[Remus Shepherd]

I think I understand our essential disagreement, here.

You believe in a 'global warming' that will melt the Antarctic ice caps and bring increased global rainfall -- the 'tropical earth' scenario.

I believe in a 'global climate change' scenario where the fringe of Antarctica melts (causing a sea level rise of 2-4 meters, not 60 meters, which is what the full ice cap melting would cause). I believe climates around the world will shift -- every arid regions that becomes wet will be balanced by a wet region becoming arid -- with an associated era of catastrophic weather.

I would say that you're neglecting several things. Antarctica is cold because of continental geology -- the Drake passage keeps it cold by allowing the circumpolar current, and unless we somehow reconnect the continents it will always remain cold. (Save for one scenario, where the global temperature is high enough that even the circumpolar current can't keep Antarctica below freezing. In that scenario, the tropics *will* burn. But I'm not saying that will happen, I'm saying it's the only way for your predictions to work out.)

You're also missing that every place that gets additional rainfall will be taking it from somewhere else. There might be a net global increase in rainfall, but a lot of currently arable land will suffer permanent droughts. You are correct that we can take advantage of the rainfall in some places, but you are neglecting the damage done by drought elsewhere.

In fact I'll end on that point -- your perspective of global climate change as an opportunity is blind to all the damage that will be done. Even the opportunities you suggest will require massive civil engineering projects which will suck away valuable resources. Your cost benefit analysis is ignoring all of the costs. So it's no wonder that you don't see climate change as a disaster. You're Lex Luthor, counting your potential new real estate, ignoring what you had to do to get it.

With that, I think I'm done with this several day old discussion. Have fun with the last word, and good luck with that perspective of yours.

You're neglecting that

Oh boy!

[Virak]

Time for a mature, enlightened debate on climate change, by people with thorough knowledge of the field who don't parrot long-discredited bullshit at all! I do so enjoy these discussions. They're almost as intelligent as Slashdot discussions on economics.

Re:Oh boy!

[SnarfQuest]

I'm sorry, they've already voted (that's what a condenses means). We don't need any of your scientificy crap, like knowledge and research and junk like that, when we can just vote on it.

Re:Oh boy!

[Javaman59]

Time for a mature, enlightened debate on climate change, by people with thorough knowledge of the field who don't parrot long-discredited bullshit at all!

OK - I got a laugh!

However, you actually raise a serious issue, ie. the proposition that scientific matters should only be discussed by those qualified. This is a very old position. There are always people in other fields (eg. the arts, economics, history, religion..) who have similar attitudes to popular debates. Nevertheless, we see that over time the general population will not stay out of the debates, and also tends to "get it right" eventually. The alternative is to leave all decisions in the hands of experts - but experts are fallible, and often driven by career concerns, fads and ego. We are never able to select a "panel of experts" to trust on anything. It's when the debates involve common people that the experts are forced to argue their opinions in simple terms, and forced to face competition amongst the general population, rather than in the academies.

I personally learned a few new facts about climate change, and the principles of the debate, that I had not seen before, from reading this forum. And that came from people who do not claim to be expert.

I think that what a couple wise men said about democracy, would also apply to popular scientific debate.."You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time", and "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." (Churchill)

Re:Oh boy!

[spartacus_prime]

Unfortunately, the people with thorough knowledge of the field are busy researching the field, so you'll have to suffice with people who read about Global Warming on the Internets somewhere.

My word, something has just soared over my head.

Re:Oh boy!

[Hucko]

Y'realise you could replace Slashdot with Economists and the sentence would still mean what you wanted it to mean? Just sayin'

Re:Oh boy!

[rts008]

...they've already voted (that's what a condenses means)...

I think you might want to check a dictionary. That word does not mean what you think it means.

Voting won't change physics, no matter how some groups try.

Subject

[z-j-y]

This is totally predicated by our climate model, and it is consistent with a warming globe.

global warming cannot be proven wrong.

People don't seem to understand

[93 Escort Wagon]

People hear "climate change" and "global warming" and think all the ice is going away. Thing is, while there are certain large ice masses that are almost certainly going to melt - the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, for instance - it's an open question how the bulk of Antarctica and Greenland is going to respond to a warmer climate. There will certainly be increased summer melting around the periphery, but there is some speculation that the total ice volume in these places will increase due to warmer (but still below freezing) temperatures. Thing is, for much of the year the air is so cold there that it just doesn't have the carrying capacity for much total water volume. Warmer air can simply carry more water than colder air, which can mean more snow and more ice pack. I say "can mean" because climate change can also affect weather patterns, which can alter the amount of precipitation that falls or even alter the source region for the precipitation that eventually reaches a given location.

However when it comes to smaller glaciers and ice fields, where the average annual temperature was significantly closer to freezing to begin with, it's more obvious that they're shrinking or completely going away.

FWIW up until a few years ago I worked in a climate research lab where we studied the climate records in ice from Greenland and Antarctica.
 

Re:People don't seem to understand

[Idiomatick]

Wait you actually worked in a research lab. I'm pretty sure here on /. that makes you biased. Since if you worked in a climate research lab you are pro-climate change. All them researchers are pro climate change so clearly your opinion is worthless.

Re:People don't seem to understand

[SnarfQuest]

People hear "climate change" and "global warming" and think all the ice is going away.

Didn't you hear. The north pole completely melted away last year. You did get the memo from the "climate change" scientists last year. It proved that global warming existed. They proclaimed it in all the papers and everything.

Or, are all the "climate change" scientists proclamations just like the predictions in the National Enquirer? When they don't come true, you just ignore them and make some more.

Re:People don't seem to understand

[GryMor]

You are taking things out of context. The specific contexts you are ignoring right now are:

Local vs Global
Summer vs Winter
Annual Maximum vs Annual Minimum

Stop being an idiot and learn the nuances of what you are talking about. Maybe then you can productively attack the topic without sounding like an idiot.

Re:People don't seem to understand

[Late Adopter]

You laugh but that is something I worry about.

Let this not indicate any of my personal thoughts on global warming per se, but rather the scientific process in general. Many people join climate research to help "save the Earth", as it were. There is little doubt in my mind that the majority of climate scientists would rather see data that shows man is doing terrible terrible things to the planet.

It shouldn't matter, that's why we have the scientific method. Subjective predisposition shouldn't matter... but if you don't have enough competent scientists working the other side, then peer review at that point becomes a little suspect. I'm in academia personally, but in a far less politically sensitive subject, and we definitely have our cliques of prejudices to our own little fiefdoms, it gets frustrating at times.

What I'm saying is, climate research results may be from sound data and have sound conclusions, but it would make me feel better to know there's enough capable (not just well-financed) devil's advocates.

Re:People don't seem to understand

[pommiekiwifruit]

Considering a guy *swam in a straight line for 20 minutes* at the north pole I would say that there is a teeny weeny bit of evidence that it is getting warmer there on occasion. And that some people are crazy, since he did it *without a wetsuit* (it was below zero Celcius but he is odd).

Re:People don't seem to understand

[thesupraman]

I'm afraid its far worse than this, ad I should hope you know that.

for GW to be more than a theory (and I mean the accelerating man made kind we are bombarded with), the models predicting it must start PREDICTING.

So far they are at pretty solid zero - the stories of what should happen changes every year or so as reality unfolds.

A Scientific theory that cannot predict should never last long - it is the next closest thing to proving it wrong.

Of course, none of that addresses the 'Faith' belief in such things, and the environmental movement is not exactly against the attention they now have.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[Weedhopper]

That's not a bad point.

For the last few years, guys with the slightest connection to anything even remotely connected to the climate and weather are being called "climate scientists" or "climate change expert." Huh?

East v.s. West Antarctic

[Omeganon]

Nothing too surprising here. The East Antarctic isn't expected to show dramatic melting due to Global Warming. It's the *West* Antarctic that's the worry and always has been.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227036.400-driller-thriller-antarcticas-tumultuous-past-revealed.html?full=true

Re:Separation of Science and States

[causality]

> he general public apparently has no idea how incredibly dogmatic, religious, > and un-scientific much of modern science has become.

and

> I think the real issue here is that scientists have become another authority.

Or put more simply:

"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." - Max Planck

And he said that before the politics and money factors entered into science.

I think Carl Sagan neatly addressed that:

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Especially when he said it doesn't happen as often as it should because change is sometimes painful. I will add one observation to that: what really makes change so painful is when your ego is invested in a particular outcome. When that ego need is replaced by a sense of awe derived from the mystery (and sometimes the absurdity) of the universe, which unfortunately seems rare these days, change can be something you welcome.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[ivan256]

s/ego/reputation/g

Where is that data?

[SuperKendall]

While the majority of ski resorts have reported a trend of less annual snowfall per year for the past twenty years or so,

Really? Where is that info from?

Because the data I can see says otherwise - like the SNOTEL Precipitation Data Table from Wolf Creek Pass in Colorado. Or Squaw Valley in California. Or Daisy Peak in Montana.

We've had dry years in Colorado over the past decade, but also some banner snow years. Similarly for other places in other states.

So where does the data validating that generally ski resorts have lower snowpack over the last twenty years come from? Or is it just something everyone "knows".

In reality I think that's a data point too variable to indicate anything one way or the other.

Re:Where is that data?

[Phat_Tony]

Sorry, I couldn't Google up a link, and it's from a TV show on skiing on the TV at a ski resort about seven years ago. So no, I have no idea how authoritative it is. They were talking about the future of skiing, and they noted that there's probably a big future in snowmaking and possibly in chemicals that increase freezing temperature, because average snowfall at ski resorts worldwide had been declining for some time, and they had a graph. They DID note that Colorado was doing fine, along with, I think, New Zealand, but I remember they said that the southern parts of the Alps- France, Spain, Italy- had a lot of resorts with really dramatically reduced snowfall, along with declines in Australia, and that South America wasn't doing so well either (I remember wondering how much skiing there was in South America to begin with.) They neglected to mention the midwest, where I know that Mad River Mountain in Ohio has records of dramatically less natural snowfall on average over the last 50 years or so, but Holiday Valley in New York had pretty decent average increases over the past 25 years or so. Anyway, sorry I can't source it, it would be interesting to see a chart aggregating long-term natural snowfall records from ski resorts around the world.

The only slightly relevant bit I found online is here, an article which makes a bunch of predictions with little data, but did have the following bit of actual data:

"Looking at states that typically get snow, 187 of 260 weather stations have reported fewer days with snowfall since 1948," said Oak Ridge meteorologist Dale Kaiser. The decrease in snow days has been especially pronounced east of the Mississippi River, he said, which is where most of America's low-elevation ski areas are located. The trend toward fewer snow days has been most pronounced in the Northeast, but many weather stations in the West showed increases in snow.

I'd like to note that there's nothing inconsistent about the TV show I saw, the data you provide, and this last bit of data. And anyway, my whole point was that snowfall is increasing in some areas and decreasing in others, so it doesn't make sense to claim that increased snowfall or icepack in some one location proves a net climate trend. Climate is complex enough that it's even possible that globally increasing snowfall could be consistent with warming or vice versa. I don't know the answer, I was trying to point out uncertainty and that this data is interesting in itself, but not a convincing bit of information regarding larger climate trends.

You are confused.

[Jane Q. Public]

Like many people, you have confused Libertarianism with lassez-faire government, or even Conservatism. They are NOT the same things at all.

Libertarians believe in the least amount of regulation that is necessary to do the job. That is not even close to the same as no regulation.

For example, either of last year's Libertarian candidates for President would have regulated the "financial industry" more, not less. Smart Libertarians support reasonable antitrust laws, not unbridled corporatism as they have so often been accused of advocating. And so on.

It might pay to learn something about a philosophy before you go around publicly insulting it.

Re:You are confused.

[0111 1110]

No. Libertarians are in favor of the least amount of regulation period. There are two subgroups: the limited government ones and the anarcho-libertarians who believe in (essentially) no government at all. Democracts and republicans would both also claim to believe in the least amount of regulation necessary to do the job. Where the political theory differs is in what exactly that job happens to be. BTW, "laissez-faire" is not the same as anarchy. It just refers to the government staying out of the economy.

Re:You are confused.

[mrsquid0]

I remember once, several years ago, when a Libertarian told me that "my type" would be put up against the wall once they came to power.

Re:You are confused.

[Jane Q. Public]

Over the years, Socialists have often said and written exactly the same thing. That means very little. Libertarianism and Socialism are nothing alike.

So, what is "your type" anyway? And are you sure the person you mentioned was a Libertarian, and not just claiming to be?

I have met Republicans who knew absolutely nothing about what Republicanism was supposed to mean. And I can say the same thing about Libertarians, Democrats, and Anarchists.

Re:You are confused.

[retchdog]

I have met Republicans who knew absolutely nothing about what Republicanism was supposed to mean. And I can say the same thing about Libertarians, Democrats, and Anarchists.

Which makes me wonder whether it's really worth spending even a minute on abstract political issues...

Re:You are confused.

[Blakey Rat]

For example, either of last year's Libertarian candidates for President would have regulated the "financial industry" more, not less.

And the great thing is that since they weren't elected, NOBODY CAN DISPROVE YOUR CRAZY CLAIMS!!!

Seriously, there are some rational Libertarians, but they are few and far-between.

Re:You are confused.

[Jane Q. Public]

And just as seriously: you don't have to believe me, you can just look at their public statements on the subject.

"Seriously, there are some rational Libertarians, but they are few and far-between."

Really? Considering that Libertarians believe in a free marketplace and goverment based solidly on our Constitution (their two primary principles), what do you find irrational about that? Because that is what you are saying.

Re:You are confused.

[Walkingshark]

BTW, "laissez-faire" is not the same as anarchy. It just refers to the government staying out of the economy.

Which is basically the same thing, since the economy is a means of quantifying power, and without the check of government power on monetary power you have rule of steel instead of rule of law.

Re:You are confused.

[shutdown -p now]

No. Libertarians are in favor of the least amount of regulation period. There are two subgroups ...

You're already wrong here. There's at least as many subgroups as there are definitions of "least amount of regulation". They include those two you've mentioned, but the "limited government" one is in itself just an umbrella for numerous terms. After all, quite a lot of libertarians were vocally supportive of the Iraq war, which, even if legitimate, can be seen at best as a preventative state police action - something that your average libertarian isn't supposed to be happy about, in theory.

Then there are also globalists/isolationists, etc...

Re:You are confused.

[im_thatoneguy]

They don't believe in the constitution. They believe in a twisted black and white reading of the original constitution to suit their interests. "The founding fathers said THIS. And they ALL AGREED! END OF STORY."

They don't correctly view the constitution as a compromise document between extremely divided factions which wrote into the constitution a means of advancing and improving it as the years go on. Ignoring all of the progress we've made as a people since then in our advancement of a nation and government. Ignoring the subsequent legislative, court and constitutional ammendments we've made to form a 'more perfect union'.

No let's just throw all of that away and go back and stick to the rough draft written 400 years ago and hold it up as our ultimate achievement. They make conservatives look like progressives and I for one will have nothing to do with it. Our government is evolving and changing to meet the needs of its people. Freedom from taxation and government? Fine. Do it like the rest of the country and write up an ammendment. Draft legislation. Convince the American People. Stop bitching that the nation isn't what the holy 'founding fathers' intended. They intended us to do better. They intended us to advance and debate. They intended us to use their starting point and then do one better. And that's what we've been doing.

Re:You are confused.

[Maxo-Texas]

Libertarians ignore the fundamental reality that only a powerful government can keep their "miracle land" in force.

Corporations and powerful individuals do not behave in agreement with libertarian beliefs- the behave in their own raw self interest.

The inevitable cycle so far is-- the powerful reach a certain point and begin to grow unbounded. They crush everyone else and take all their stuff.

The powerful finally become such a small part of society, that the rest of society kills them and takes their stuff. Even in democracies usually- and when it doesn't come to violence, the alterative is voting to take all their stuff (99% or even over 100% tax rates).

rinse, wash, repeat.

Re:You are confused.

[shutdown -p now]

I see you don't read ESR's blog much. Not that he's alone in that, either.

Re:You are confused.

[bencoder]

"do not behave in agreement with libertarian beliefs- the behave in their own raw self interest."

what? that is essentially the libertarian belief... as long as you add "and don't stop anyone else from behaving in their own raw self interest"

Re:You are confused.

[mrsquid0]

>So, what is "your type" anyway? And are you sure the person you
>mentioned was a Libertarian, and not just claiming to be?

That is a general problem with any philosophy or ideology: just because someone claims to adhere to it does not mean that they actually do. The Libertarian who told me that I would be up against a wall when Libertarians came to power was fairly active in the campus Libertarian club. He was actually a nice guy, except for his loony social and political beliefs.

As for my type, at the time I was voting Progressive Conservative (back before Mulroney took that party off into nut-job land) , but I was in the process of drifting into the NDP camp. Hardly radical stuff (in any direction) for Canada in the early 1980s.

Re:You are confused.

[Maxo-Texas]

Yes, speaking as a Heinlein indoctrinated former libertarian, let me say it is a great in theory (small government, low taxes!) but sucks in reality (no one to protect 90% of society from the most powerful, most abusive 10%).

I think in the real world, libertarian philosophy turns out badly much quicker than many competing philosophies. Nothing stops abuse long term (the rich and powerful always take over).

Look at Greenspan... shocked that people acted in their own short term interest regardless of the damage to their companies and the nation.

Re:You are confused.

[Darby]

Considering that Libertarians believe in a free marketplace and goverment based solidly on our Constitution (their two primary principles), what do you find irrational about that?

Well, they have a religious belief in the free market. Religious beliefs are bad enough in general, but a religious belief in something which we know for a fact can't possibly ever exist is beyond irrational.

They like to pretend that unregulated markets will magically end up as free markets although that's obviously false.

So while I agree with them on most things, their total failure to address reality on that topic is why I wouldn't join the party although I do typically vote for Libertarians since I despise the big government Democrats and the even bigger government Republicans.

Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[thetoadwarrior]

Let's pretend that human activity has no effect on the environment.

With that in mind there is still no reason not to be more green.

Pollution shortens your life: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7946838.stm
Pollutionis linked to Pneumonia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7347065.stm
Pollution affects birth weight: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7988619.stm
Pollution alters brain function: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7288176.stm

So why in the hell would anyone support polluting this planet?

Installing solar panels and using water butts and various other green things can save money so why wouldn't people want to save money?

You can't (shouldn't) drive while intoxicated so increased public transportation makes it better for me when I want to socialise with my friend with alcohol and what not. Riding on buses and trains I can sleep, read or use my laptop while going to work rather than just sitting behind the wheel stressing out. Those who insist on driving get the benefit of less traffic when more people use the train or bus So it's nothing but a benefit all around

My main concern is looking out for number one and looking out for the environment results in nothing but benefits for me as it does for most people. Ignorant people should realise this and stop focusing on just the planet. This isn't about tree huggers. This is about saving money and improving your life. So even if you have a "fuck the planet" attitude making certain change benefits yourself as well as the tree huggers.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Jane Q. Public]

No, it isn't about saving money and improving your life. The "anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming" debate is about expending a huge amount of resources on futile exercises, when those resources could be better expended elsewhere.

It has been estimated that the amount of resources it would take to reduce CO2 emissions significantly over 100 years, is enough to completely solve the world hunger problem, in the same amount of time, even taking into account predicted population growth.

So... which do you think is better? Sweating a little from about 1 degree extra warmth, or millions of starving children? THAT is what we are discussing here.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[SnarfQuest]

How about, let's base your future tax rates based on the number of fairies that Obama sees. If he sees 20 fairies, then the taxes increase by 20%. If he sees 100 fairies, then the taxes go up by 100%. Also, you cannot ask for any proof of the number of fairies that he has seen. Ok, took a vote and Obama has seen 3000 fairies, so your tax rate is now 3030%. We are backdating this rate for the last 10 years, so be sure to pay your back taxes.

This makes as much sense as your idiot whining monograph. We shouldn't base laws on bad science. It's like making laws based on fairies. It's a stupid idea. How can you properly fix something that you aren't even sure is broken? Instead of fixing "global warming" with your idiot schemes, you may just cause an ice age.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Chibi Merrow]

Installing solar panels and using water butts and various other green things can save money so why wouldn't people want to save money?

Last time I did the numbers for installing solar panels, it in fact cost a lot more money over the lifetime of the solar panels than just buying the electricity from a power company. Granted, it's been several years, but I doubt it's changed much. There's also the fact that buying your power from the company spreads the cost out over a long period, while solar panels have a ridiculously high initial investment. Then there's the matter of storing energy for when it's dark outside...

If you want cheap and green energy, build nuclear reactors. Lots of them.

Water butts? I hope you don't mean for any water that's going to come in contact with my body in any way. Yech. I'd rather not base my water system off of a third-world model.

You can't (shouldn't) drive while intoxicated so increased public transportation makes it better for me when I want to socialise with my friend with alcohol and what not.

Or we'll use a designated driver. Or we'll call a cab. Or we'll drink at my house. Either way, we can come and go on OUR schedule, not the schedule of some transportation union.

The public transportation in San Jose was useful when I visited... Except when we left the bar, the trains were no longer in service. Go figure. Walking 20 blocks in the rain to our hotel really taught us the value of public transportation.

My main concern is looking out for number one and looking out for the environment results in nothing but benefits for me as it does for most people.

You really should try convincing people like Al Gore of this. Maybe they'd stop flying in private jets, driving SUVs, and building 20,000 sq ft houses...

So even if you have a "fuck the planet" attitude making certain change benefits yourself as well as the tree huggers.

Not the changes the tree huggers want me to make. They'll inconvenience me more than anything else.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[HuguesT]

Well, reducing armaments globally would also solve world hunger several times over.

I would like to see fewer weapons, fewer wars and fewer starving children please.

Write to your representative that stupid wars are not on anymore, period.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[novakyu]

So why in the hell would anyone support polluting this planet?

It depends on what you mean by "pollution". If you mean nasty stuff like ozone (at the surface level; not up there where it blocks UV) or other things that used to come out of tailpipes and factories, sure, I don't think anybody is against reducing these nasty pollutions (that's what the catalytic converters and all those filter things are for).

But, what's really insidious about the "global warming" crowd is that they got people to think about carbon dioxide (CO2) as a polluting gas. CO2 is not pollution. Sure, you can get CO2 poisoning, but then, you can also die from eating too much salt or sugar (or water on the flip side). CO2 per se is not toxic, it's not "pollution". You breathe it out, and plants need them for photosynthesis.

So, that's what the debate is about, because any time you burn something other than hydrogen, you are going to generate CO2, and to scrub it out of the emission, it will just cost too much (way more than filtering other, actually noxious gas out).

There have been no studies that linked slightly elevated level of CO2 in the atmosphere (I think currently at 200 to 500 ppm or so; it takes about 1%, or 10,000 ppm for anyone to feel anything) to any harmful effect on long term health.

So once we get rid of all the nasty stuff that everyone agrees we should get rid of, the debate is really down to, "Should we bother with this innocuous gas CO2 where the only concern is some unproven possible effect on global climate?"

And I would say most reasonable people I know around me (mostly physics professors) say "No" to that question.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[novakyu]

Well, reducing armaments globally would also solve world hunger several times over.

Wrong. The existing armaments can destroy the world many times over. The cost of producing them is peanuts compared to what we already spend on foreign aids and welfare.

Just look at United States. Right now, even with all the expenditures related to the war in Iraq, the military budget of United States (which outstrips military budget of any other country) is less than $700 billion. That sounds like a lot, but compared to the welfare budget (this is for a different year, and without all the "stimulus" funding), we spent $600 billion on Social Security, $380 billion on Medicare, $200 billion for Medicaid, and $320 for unemployment for total of at least $1500 billion on welfare programs federally.

This is how much we are spending to "feed the poor" in the United States and that's crippling our nation. Can you imagine what would happen if we tried to do that for, what, 1, 2, or 3 billion more people?

The liberal media would have you believe that we spend too much for military and armaments. Maybe we do—we sure spend much, much more than before the world wars. But compared to other spendings like those on social programs, it's really peanuts, and before we talk about removing our only defense from our enemies, we should talk about letting each person take responsibility for his action and not burdening the society for his (or his father's) laziness.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[this_is_art]

Actually I've looked at a number of papers in recent years that estimate 2-4 year energy payoff for solar panel mfg. You're right that there is a capital cost to install them, but that is true of any power plant. The economic sense of home solar electricity was slim 6 years ago when we installed our panels, but is now considerably more favorable. Our panels are well on the way to payoff. When we installed them I had many people say that they could get better yields in the Stock Market. Our power meter still spins backwards on most days of the year, but our 401K's have lost substantially. Need I say more? I don't feel particularly green or moral, it's just good engineering sense to get electrical energy from our own roof! Art

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[im_thatoneguy]

And what happens when those millions of starving children can no longer grow crops because of climate change?

The amount of "money" you have doesn't mean jack squat if the price of food were to rise for some reaso--oh wait. That's already happening.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[im_thatoneguy]

Yes but SS, Medicare and Unemployment are all supposed to be payed out of their own incomes. Much like a forced savings fund. I don't know that I would call those "welfare" programs in the sense you're implying.

If we're talking about "Feeding the poor" then we shouldn't include SS, Unemployment *insurance* or much of medicare.

Medicaid and foodstamps being the two big programs to look at. At that point you see your 1600 billion shrink dramatically to less than 500 billion.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Blakey Rat]

Installing solar panels and using water butts and various other green things can save money so why wouldn't people want to save money?

"Can" is an interesting choice of words. Sure they "can" save money, but in reality they "don't." I dunno, maybe if you live in Southern California or something both of those ideas will pay for themselves, but here in Western Washington, the solar is a total non-starter (you'd never re-coup the installation costs before they need replacing) and the water butts only make sense maybe once in 10 years when we're actually lacking rainfall for some reason.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Entropy2016]

But, what's really insidious about the "global warming" crowd is that they got people to think about carbon dioxide (CO2) as a polluting gas. CO2 is not pollution. Sure, you can get CO2 poisoning, but then, you can also die from eating too much salt or sugar (or water on the flip side). CO2 per se is not toxic, it's not "pollution". You breathe it out, and plants need them for photosynthesis.

Fact: The term "Pollutants" normally includes any material which is significantly detrimental to an environmental system. The EPA's job isn't just to protect human health, but to protect environmental systems as well.

Dumping sufficiently concentrated salt water wherever you please can easily be illegal, such as brine waste from a reverse osmosis plant. Not just because it may contaminate drinking water aquifers or reservoirs, but also because it damages ecology.

Dumping pure, clean, but very hot water wherever you like is considered thermal pollution. It doesn't take a genius to know why either. Warmer water leads to less gas solubility, less gas solubility leads to less dissolved oxygen in water, not enough dissolved oxygen in water leads to dead fish and anything else in water that needs O2. When they die, decomposition eats up all the remaining O2 in the water. Eventually anaerobic bacteria take over the system.

And that's just warm water we're talking about, something obviously non-toxic right? Forgive my reluctance to subscribe to this idea that non-toxic pollutants are somehow harmless.

BTW, CO2 may not be toxic to us, but it is having toxic effects on certain systems right now, specifically coral reefs. Elevated atmospheric CO2 has led to elevated dissolved CO2 in oceans. This results in the formation of carbonic acid, which is messing with the ocean's pH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

In addition, there is research pointing out that vegetation can suffer when CO2 passes a certain threshold. Triggers that keep their stomata open include light, humidity, and CO2 concentration. Normally more CO2 absorbed into the stomata is fine, but unfortunately they can't absorb CO2 without also losing water. At a certain point, the extra CO2 is useless due to limiting nutrients, and they'll be less able to retain water.

Taking all of the sequestered carbon (coal/oil) that we can possibly find and putting that carbon into the atmosphere over a couple generations is not a small change. You can't double the concentration of CO2 within a time frame that amounts to a blink of an eye by geological/evolutionary timescales without the biota suffering. Evolution is too slow.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[SydShamino]

If we do neither, and see where the new coastlines are after the oceans rise, we could solve the world hunger problem without expending any effort at all.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[I(rispee_I(reme]

compared to other spendings like those on social programs, it's really peanuts

I wouldn't say peanuts; 21% of U.S. federal spending is a significant portion, and is more than 8 times what the owner of the next-largest military, China, spends. Before you begin to say that we can't trust China's reported military budget, I would point out that the U.S's reported military budget is also suspect.

before we talk about removing our only defense from our enemies, we should talk about letting each person take responsibility for his action and not burdening the society for his (or his father's) laziness.

of course you mean the responsibility of maintaining a basic standard of living, a much less suitable responsibility for a government than the responsibility of defending against bogeymen.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Jane Q. Public]

You did not read the whole thing, did you? That was already accounted for in the calculations. And I am not just talking out my ass here. The one to do the calculations was renowned economist Bjorn Lomborg (that is the closest you can get to the spelling in English), not just some clueless newspaper reporter. You can find his Ted talk on Youtube if you want to look. Take the short version or the full hour... your choice.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Jane Q. Public]

Sorry, but that just ain't gonna happen, as they say. Even the IPCC agreed on that: "According to a 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global warming of 2.5 to 10.4 F (1.4--5.8 C) could lead to a sea level rise of 4 inches to 2.9 feet (0.09-0.88 meters) by 2100."

So even the worst-case scenario presented by the IPCC (known to be politically biased on the issue), is only 2.9 feet.

BFD!

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Jane Q. Public]

And to put that in perspective: 2.9 feet would not even hurt Venice very much, much less the other coastal cities around the world.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Jeeeb]

Yes because all welfare recipients are lazy, don't want to work and are happy to have the government take your hard earned dollars and give it to them....

I'm not American and I don't live in America. I do however receive welfare payments from my own government (Australian government). My family is lower-middle class, living in a regional town. The closest university is 1.5 hours drive away, which meant that in order to go to uni I had to leave home. My family couldn't afford to support me living on my own, but thanks to government support I've been able to go to a very good uni. On top of the support for living expenses I also receive a low-interest, deferred payment loan from the government to pay my tuition fees. Once I start working I'll of course pay that back. Personally I believe that making sure that the quality of education available to people depends not on their family background but on the ability of the individual is one of the fundamental pillars of a free society.

I can think of plenty of other examples of reasons why people might receive welfare other than being lazy. We don't live in a fair world and people do fall on hard times, irrespective of whether they're hard working or lazy, and I can't see why it's such a bad thing that the government does support these people through hard times.

Oh and American spends about 4% of GDP on its military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States). Most western countries spend about 2%. Take the EU for example at roughly half the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union) while having a larger GDP than the US. If American military spending was in line with the rest of the western world you could have the bailout paid for in a few years. Then plenty of money left for infrastructure upgrades, genuine nation building and further paying down the deficit before the interest repayments seriously weigh down the US governments spending ability. Also I know it sounds pretty left wing, but you know, maybe people would hate you less if you weren't bombing their countries? Maybe these countries could reach stability if you weren't propping up dictatorships and toppling unfavorable governments... Call me crazy but I think you'd be a lot more secure if you spent less on your military and kept to yourselves.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Anonymous Coward]

The logic in this post is so completely bogus.

First, using your own figures, the military budget is 700 billion and we spend 1500 billion on social programs. That is almost 50%. That is not peanuts! If the military budget were 1% of the budget for social programs, that would be peanuts.

Second, you refer to the 1500 billion as what we are paying to "feed the poor." Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even unemployment are not programs to "feed the poor." They are also not welfare programs according to the common use of the term. Nor is it fair to refer to those programs as programs where people are not taking responsibility for their actions, and thus burdening society for their (or their father's) laziness. So, if I spend 45 years of my life working and paying in money to the social security system, and then at the age of 66 I start withdrawing money from it, then I'm someone who is not taking responsibility for his actions, and I am burdening society with my laziness?

Your logic is completely bogus!
   

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[powerlord]

I wouldn't say peanuts; 21% of U.S. federal spending is a significant portion, and is more than 8 times what the owner of the next-largest military, China, spends. Before you begin to say that we can't trust China's reported military budget, I would point out that the U.S's reported military budget is also suspect.

Is that "8 times" when you look at the amount spent as a Percentage, or in Monetary Units?

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[houghi]

we should talk about letting each person take responsibility for his action and not burdening the society for his (or his father's) laziness.

Yeah, because all those lazy bastards not going to work, just because their factories closed due to the financial crisis, should take their responsibility.
It is a mentality issue. The workers are the lazy ones, because they have the problems. Look at the CEOs of those companies. They don't need the welfare. So apparently they did take responsibility.

(Sarcastic? Moi?)

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[jyx]

The liberal media would have you believe that

stop it, Stop It, STOP IT, FOR FRICKS SAKE STOP IT!!!!

Up until that pissy little snippit you made some interesting arguments with references, then you enter crazy 'i belong to this camp and every one else is wrong' mode. Extremes are bad - please stop.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Lifyre]

I wanted to say thank you for this well thought out intelligent post. Pointing out to people that global warming is largely irrelevant in regards to reasons to stop polluting tends to make lots of them angry. There are long term solutions to long term problems (global warming) that have immediate benefits that should be emphasized.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Scott Carnahan]

It has been estimated that the amount of resources it would take to reduce CO2 emissions significantly over 100 years, is enough to completely solve the world hunger problem, in the same amount of time, even taking into account predicted population growth.

I'd be interested in seeing your proposed strategy for completely solving the world hunger problem, together with a rigorous demonstration of cost-optimality within reasonable error bounds. It has been estimated that the likelihood that you (or your favorite mouthpiece like Lomborg) made up a bunch of numbers to fit a pre-specified agenda is very close to 100%.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Troed]

Feel free to verify through Lomborg's _very_ extensive reference list.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[natedubbya]

Actually, long lives pollute the planet more than short lives. So do you want less pollution to live longer, or to live longer to pollute more?

You should really figure out what your end goal is first before building straw men.

You have to HAVE a line...

[Jane Q. Public]

... before you can reverse its slope. Can you point me to one? Not the lines presented in "An Inconvenient Truth", because inconveniently for Al Gore, those have already been thoroughly discredited.

So, where does your line come from? Show it to me, please. Credible data from one or more credible sources clearly showing this trend you claim.

By the way, according to your pet satellite data, the upper atmosphere has not been warming in the way predicted by any of the greenhouse-gas warming models.

When it was warmer in the past

[Jane Q. Public]

it also tended to be wetter. The amount of arable land that could be used for growing crops was larger, not smaller.

Praise FSM for increased piracy

[Ranger]

It's scientifically proven that there is a direct inverse correspondence between the number of pirates and global warming. As the number of pirates decreased global warming increased. Now that piracy in Somalia has gone up the ice in that one tiny spot in Antarctica. It'll surely compensate for the rapid flow of glaciers in the West Antarctic icesheet as they flow unimpeded into the sea now that more of the iceshelfs are gone. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster in his infinite wisdom for making that happen. He was none to happy about Obama killing those pirates.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

I bet a climate scientist could have gotten plenty of money from the Bush Administration for arguing that manmade CO2 wasn't causing climate change. Exxon Mobil has plenty of money for anyone who can sow doubt about the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.

Why not more scientific criticism of the hypothesis, then?

Because scientists went into science instead of law school because they care about reality.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[causality]

The Electric Universe people were completely discredited when the NASA probe spawned from Deep Impact collided with the comet Tempel 1. If the Universe were -- as they claim -- made up of anti-matter, the resulting explosion of the probe and comet would have vaporized a fair chunk of the solar system.

Of course, this didn't stop them from saying that the collision actually proved their theory since there was a little explosion.

I believe you're proving my point for me when I say that the people who vehemently oppose the Electric Universe (EU) theory tend not to be familiar with it. I have read their works extensively and have never, ever seen the EU folks make the claim that the Universe is made up of antimatter. If you want to see what they had to say about the Deep Impact collison with Tempel 1, look here and you will find something entirely different from what you just described.

You can also find more on the Deep Impact event in this category of the Thunderbolts site.

To date, I have never once seen an opponent of the EU theory who was thoroughly familiar with it. There is no substitute for your own inquiry.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[causality]

s/ego/reputation/g

The good reputation should go towards those who are willing to go wherever the facts lead them. A scientist who can say "I have discovered that I was mistaken and here is why" is the real article. Any of them who won't let facts get in the way of their pet beliefs/theories are not scientists at all; they are priests who wear a different sort of robe.

Where did you learn this crap?

[Jane Q. Public]

If I had thought that laissez-faire were synonymous with anarchy, then would have just written "anarchy". What makes you think I did? Assumptions?

Your assertions about Libertarianism (at least in the U.S.) are just plain false. Of course there are anarcho-libertarians. There are also anarcho-Republicans. That does not mean that either form a significant percentage of their respective parties. Trying to divide Libertarianism into two separate groups in this fashion is as fallacious as it would be to divide the Republican party the same way.

I have been around Libertarians for many years, and I am intimately familiar with their philosophy and their literature. It is nothing like what you portray at all. If in fact they wanted "the least amount of regulation, period" then they would indeed be anarchists, and there would be no point in even having a Libertarian party!

Re:Where did you learn this crap?

[Moridineas]

I have been around Libertarians for many years, and I am intimately familiar with their philosophy and their literature. It is nothing like what you portray at all. If in fact they wanted "the least amount of regulation, period" then they would indeed be anarchists, and there would be no point in even having a Libertarian party!

That seems doubtful (the part about you being "intimately" familiar with "Libertarians" -- since you're using the Big L I'm assuming you're talking solely about the LP and not your average libertarian). I don't think I've ever seen someone try to buttonhole libertarians and Libertarians so, or at the least, to pretend that the Libertarian Party isn't rather split-personality.

IMHO, the LP is far more diverse than you seem to think. It's got anarcho-capitalists, income tax protestors, drug protestors, black helicopter cospiracy theorists, survivalists, libertarians, classic liberals, Ron Paul types, etc. I think you would be extremely hardpressed to find an "average" LP member that represented any signfiicant part of the membership BEYOND a desire to decrease government influence.

Re:Where did you learn this crap?

[Jane Q. Public]

Of course I meant Libertarians, as in the Libertarian party. How are you separating Libertarians from "average libertarians"? Do you also make a similar distinction between Republicans and "average republicans"? Democrats and "average democrats"? That is nonsense.

Of course it is very diverse. Nevertheless, the LP does have core philosophies, which are not ambiguous at all. It is those to which I refer. No doubt there are "Libertarians" with basically anarchist views, but there are Republicans who basically have anarchist views as well. As I clearly mentioned before, it is not valid to try to separate them into different philosophies within the same party. The party is defined by its core principles, nothing else. Otherwise, it would not be a party.

And while I agree that there is diversity, I disagree that your "average" LP members vary quite so widely in their views. Again, they do share some core philosophies (at least the sane and relatively intelligent ones do), otherwise they would not be members of the party.

And, once again, a desire to decrease the size of government is still not the same as anarchy. Libertarians who truly have anarchist beliefs are, quite simply, in the wrong party.

Re:Where did you learn this crap?

[k8to]

There is a strain of libertarians that believes in the philosophy you've espoused. However most libertarians I encounter in life tend to be the sort that ask "why shouldn't contractual slavery be legal?"

In short, "liberarianism" has been co-opted by churls. I wish I knew how to fix that because the ideals of early libertarianism are worth agitating for, in terms of balance, even though I don't agree with them.

Re:Where did you learn this crap?

[Moridineas]

Of course I meant Libertarians, as in the Libertarian party. How are you separating Libertarians from "average libertarians"? Do you also make a similar distinction between Republicans and "average republicans"? Democrats and "average democrats"? That is nonsense.

Certainly I make a distinction between a Democrat and a liberal or a conservative and a Republican. Do you not?

And while I agree that there is diversity, I disagree that your "average" LP members vary quite so widely in their views. Again, they do share some core philosophies (at least the sane and relatively intelligent ones do), otherwise they would not be members of the party.

I guess we agree to differ then.

And, once again, a desire to decrease the size of government is still not the same as anarchy. Libertarians who truly have anarchist beliefs are, quite simply, in the wrong party.

Can't say I agree with that either. You might as well make such sweeping statements as "Republicans who are pro-abortion are in the wrong party" or "Democrats who believe in 2nd amendments right are in the wrong party."

Consider the facts

[CopaceticOpus]

East Antarctica is claimed by Australia. Australia runs a "glaciology program" there. West Antarctica is slowly shrinking, while East Antarctica is slowly growing.

Clearly, Australia is stealing West Antarctica's ice for their own, hoping that no one will notice because of the craze over global warming.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So when did you stop beating your wife?

[SuperKendall]

So why in the hell would anyone support polluting this planet?

Because we are the purest form of evil! Anyone who thinks slightly differently from you, must be the spawn of Satan.

You see, no-one wants to "pollute the planet". None of us like it because of the reasons you list. But in the real world it's a complex relationship between people living and the impact they have. Your edict to "reduce pollution" is all well and good, but in what ways? If the way you choose means a 10% increase in job loss, is that really OK? Disallowing all car travel in a state forever and ever would be a great way to reduce pollution - and to really screw over a lot of people.

There are ways to reduce pollution and/or save the environment that are less impactful on people's lives. So rather than claiming everyone really wants to pollute, help people to understand how they can pollute less without losing much in return.

Re:So when did you stop beating your wife?

[houghi]

So what you really are saying is that people think short term, not long term. They think of themselves as individuals and not part of a group. This results in I want my results now or I want to work so I can pay my car, instead of I will work 10% less and move closer to work, so I do not need that 10% to pay the car.

I am happy that management are robiots and not people, oh wait ...

Headline more accurate than article?!

[Greg Lindahl]

This must be a first.

Will these do?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some lines on these charts from NASA.

I think most people will agree that the folks at NASA kinda know what they're doing. Despite a couple of monumental fuckups over the years (which were generally management fuckups, not the technical kind), fundamentally, getting rockets into space repeatedly & successfully is a very hard thing to do, and overall they do it well.

So I see you your assertion that global warming is crap, and raise you 17 charts that indicate that something quite significant is happening to our climate. :-)

Oh, and the upper atmosphere thing? Well, you know, seeing unexpected things happen in systems as complex as the earth's atmosphere is how scientists (real ones, not those clowns from the Discovery Institute) learn stuff. They look at what's happening, and modify their models to try and explain it. That's called the scientific process. Real scientists don't ever claim to know all the answers, just to having a really good guess.

Re:Will these do?

[mysidia]

The lines in those charts are not lines that show the temperature has been consistently going up over the past 5+ years.

One year's "line" doesn't suggest anything in the long run.

To "Anonymous Coward"

[Jane Q. Public]

I am quite familiar with the IPCC and its reports, and that is about the worst example you could use.

And your assertion about bias is simply false. Whether bias exists is not a matter of personal opinion. Bias is a real quality, that can often be proven.

Re:To "Anonymous Coward"

[Mashiki]

Are you kidding? Feeding trolls is a full time game, it's twice as fun when you feed them cyanide laced facts over three posts.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[jmorris42]

> I think Carl Sagan neatly addressed that:

Except Dr. Sagan was an almost canonical example of a politicized scientist toward the end of his life. His greatest work, Cosmos (which I have a DVD set of on my shelf) was greatly flawed by his growing political leanings (which were garden variety peacenik/green of the most naive uneducated sort) instead of focusing on the science which he was an actual authority on.

> In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'

That has probably never happened. The other guy having really good (and repeatable) RESULTS can change opponents into supporters in science. Hell, scientists would probably still be debating relativity and quantum theory had not the Trinity Test not settled the matter in such dramatic fashion.

But that not the same as the the problems when scientists get into political affairs, they expect the decisions to be made on purely rational arguments that can be solved as a math problem. But they often can't. Political decisions aremore often cases of competing interests or weighing risk/rewards. Then we get to AGW and the usefuless of the scientific method is really called into question. AGW has almost zero actual numbers, it's all computer models and measurements close to the error bars where both sides can make good arguments, thus both sides now field Nobel Prize Winners in attempts to win by appeal to authority. But one side has Al Gore and James Hansen and that settles it as far as this non-scientist is concerned. Gore isn't a scientist but is treated as one and Hansen might have been a scientist once but has been nothing but a fraud since his antics with the hockey stick chart were debunked and he escaped all consequences.

This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

To anyone who actually has done a bit of looking into Antarctica in climatic terms, this won't be surprising.

Start with a good map of Antarctica: Wikipedia has an excellent picture. You can see the Transantarctic Mountains pretty easily on the picture--it's the line roughly in the center. To the right is East Antarctica; to the left West Antarctica.

Now, you see those two patches of rather gray ice just west of the mountains? That's the part of the sheet that isn't on land. Much of West Antarctica is sitting on ice shelves. East Antarctica is basically a giant sheet of ice a few kilometers thick sitting on land.

For climatic reasons, East Antarctica is colder than West, and it simply doesn't snow that much. The massive cyclone that appears each winter doesn't help.

Gaining mass means you're getting more snow, which means that the temperature is, you know, getting warmer. The annual mean temperature is -57ÂC at the South Pole...

Now, many of you will say "this debunks global warming", etc., but you're missing a key part of the equation. West Antarctica may be 10% of the ice sheet of Antarctica, but when you compare that the entire Antarctic ice sheet comprises the majority of freshwater on Earth, a collapse of its ice sheet would result in significant rise of sea levels. And what's preventing its collapse? The Ross and Ronne Ice Shelves. And yep, they're shrinking.

Re:This is news?

[SnapShot]

That's a very interesting post. Why submit anonymously?

I thought I had read the same thing; Antarctica is basically a desert because it's almost too cold for precipitation. The ice that is there has accumulated millimeters a year for tens of thousands of years. For the ice to be "thickening" could easily be a side effect of a warming planet.

density

[taniwha]

Am I the only one who can't understand how the change in the ice's thickness has anything to do with it's density - does the original article poster understand what density actually measures? I kind of expect that if things get bad the Antarctic ice sheet will warm enough that it starts to move faster and more sea ice will be dumped into the ocean in places rather than less - 8 inches more ice being pushed into the sea than normal would tend think more ice is melting ans the sea levels will rise. See - I can take the same data and spin it the other way. Saying that sea ice thickness increases at one spot around Antarctica of 22cm (8 inches) disproves global warming is pushing it a bit far - just like my paragraph above - most evidence of global warming at the moment has been that it's a slow gradual process best measured by statistical measurements over time, not individual spot measurements - what this claims is a bit like saying "this was the hottest April 19th on record that proves global warming" or "last month was the coldest since 2000, we can't possibly be having global warming". Climate change is real - we have historical and geologic evidence of it - it's happening all the time (whether humans are around or not) - and there seems to be reasonable scientific evidence at this point that carbon emissions are causing some change at the moment

Re:But what kind of crops?

[Jane Q. Public]

And yet NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, probably the most capable agency of its kind in the world, has itself released a paper stating that even if the global-warming alarmist's worst-case scenario were to happen, the oceans would rise an average of four inches worldwide over the next hundred years.

Who should I believe, do you think?

Re:Separation of Science and States

[qedramania]

Science is socialist in nature? Entrenched interests seems like another way of saying vested interests and there are plenty of those that aren't paid for by government. The government (socialist) ones are just a bit easier to pick. It seems like a big leap to quote one newspaper report which in turn quotes a government sponsored scientist and refers to a paper that is not yet published to a position of no government funding for basic research. Of course market driven forces are so good at delivering long term sustainable results...anyone care for some Lehman Brothers shares?

To "Anonymous Coward"

[Jane Q. Public]

... never mind. I have decided to stop feeding the trolls.

sorry:density (correct formatting)

[taniwha]

Am I the only one who can't understand how the change in the ice's thickness has anything to do with it's density - does the original article poster understand what density actually measures?

I kind of expect that if things get bad the Antarctic ice sheet will warm enough that it starts to move faster and more sea ice will be dumped into the ocean in places rather than less - 8 inches more ice being pushed into the sea than normal would tend think more ice is melting ans the sea levels will rise.

See - I can take the same data and spin it the other way.

Saying that sea ice thickness increases at one spot around Antarctica of 22cm (8 inches) disproves global warming is pushing it a bit far - just like my paragraph above - most evidence of global warming at the moment has been that it's a slow gradual process best measured by statistical measurements over time, not individual spot measurements - what this claims is a bit like saying "this was the hottest April 19th on record that proves global warming" or "last month was the coldest since 2000, we can't possibly be having global warming".

Climate change is real - we have historical and geologic evidence of it - it's happening all the time (whether humans are around or not) - and there seems to be reasonable scientific evidence at this point that carbon emissions are causing some change at the moment

Re:Separation of Science and States

[pallmall1]

Why not more scientific criticism of the hypothesis, then?

You mean, like publishing a paper showing that the Antarctic is cover is *growing* and not shrinking?

Re:So

[CarpetShark]

Will Al Gore and others who pronounced elevated ocean levels and other disasters due to melting ice now go on national television and admit that they were wrong? Somehow I doubt it

What makes you think they're wrong? The Earth is not a constant temperature throughout. I can easily imagine an ice cap melting somewhere in the antarctic, raising the humidity, and a good portion of that water vapor attaching and freezing again somewhere else where it's cooler. That doesn't mean that the warm currents aren't having a devastating effect overall.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[CarpetShark]

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Actually, this happens often in religion, once you reach a certain level, just like it happens in science once you reach a certain level. Like science, which has those to claim to follow it yet know little, and defend that knowledge incorrectly, you also get people raised with a religion who claim to follow it, defend it illogically because it's all they know, yet fail to understand what real religion is all about.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[moosesocks]

The climate in Antarctica is shifting all over the place.

It's probably a good idea to keep an eye on these things, and try to figure out what's causing it, and determine if it has any ramifications for the rest of us "up north"

Given that temperatures, weather patterns, and sea levels are extremely important to human activity, we need to get a bearing on what's going on, given that we're observing phenomena that have never been recorded.

If the climate really is changing, we need to know as far in advance as possible so that we can start planning for it, even if we're not causing it.

I've been in research groups who have (successfully) justified funding for research that they knew was a likely dead-end. I don't believe for an instant that climate science is one of those areas.

To this other Anonymous Coward.

[Jane Q. Public]

Trying to prove to me that the globe is warming was a pretty silly thing to do. I do not dispute that the earth has been getting warmer, and never did! It has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years!

And don't try to say I am changing my tune; I have made that statement a great many times, right here on Slashdot, over the last few years.

The debate is not over whether it is getting warmer, and never has been. It is about whether people are responsible for the warming. These charts do not show that man has been causing anything.

If someone were to show me real, credible evidence that man has definitely been causing any of this warming, then they would have accomplished something.

Re:Read the AC post below

[Jane Q. Public]

Nope. Missed by a mile.

The post you mention proves nothing. We know the earth is getting warmer. The question is whether people have been causing any of it.

And the charts at that link are all about surface temperature. The temperature measurements I mentioned were for the upper atmosphere. Two completely different things.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[wealthychef]

This one article is going to get lots and lots of attention, which makes the gp post's point. There is a HUGE market for evidence AGAINST global warming, just as there is a huge market for evidence FOR. How about if we not rush to conclusions from one data point? I would like to know how this fits into global warming, or if it disproves it. It's not like scientists are going to ignore it, don't worry.

Re:So

[Moridineas]

That doesn't mean that the warm currents aren't having a devastating effect overall.

What does that mean? Ref please?

Nothing unexpected

[Brandybuck]

The climate changes, because that is what climates do. Not only that, climates do not change in an orderly and expected fashion! The politicians and media pretend that all change is uniform. That if the climate is changing then it will change uniformly warmer and warmer until we all roast to death. Or that it will get cooler and cooler until glaciers roll over the continents. Neither view is correct, yet that is what we are told to believe. It is inconceivable to the politico-media complex that some places my get cooler and others warmer. Inconceivable that the climate has a balancing mechanism that prevents runaway change. Inconceivable that human beings are a part of nature and not an external contagion.

This constant cry that we are "destroying the planet" must stop. It is an absurd claim. Certainly we human beings should be good caretakers of our planet. We should seek to reduce pollution and other environmental externalities. But the fear mongering is not helping, and must stop.

Re:Nothing unexpected

[Turzyx]

The whole attitude regarding climate change is totally bizarre, with pseudo scientists cropping up all over the place to give their opinions which virtually never corroborate one another.

1."Climate change will result in more extreme temperatures" is a classic one. Every time there is freak weather the reports say "it's the coldest it's been since 18XX" and so on. What the hell? Our carbon footprint must have been massive before the industrial revolution then. It was all those windmills I reckon... Hold on a minute...

2."The gulf stream being diluted with fresh water from melting ice" being used as an excuse why the summers aren't as hot in the UK. Umm, see number 1?

With all due respect to the scientific community, if it's as good at predicting the weather (which it isn't) as the financial community is at predicting the economy, then how the hell do we even know reducing CO2 emissions is a good thing? It could be causing more problems.

We need more data. Too bad there's too much money in renewable energy sources and forcing Asia to seek expensive energy alternatives via Kyoto for people to change their minds now.

Re:Nothing unexpected

[cagrin]

The earth IS dieing, and it is being done purposefully. Free energy has been available since at least the 1950's but is being denied from the general public. The "killing" of the EV1 electric vehicle is one of the more public examples of what the "elite" is consciously doing to the planet. And yes, it IS worth getting excited about. Wake the fuck up please...thanks.

Summary...

[TheNetAvenger]

Interesting about a regions ice thinkness; however, this has nothing to do with CO2 levels, or global warming...

Maybe the politics and religion of SlashDot can for once leave the science to let's say the 'scientists'?

---

There are so many factors in 'global warming' from desalination and currents to polar winds just to top off a couple of important things that makes this report have nothing to do with overall climate status/change.

There is also the effect of mankind's pollution in opacity, as just the increases the Bush administration allowed in the past eight years would have once again decreased the amount of sunlight that gets to the surface, giving the earth a temporary cooling, that when stabalized could mean the global warming effects would hit many times faster than even the most extreme left alarmist would argue.

I love the goofs that want to tell everyone the Global Warming is in effect on a hot summer day and the other goofs that tell us it doesn't exist on a cold day.

Climate disturbance caused by man's contribution to enviornmental factors are not so easy to understand, but is something that needs to be taken seriously, as the science does show humans DO impact the climate. If it is more than expected, then watch as Europe and the north coast of America freezes over, which would be 'Global Warming'.

Do people honestly think that Global climates changes are 'not' important to mankind? History shows that natural changes nearly caused the demise of the human race several times.

It is something we should study as much as we can and prevent as much as we can, and with the 'chaotic' variable called man affecting the climate, the study and monitoring is needed now more than ever.

CORPORATE INTEREST NOT SCIENTIFIC ADVANCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Ice core drilling is MURDER. These so called "scientists" are performing genocide against this ice in the name of "research". If these EVIL ACTS are really in the name of science, why then are our supermarket and service station cold boxes simply overflowing with DICED ICE-MEAT?

Think about it - "cubed" ice is a multi-million dollar industry. Don't be fooled by the lies, FIGHT THE ECO-TERRORISTS!!!

Molecular weight of oxygen

[Blancmange]

I did. I also checked out the molecular weight of oxygen, nitrogen and argon. There's no way oxygen can exist anywhere near ground level. There, the air is made entirely of argon.

If you want to breathe oxygen, you'll have to go up several hundred metres. Unfortunately, it will be relatively pure, highly corrosive even to organic materials and a terrible fire risk. To be safe, you'll have to go up much higher in the atmospheric layer cake to the boundary between the oxygen and nitrogen layers.

Re:Molecular weight of oxygen

[Snaller]

"If you want to breathe oxygen, you'll have to go up several hundred metres. "

So what am I breathing here at ground level?

Re:Molecular weight of oxygen

[PhysicsPhil]

"If you want to breathe oxygen, you'll have to go up several hundred metres. "

So what am I breathing here at ground level?

Give him a break...he's suffering oxygen deprivation.

Re:Molecular weight of oxygen

[BlueStrat]

"If you want to breathe oxygen, you'll have to go up several hundred metres. "

So what am I breathing here at ground level?

[Morphius]"You think that's air you're breathing?"[/Morphius]

Strat

Re:Molecular weight of oxygen

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for a basic physics review. According to the Boltzmann distribution, modulo complications such as atmospheric mixing, the concentration of any individual kind of gas falls of exponentially with height. The exponent varies with the molecular weight of that gas. Therefore lighter gases are a smaller proportion of the atmosphere relative to heavier gases near the bottom of the atmosphere and are relatively more abundant up high. But for any individual gas, the highest possible concentration is on the ground.

Unlike liquids, gases cannot form into a layer cake with no mixing between layers.

Re:Molecular weight of oxygen

[Blancmange]

Snaller:

So what am I breathing here at ground level?

Um, I was taking the piss out of pipingguy's often-used and tiresome excuse for an argument, "Check out the molecular weight of CO2 sometime", which implies that he really does believes the gasses in the atmosphere are neatly stacked in layers, sorted by molecular weight.

Why some people choose to believe this is a topic worthy of a whole new thread.

Re:Molecular weight of oxygen

[Mashiki]

So what am I breathing here at ground level?

"Quad-Mix"

Re:Separation of Science and States

[Anonymous Coward]

(I'm the AC that also responded to you). After doing some research into their claims, I came across this: impossible dinosaurs. Their claim is as follows:

"Most conventional theories assume that gravity throughout the universe has always been and will always be a constant property of matter. ... The Electric Universe offers a different point of view. Gravity is not a constant. It's a variable that depends on the plasma environment. So Earth in the Mesozoic Era may have had less gravity than it has today. Holden calculates that in order for the largest dinosaurs to function, gravity must have been at least 1/3 (and possibly as low as 1/4) what it is today."

It took a fair amount of effort to dig up the relevant papers regarding changes in the gravitational constant. (Short answer for the mathematically challenged: it hasn't changed). I'd also point out that if gravity was 1/3 to 1/4 of what it was today, the moon wouldn't have remained in orbit.

The original slashdot article had a post detailing what their predictions were. They were wrong.

Let's just call bad science when we see it. Plasma cosmology predicts few things. When it has tried to, it failed. Much like the yeti, flat earth, luminous aether and timecube, it probably won't go away any time soon. But it really should.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[im_thatoneguy]

I would agree with that. Unfortunately the number who actually commited to an honest look at religion are on the fringes with little real power to influence the organization.

I'm an atheist but I largely agree with my dad (a PhD Theologian). Many theologians are quite sound in their reasoning. Unfortunately honest and thoughtful discussion on a subject is often regarded as 'lack of faith' and as such pushed aside as dangerous liberalization.

The strongest defenders of something are often the least likely to honestly appraise the various merits of all possible outcomes. And these are the people who often then rise through their commitment to the top ranks of an organization. Pragmatism is rare at the top of an ideological organization.

Now don't let me confuse you by saying that I don't think someone can or should be nearly certain about something. I'm pretty much certain that both Gravity and Evolution are true. When there is overwhelming evidence for something you can start to pretty safely say something is or is not likely to be true. And I would say global climate change research reached that point some time ago. The empirically defensible position with GW should imo be skeptical acceptance. Most peope who have a problem with Global Climate change don't have anything to say about the data on the subject. They just spend all their time taking anecdotal comments "Well it was really cold this winter".

   

Re:Separation of Science and States

[doshell]

It is time for science to be market-driven rather than socialist in nature.

That would essentially amount to enslaving all scientists to the desires of big corporations. No research would take place unless it led to an immediate big buck.

Science is not about making money or inventing ways to make money. Science is about the pursuit of knowledge, even when it gets you no tangible gain.

If you think that's a pointless goal, you should think how much of today's technology would have been possible if we hadn't researched "pointless science" decades or centuries ago. Would the "free market" be willing to invest in that science by then, when no one could see the potential applications?

But honestly, I for one don't think the pursuit of knowledge (with no strings attached) is a pointless goal. I think it is a rather worthwhile one.

over the past 30 years, the sea ice has expanded.

[Joce640k]

...and they only just noticed? You'd think they'd have spotted this trend a few years ago.

It doesn't really prove much either way, things fluctuate.

The only two things we know for sure are that CO2 is related to temperature and that man is busy dumping CO2 into the air like there's no tomorrow (and also chopping down CO2-absorbers so he can breed billions of cows which produce even worse gases).

2+2=?

Short time ice growth or not, I'm still betting the answer to that is '4'.

The Planet is Fine

[chill]

A bit from George Carlin, the Big Electron rest his soul...

* * *

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet? I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn'

About the same time

[Quila]

The same time as Stallman becomes Microsoft's leading evangelist.

Al Gore will NEVER be wrong. Does a Christian think Christ could have been wrong? You don't question the prophet of your religion. Remember that cult psychological phenomenon where when the prediction of the cult is proven wrong people just redouble their belief? The same will happen here because GW/GC/CC is being followed as a religion, not as a science.

Re:About the same time

[Gerzel]

By some yes, by others no.

  In fact the dismissal of these things and other anti-liberal/leftist views are just as much a dogma to others, though not a full blown religion, at least to most.

Re:About the same time

[Gerzel]

Both sides have their dogma.

Curse /. lack of an edit feature!

Re:About the same time

[Zashi]

Same thing happens with environmentalists, animal activists, vegans / raw food dieters. Dear god, the raw foodies are just /awful/.

Case in Point

[DesScorp]

That's not a bad point.

For the last few years, guys with the slightest connection to anything even remotely connected to the climate and weather are being called "climate scientists" or "climate change expert." Huh?

Case in point: David Suzuki, a Canadian zoologist who has done all his professional work in genetics. Somehow, he became a climate scientist in the press. This is also the guy that said " climate change deniers", especially ones in politics, should be jailed for their "crimes".

Re:Case in Point

[Arthur Grumbine]

Well he has been given a crapload of honorary doctorates - some of them must be in some kind of climate-related field...therefore, he's a "Doctor" of Climate Change. Reporters don't know/care-about the difference between honorary and earned degrees, let alone between active scientist and self-righteous messiah.

Blasphemer!

[mrmeval]

Heretic!
Earth killer!
LIES!

Re:So

[Arthur Grumbine]

Hush you! He's too busy being insightful to find any references...

Re:Separation of Science and States

[Anonymous Coward]

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really
good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change
their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really
do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are
human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot
recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Global Warming is 50% politics, 50% religion and 10% science.

And yes, they certainly are giving it 110%.

Re:So

[Paltin]

Except that this doesn't disagree with the predictions made by scientists.

Let me explain:

First, ice thickness in Antarctica isn't controlled by temperature... as long as the temperature stay below freezing, which it does. Instead, the control on thickness is the amount of precipitation.

The IPCC predicts increased precipitation in the Antarctic to the tune of 25%. Just look up the IPCC report on climate change on confirm this.

Secondly, you should understand that the predictions are that there is an increase in average temperature; but not a uniform increase in temperature everywhere. Some places will see an increase, and some places a decrease, in temperature, precipitation, and other climatic variables.

You are right that we shouldn't believe people just because they have a powerful media presence. I personally recommend my alternative: knowing the facts.

polar region climate change

[phossie]

The thing a lot of people seem to be missing here is that the two poles are very different. Yes, they are poles, and have some similarity in the style of their extremes. But Antarctica is a continent surrounded by oceans. The Arctic is primarily ocean.

There are two really obvious related factors in the Arctic. One factor is, oddly enough, the melting point of sea ice. And the frequently overlooked part of that is that *it's a state change*. At a threshold temperature, the stuff changes state. So subtle changes in the central tendency of an oscillation around the melting point can bring the system suddenly out of apparent equilibrium and into... feedback. One factor is albedo. With less reflection from the sea ice, there's more thermal absorption, which leads to less reflection... feedback.

The *real* problem with the global warming evidence is that it's more and more frequently explained in simplistic terms by people who don't understand it, resulting in backlash. There are also a ton of advocacy people out there who lack actual scientific background. These are really complicated systems, and one of the reasons we model them is that they're too complicated for any one person to understand every single aspect; models are a sane way to integrate the results of studies requiring disparate expertise (or at least different people).

And yes, colder winters, longer summers, whatever... as you've pointed out, talking about this is useless without at least a clear and common reference. This story pulls one very interesting result out of context and into casual conversation. So I suppose I'll be going now. I would highly recommend a literature search to you. It's not difficult stuff to understand, experiment by experiment, it's just an incredibly complex set of interactions combined with frustrating (i.e. real-world) experimental conditions.

Re:polar region climate change

[Illserve]

These are really complicated systems, and one of the reasons we model them is that they're too complicated for any one person to understand every single aspect; models are a sane way to integrate the results of studies requiring disparate expertise (or at least different people).

I am a modeller, and I simulate the brain a system which is also mind bogglegingly complicated.

The secret ingredient that makes modelling work as an enterprise is the ability to make predictions, and then test them through experimental manipulations. The reasoning is that if your model captures a gem of truth, then it should be able to accurately predict data that you as the experimenter haven't seen yet.

Or at least, that's the theory. The ugly truth is that even in brain science that's a standard which is rarely lived up to.

And the situation is bound to be worse with modelling in climate science. One cannot even perform experiments because we don't have multiple earths to play around with.

So, while modelling is a way for scientists to explore theories and communicate, as you indicate, I fear that the climate modelling process is fundamentally bankrupt because it's impossible to run experiments for the purpose of testing models.

They do make pretty pictures though. A video of a virtual earth turning from blue to orange is extremely compelling!

expected

[speedtux]

I'm not sure what people are trying to prove here. Global warming leads to increased evaporation and so you expect some areas of the Antarctic to accumulate more snow and ice for a while. Furthermore, at the current levels of warming, you wouldn't expect anything to melt in the interior of Antarctica yet. None of that tells us anything about whether global warming is a threat or not. By the time the ice sheets in the interior of Antarctica would start to melt, we'd already have much bigger problems on our hands elsewhere.

Re:So

[geekoid]

You might want to read the article. you are making your self look foolish.
This has to do with one specific area, meanwhile the rest is still melting.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[geekoid]

Too bad places where it is in there best interest for there not to be global warming agree it is happening? and that they are 90% convinced it's man made.

There is a larger market in there not being global warming.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[geekoid]

A specific are of the arctic cover.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[geekoid]

Yeah, no tests and moving goal posts for the win.
They are the poster people for logical fallacy.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[ignavus]

I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

I suppose he is not quite old enough to remember the Reformation.

Re:So

[Gerzel]

Just like yourself, and me!

Re:Separation of Science and States

[shutdown -p now]

There is a HUGE market for evidence AGAINST global warming, just as there is a huge market for evidence FOR.

One thing I don't get in such claims is, where are the "for" money supposed to be coming from? In the "against" lobby, the business interests affected are crystal clear: oil companies first and foremost, but also manufacturers of all products that rely on oil combustion (carmakers, aircraft makers etc). But who's cashing in on "for"? Solar panel and wind turbine producers? Sounds like a very small market today to me, I doubt there's enough money there to match the Big Oil. Who else? From some /. posts, it's almost as if Al Gore and his Evil Environmentalists throw money left and right at anyone who supports GW just for the sake of being evil - so that more people lose jobs, etc. This doesn't make sense.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[shutdown -p now]

Actually, this happens often in religion, once you reach a certain level, just like it happens in science once you reach a certain level. Like science, which has those to claim to follow it yet know little, and defend that knowledge incorrectly, you also get people raised with a religion who claim to follow it, defend it illogically because it's all they know, yet fail to understand what real religion is all about.

The problem with religion is that you have a bunch of people who have supposedly reached the "highest level", and yet they say about each other that all other guys fail to understand what real religion is all about, because each has his own definition of "real". Get a rabbi, a mufti, and a priest into a single room - how many years do you think it would take for them to come to a consensus? My own estimate is +INF.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[shutdown -p now]

I tried doing that once with the flat-Earthers to figure out how it all worked. After reading about 10,000 posts of back-and-forth I decided that sometimes the crazy theories really are crazy and not worth investigating.

Can you provide a link to places where one may read those thousands of posts debating Flat Earth theories, please?

What's up with Slashdot

[SoftwareArtist]

What's up with Slashdot constantly posting these stories trying to deny global warming? It's silly, and really kind of pathetic.

Vast amounts of data related to climate change have been collected over a period of decades. Thousands of scientists have spent years analyzing that data. And those scientist have overwhelmingly concluded that global warming is real.

Then some journalist comes across one random data point - say, that the ice thickness at one particular station in Antarctica has increased - and they start jumping up and down and saying, "Global warming is a lie!" And you can be sure that Slashdot will publicize it.

Let me put it bluntly: the people who actually understand the earth's climate, who have looked at ALL the data and know how to interpret it, are almost unanimous is saying that global warming is real. Unless you're an atmospheric scientist yourself and know as much about it as they do, maybe you should listen to what they say instead of pretending to know things you don't.

Re:What's up with Slashdot

[drwho]

There is also evidence against global warming, and reputable scientists that oppose the idea. While each piece of evidence needs to be exposed, those which seem to weaken a theory need to be paid particular attention.

Now, if you are complaining that Slashdot seems to be a bit sensationalist, I might agree.

Re:What's up with Slashdot

[cagrin]

Because the "Global Warming" based on CO2 myth is nothing more than propaganda by the "elite" to justify their carbon taxes, and they had this planned decades ago before "global warming" became fashionable. You know why they choose CO2? Because that's what you breath out!

Re:What's up with Slashdot

[SoftwareArtist]

"A little learning is a dangerous thing."

The earth's climate is incredibly, ridiculously complex. Looking at one data point is completely meaningless, and claiming that any single data point supports or refutes global warming is downright irresponsible. See, for example, some of the posts above explaining why global warming is actually expected to make Antarctic winters colder (but shorter). And see the replies to those posts, in which thoroughly ignorant people call this religion and mock them for trying to explain away evidence that "obviously" refutes global warming.

Don't fool yourself into thinking you know more about the earth's climate than the people who spend their whole lives studying it. Don't think they're unaware of this data. Don't think they haven't thought about it far more carefully than you have. And then listen to what they say.

Of course there are reputable scientists that oppose the idea. That's how science works. Scientists are permitted, even encouraged, to challenge widely held viewpoints. But science works by consensus, and the overwhelming consensus is that global warming is real.

Re:What's up with Slashdot

[Troed]

science works by consensus

It most certainly does NOT. Where on earth did you get that from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

To verify AGW according to the scientific method (and I subscribe to Popper's ideas here) you would want a few models created according to some hypothesises (for example, that increased atmospheric CO2 cause increased global temperatures) and then you'd test those models with real data. If they don't fit the data, they're falsified.

That's what has happened in the last decade. The models have shown one thing, the world another.

According to the scientific method, that means it's time for some other hypothesis to step forward. There are a few.

Re:Solutions?

[SnapShot]

This didn't deserve to be modded down. What is a sustainable human population? That needs to be brought into every conversation about the economy and the environment.

Drought

[MrKaos]

I wonder if there is a relationship between loss of ice cap ice and drought? What I mean is, if the snow isn't replenishing an ice cap does that mean it's perceived to be melting faster? I'd be curious to know what the snow falls in Antarctica were while we were having that big drought in Australia (it didn't rain at my place for nearly two years, and I live 5 min walk from the ocean!!!). Now it's raining again (you don't really know how much you can miss the sound of rain until you haven't heard it for a while) and Antarctica seems to be getting more snow, so is there a connection?

I swim on the eastern side of Australia (north of Sydney) and for the last few years the ocean temperature has been quite cold in comparison to what (I perceive) is normal during summer, and I'm not he only person to notice. When summer is mild and the ocean is cold that's understandable, but this summer it was hot and the ocean was *still* cold. I can easily swim out 100 metres and it's about 3-5 metres deep. you expect the top metre or so to be warm and as you dive down it gets chilly, this summer all chilly. I know it's hardly scientific but it seems like *something* is going on. Maybe more ice was replaced than melted(?)

Re:Separation of Science and States

[khayman80]

Nowhere do you see that more clearly than in cosmology, as highlighted by the Electric Universe folks. I don't care whether you believe in the Electric Universe theory or whether you think it's a load of crap (though, all people I've encountered who felt that way had one thing in common - they were not very familiar with it). It's not the theory that I really want to mention here. It's the associated writings which represent an excellent critique of what modern science has become. Those can be found at thunderbolts.info and at holoscience.com.

I've been following your otherwise insightful and reasonable comments for some time, so I'm utterly astonished to see you say this. The "Electric Universe" is essentially a conspiracy theory, and I've recently discussed it here. In short, I see no reason to take them more seriously than I do young earth creationist or 9/11 Truthers. They're ignored because the claims they're making are nonsensical, not because science has become "religious and un-scientific."

If you still think I'm being dogmatic after reading that discussion, please let me know because I've been desperately looking for someone qualified enough to defend the electric universe. All subjects require a devil's advocate.

Then move a bit away from the damn coast...

[bazmonkey]

...think of the economic stimulation! Jobs everywhere from slowly having to move people a few miles inland, an excellent opportunity to build and house a large percentage of the population in new, green houses that'll do all sorts of... green things, and a compelling event to give governments a good reason to re-do public transportation and high-speed rail lines!

There is a middle way. We'll give it a good go and try to tone down our impact on the planet, but chew on this: humans, and the mammals/birds we keep (not including fish, but dogs, cats, pet birds, cattle, horses, sheep, oxen, goats, chickens, turkeys, ducks, etc.) account for 98% of terrestrial land creatures by mass. Much of the world's land now exists solely to sustain us and our various zoological friends. Maybe... JUST MAYBE, our existence is gonna leave a mark no matter what, by our sheer numbers alone. So try as we may, it just may be too little to matter. But if that's the case, we'll be ok. I refuse to believe that what ever little bit of the climate we cause is because of what we've done since we've known enough to realize what we were doing, so it's no use getting all pissy because we've having a hard time weaning ourselves off of the things that essentially have powered humanity since we knew how to use the stuff.

Maybe there shouldn't be six billion people.

...Of course we're not going to kill anyone. Or neuter them. We just need to make less babies. I won't have a kid, for humanity. Plus, I'm American. We consume upwards of 30 times as much as some peoples around the world. Me not having a kid is gonna save humanity a lot of stuff in the long run.

You're welcome!

Re:Read the AC post below

[Phat_Tony]

Wait a minute this is getting hilarious:

We know the earth is getting warmer.

OK, how, do we know the earth is getting warmer?

where does your line come from? Show it to me, please. Credible data from one or more credible sources clearly showing this trend you claim.

Seriously, didn't you just state as fact exactly the thing you're excoriating me for claiming in the post that started this thread?

Did you, per chance, not actually pay any attention to my post before replying, and just assume I must have said something about "anthropogenic" or "greenhouse" or something in there? Because I made no claim at all about carbon emissions, etc. I'm actually not a proponent of anthropogenic global warming, I don't know if it's greenhouse gases, Milankovitch cycles, some other natural trend, or some combination. I'm just saying that the earth's getting warmer. I didn't cite a source because, seriously, like I'm going to try to rehash all available data/sources to prove one side of one of the most contentious issues of our time in a Slashdot post. I was just pointing out that global warming can be consistent with things like increasing snowfall in certain regions, so while this is interesting research, it isn't particularly relevant to the greater issue of global warming. While, in my view, there's significant scientific uncertainty in the factors causing the earth to warm up, I haven't seen any credible science claiming that, for at least the past 20 years or so, there hasn't been some warming trend. And now I'm confused about whether you want data showing the warming trend I claimed in my first post or not, since now you say "we know the earth is getting warmer." Anyway, here's a link regarding the satellite data.

Different Gandhi

[mangu]

I love Gandhi

Are you aware that Indira Gandhi is not the same person one usually refers to as simply "Gandhi"?

But I must say I agree with the rest of your comment, the US is the biggest polluter and owes the rest of the world some respect. We all share the same planet.

And going back to the article, this shows the typical tactics of people who don't want to do their part in fighting global warming. They try to imply that the enormous amount of evidence that has been collected demonstrating the anthropogenic influence in global warming is just a bunch of isolated data. Yet they want to use one single measurement as evidence that there really isn't something like a sudden raise in temperatures over the last few hundred years that's more abrupt than anything ever seen on earth.

Re:But what kind of crops?

[Splab]

Uhm.

4 inches = 10 cm. The worlds ocean has already risen that much, compared to for instance 1920s we now have 20 cm more water than then. The forecast for the next 100 years is somewhere between 9 cm and 90 cm.

While 10 cm might not seem like such a big deal it will cause corrosion of the cost lines at a higher pace. If we get the other end of the scale we are in for some real fun since most of the worlds population is located very close to water.

Now a meter might not seem like much, but having one more meter of water will cause massive floods during storms, just look at the fun the US had with Katrina, now imagine you don't need a cat. 5 hurricane to cause those kinds of floods.

Groenland and the North-west passage

[delepster]

I say that the warming of the North Pole seems to more politcally and environmentally important than Antartica, right now. Politically, a passage through the North-West and the energy potential of the Arctic ocean will generate great political tensions. Environmentally, the melt of the Groenland glacier will cool the Gulf Stream and inject significant uncertainty in the gobal climate.

Local thickness == anectotal "evidence"

[Hurricane78]

Sorry, but what has a local drilling to do with the total mass? It's like saying that I slimmed down because I'm 10 cm shorter in body height.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[nizo]

The question is: is more accumulating, or is it thicker because ice is sliding in from further inland?

A __VERY__ worrying change

[omb]

You note that an Australian politician is so entranced by "Global Warming", insisting that the ice is melting when his own scientists contradict this view.

Truly Environmentalism is becoming a new religon, and needs to be treated similarly, separated from government.

When will people stop getting their science

[hey!]

analysis from Rupert Murdoch?

There is no citation to follow, not even enough information to find a citation. There's only a recounting of selected remarks by Dr. Allison that the reporter thought most likely to sway our opinion.

When you've got a published study you can cite, you've got something to make an argument from. One study isn't conclusive, but at least it's negatable, which Murdoch "journalism" is by design not. Remember the polar bears? Millions of people are still confused by Murdoch's "science journalism".

Anybody who "cites" an article like TFA as proof of anything only demonstrates his own ignorance.

A prophet is a prophet

[Quila]

All he needs is believers.

My dogma is skepticism and wariness

[Quila]

Skepticism is healthy in science. Yet Al Gore just the other day said there is no more to debate, the issue is settled. So did Arianna Huffington. Obama talks about it as if it were a real thing instead of a relatively young scientific theory still being researched. Attitudes like that do not belong in science. They are more often seen in religions -- "I believe, and that's it, end of discussion."

The wariness comes from the same wariness I have with religions, in that they often like to force their views on others. You can see that politicians all over the world are gearing up to force the global warming religion on everybody. Many of them don't even have motives related to any climate change, as one delegate in Brazil said the core of any solution needs to be a redistribution of wealth.

Disallowing skepticism and having alternative political motives pretty much kills global warming as any kind of science for me.

Re:My dogma is skepticism and wariness

[tbannist]

While I agree with you that skepticism is generally a good idea, you also have to acknowledge that there are limits to how skeptical you can be. At some point you have to say, "yes the evidence is good enough to accept" or else you'll never ever do anything because you'll be paralyzed by your skepticism.

I don't think it's a case of disallowing skepticism, I think it's a case of the skeptics not having anything useful to contribute. A large part of the intolerance of these skeptics is fueled by the perception that they are funded by those who profit from inaction even as that inaction endangers their own lives and the lives of others.

Re:So

[tchdab1]

>>I can easily imagine an ice cap melting somewhere in the antarctic, raising the humidity, and a good portion of that water vapor attaching and freezing again somewhere else where it's cooler.

I can easily imagine an ice cap melting, and replaced by an erupting volcano of vanilla ice cream, chocolate sauce, and spewing big red cherries.

But for what is happening and is going to happen to the environment, I prefer observation and the scientific method.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[causality]

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. -- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Actually, this happens often in religion, once you reach a certain level, just like it happens in science once you reach a certain level. Like science, which has those to claim to follow it yet know little, and defend that knowledge incorrectly, you also get people raised with a religion who claim to follow it, defend it illogically because it's all they know, yet fail to understand what real religion is all about.

When I see "religion" in that context, I take it to mean organized, institutionalized religion. That's especially true when it's mentioned together with politics in that fashion. It is my belief that the true seeking is always an individual, personal thing. Another person can show you the way if they are advanced enough to combine a good explanation with the good example of who they are and how they live their life, so it can be shared, but words alone are empty and cause much confusion. Only a mere facsimile of it, that is, a description about it rather than the real thing, can be transmitted in the form of large organizations and chapters and verses.

In that sense, I believe that organized religion actually holds back the spiritual progress of many people because it provides them with a map and never explicitly explains to them that the map is not the territory. That's why you can walk into almost any church and find people who don't truly love one another, who judge you by your outward appearance, who have their little cliques and circles instead of true unity, and who can be just as petty and superficial as the general population. This is possible because those folks have an intellectual description that allows them to believe that they have understanding when they really don't. The evidence of the real Oneness is compassion, loving-kindness, and grace towards all beings combined with a patience that does not permit you to become angry or upset even when doing so is easily justified.

Subway stop

[drwho]

I guess I've been in the Boston area too long. I was wondering why there was Ice in the subway station, and why I hadn't seen it. OoPs! But the Davis stop on the subway does have XKCD in it.

Re:Solutions?

[cagrin]

With some effort, the entire population of the earth can currently be housed fairly comfortably in the state of Texas (and no i'm not kidding). The idea that the population has to be reduced is propaganda by the "elite" because a large population is much harder to control by a handful (a few thousand) people. "They" have been working at slowly killing us for a long time now (engineered diseases, pollution, etc). Free energy has been available since at least the 1950's and it's been denied from the general public. Wake the fuck up please...thanks.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[dkf]

For example, [in their model] gravity is actually caused by the flat plane of the Earth accelerating. To which, somebody might ask, "Wouldn't we accelerate to the speed of light?" Well, no, because acceleration is asymptotic in their reference frame. What they don't answer is, "Wouldn't you need infinite energy to keep accelerating and where does this energy come from?"

Actually, even in conventional (i.e. Einsteinian) reference frames you can still accelerate at a constant rate for infinitely long because your mass increases asymptotically as your velocity increases towards the speed of light.

Your point about the infinite energy is a good one though.

Written like a true believer

[Quila]

Now let's turn to the Book of Gore, Chapter 5, to determine my punishment for being an infidel.

Hell, your religion even has its own version of indulgences, they're called Carbon Credits. This way your prophet gets to put out probably 50 times the CO2 that I do (When was the last time I took a private jet everywhere? Oh yeah, never.) and still look pure in the eyes of the followers.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[CarpetShark]

Get a rabbi, a mufti, and a priest into a single room - how many years do you think it would take for them to come to a consensus? My own estimate is +INF.

Happens all the time, in worldwide interfaith conferences, peace conferences, charity projects, etc. There are entire books by religious people, devoted to exploring only the common ground. See Jack Kornfield's "After the Ecstacy, the Laundry", for instance, which is all about how leaders in each faith have similar problems to each other (and indeed, to every other human being).

Re:So

[CarpetShark]

Only that possibilities like these have to be considered too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

Re:So

[Moridineas]

Wow, you go from "That doesn't mean that the warm currents aren't having a devastating effect overall" (avoiding the double negative, you're claiming warm currents ARE having a devastating effect??) to "possibilities" have to be considered....and the article to which you link even poo-poos the theory.

Seemingly a big difference...

Re:So

[CarpetShark]

Whatever conflict you imagine between "doesn't mean" and "possibilities" is only in your intepretation, I'm afraid.

Re:So

[Moridineas]

You're really telling me--and without being completely disingenuous--that when you wrote "that doesn't mean that the warm currents aren't having a devastating effect overall" you were NOT claiming that there is clear and present damage from warm currents? People don't typically write things using such phrases as a "devastating effect overall" and then go on to discuss non-mainstream hypotheticals which are not backed up by even mainstream global warming supporters? As I said, the only link you could manage to come up with to support your position WEAKENED your position.

It's your kind of hysterical alarmism that I find very bothering about the global warming movement. If that's the best you can do, I find that pretty sorry.

Re:As a "peer reviewer" myself

[Garse Janacek]

I feel obliged to tell you that you far overstress the "peer review" process as a way of assuring scientific accuracy. ... Peer review serves to ensure that the community believes the subject of the publication is considered novel enough and important enough in its eyes, and to prevent publication of obvious non-academic garbage.

And yet, global warming deniers still don't publish in peer-reviewed journals. I wonder which of those filtering constraints they fail to satisfy...

(I know, I know, it's TEH CONSPIRACY)...

Re:So

[CarpetShark]

You're really telling me[...]you were NOT claiming that there is clear and present damage from warm currents?

I was not, no. I really couldn't care either way if there is; personally I think global warming is an issue for all sorts of reasons, and currents, if they're a problem, are far from the biggest one. My only intent was to make the point that the article's logic might be flawed. You could even argue that we're on the same side, if you're against hystericalism for hystericalism's sake.

Re:So

[Moridineas]

I was not, no. I really couldn't care either way if there is...
  My only intent was to make the point that the article's logic might be flawed. You could even argue that we're on the same side, if you're against hystericalism for hystericalism's sake.

Fair enough--I apologize if I misinterpreted the tone of your original post, though I still don't manage to see how the logic of the original article is flawed?

We must increase warming

[Culture20]

before we run out of water!

Re:Separation of Science and States

[c6gunner]

I bet a climate scientist could have gotten plenty of money from the Bush Administration for arguing that manmade CO2 wasn't causing climate change

I'll take that bet! Can you demonstrate one such case? Just one? They had 8 years to pull it off, and Bushitler obviously hates polar bears, so surely there must be THOUSANDS, but I'll be happy with just one.

We are all confused

[Slur]

Libertarians believe in a free marketplace and goverment based solidly on our Constitution

Well that's good, because that's what we have.

Of course, "free" doesn't mean "unregulated." If you have a 500 foot man living next door, you've just got to set a few ground rules about where he steps and where he shits.

As for the Constitution, well some would say "the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid dog fighting, so get off my back!" Gotta watch out for those folks who think it embodies the whole of the law. It may form the root principles, but the whole of the law is a living thing, constantly evolving through precedent and experience.

And there is nothing inherently laissez-faire Capitalist about the Constitution either, nor should it be. If Capitalism turns out to be yet another avenue for tyranny, the Constitution would suggest we cut it off, since its primary aim is to establish protection for the powerless from the powerful, the have-nots from the haves, the minority from the majority, and to keep any emerging power from monopolizing the government, which is by, for, and of the people.

If anything, the Constitution points towards anarchist syndicalism or some form of socialism. Unfortunately it's easier and more lucrative for the programmers of culture to harness our fears and vices than to motivate our hopes and virtues.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[thesupraman]

Oh how sweetly innocent.

Taxation is THE largest industry on the planet, and CO2 tax is the latest game they have to play - and many people are for it! who needs religion or war!

Next, go and do some reading about who invented carbon trading, and find out why - there is a lot of big business in them there hills.

And lastly of course you think those oil/etc businesses are at all threatened by these things? thay are sitting there rubbing their hands together waiting for the flood of govt handouts to buy them away from 'bad' business practices.

THIS is why we see so little support of research showing there is no global warming - far from the BS GW supporters like to pull most of the big business support is FOR GW these days, due to the subsidies and govt. support they are up for.

Come on, its pretty basic stuff.

Re:So

[atraintocry]

References for the difference between weather and climate:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weather
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate

Re:Separation of Science and States

[atraintocry]

usefuless of the scientific method is really called into question

That's insane.

Re:So

[Moridineas]

You completely missed the point as well. If you reread my post, you'll see that in the first (of two) lines I quoted exactly what I was questioning. I'll put it here again, since you seem to have missed it:

That doesn't mean that the warm currents aren't having a devastating effect overall

Ergo, the need for a citation goes back to warm currents having a devastating effect. Still looking for evidence that "warm currents" are having a "devastating" effect.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[tbannist]

Well they did censor federally funded research that indicated that global warming was occurring:
http://environment.about.com/od/environmentallawpolicy/a/censorship_clim.htm

So that pretty much shows they were only willing to pay for research that showed it wasn't occurring. Is that good enough?

Re:Separation of Science and States

[c6gunner]

Well they did censor federally funded research that indicated that global warming was occurring:

Really? Can you prove it? That link you sent talks only about a random survey and unproven allegations made by James Hansen.

Surveys tell you more about the agenda of the person publishing them than they do about the truth, and Hansen is a zealot who once suggested that oil company executives should be put on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature". Therefore, I've got good reason to distrust his claims, as well as the results of that survey. If you've got any actual evidence, I'd be willing to reconsider my position.

Meanwhile, this:

So that pretty much shows they were only willing to pay for research that showed it wasn't occurring.

Is completely wrong. First off, Hansen, for one, constantly published research which showed that AGW was a real phenomenon, and he kept getting paid. So you fail, right off the bat. But, in addition to that, you've done nothing to show that the feds ever paid for even one single bit of research which contravened the AGW theory. So instead of showing that AGW detractors were funded and it's proponents were not, you've shown the exact opposite.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[tbannist]

You know who looks a Zealot? You.

Re:So

[atraintocry]

The point you're contending does not appear in the actual post. What was said was:

1. localized growth of ice does not rule out the possibility of overall warming.
2. having ice in increasingly warm water is devastating from the perspective of the ice, which has a tendency to melt.

There's no way that I'm going to give you a citation for ice melting.

Re:So

[Moridineas]

I think you're still confused. Here's the entirety of the post I first replied to:

What makes you think they're wrong? The Earth is not a constant temperature throughout. I can easily imagine an ice cap melting somewhere in the antarctic, raising the humidity, and a good portion of that water vapor attaching and freezing again somewhere else where it's cooler. That doesn't mean that the warm currents aren't having a devastating effect overall.

For your point #1, "overall warming" is something that you brought into this conversation (perhaps you are thinking of the OPs "not constant temperature throughput"), not mentioned by the OP or myself.

For your point #2, that's the crux of it--if "warm currents" are indeed having a "devastating" effect overall, where is this occuring? What is the devastating effect? How do the effect of "warm currents" today differ from currents 10,20,50 years ago, etc. Any of these questions would be interesting and informative to know the answers to. This is where I am still looking for specifics. MY first post...my 2nd reply to you...and now my 3rd reply to you have all been very simple, and about as clear as I can make then! Not sure how to ask the question any differently?

There's no way that I'm going to give you a citation for ice melting.

While a nice attempt to be cutesy, the fact remains that you--like the OP--have both been completely unable/unwilling to present the references I said I asked for. If "warm currents" are indeed having "devastating" effects somewhere, it should be easy to find some links. Have at it!

Re:So

[atraintocry]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081006180815.htm

It's not that the increased surface temperatures directly melt the ice, it's that they lead to increased storm activity, which causes more of the ice to drift out into warmer regions. Unfortunately I'm not seeing an actual paper to go with this, it looks like NASA put together a press release or something.

It's close enough, considering that he was speaking hypothetically, and you knew it. Run along now.

Re:So

[atraintocry]

OK, here's the actual paper:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034791.shtml

Re:Separation of Science and States

[c6gunner]

lol

I know you are, but what am I? :)

Re:Separation of Science and States

[Curtman]

Don't even bother trying to provide him with evidence.. He'll just claim you haven't provided any no matter how many links, quotes, pictures, audio, and video you show him. That is his entire strategy for debate.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[ivan256]

Scientists don't get funding from their peers. Admitting your wrong in certain scientific fields is practically begging to never get grant money again.

Re:So

[Moridineas]

That paper sounds interesting, unfortunately I can only read the paragraph synopsis--is there more available anywhere you're able to see? What strikes me as most interesting about the ONE PARAGRAPH you finally managed to link to is that the final sentence says:

It is speculated, with some observational evidence, that the increased stirring of the ocean by winds could hasten the transition of the Arctic toward a weakly stratified ocean with a potential for deep convection and a new sink for atmospheric CO2.

Now, for many of the global warming alarmists, carbon sinks are great things to find! I'm not exactly sure that this qualifies as disastrous? Could you clarify what in the article is disastrous? The synopsis doesn't mention widespread arctic melting (ice drift is mentioned--it would seem that greater melt might be expected, but not backed up by such as the link in this story), etc. What's disastrous?

It's close enough, considering that he was speaking hypothetically, and you knew it. Run along now.

It's nice that you actually hung around long enough to attempt to dig up an article to fit your preexisting point of view, but you really should work on being so cutesy when you're not doing a great job of representing your side of the debate. An unfounded statement is an unfounded statement, and trying to hide behind a shield of "Oh, well, I/he/she was just being hypothetical, I/he/she don't REALLY believe what we wrote..." is imho pretty horrible when it comes to such important matters.

Re:So

[atraintocry]

The post is about to fall off of my comments page, so this is your last opportunity to read and understand.

The AC said that this article automatically made global warming science "wrong", as if such a thing could be summed up in one word, and mentions Al Gore, as if he were a climate scientist.

A reply came:

I can easily imagine an ice cap melting somewhere in the antarctic, raising the humidity, and a good portion of that water vapor attaching and freezing again somewhere else where it's cooler. That doesn't mean that the warm currents aren't having a devastating effect overall.

(emphasis mine) This was a hypothetical argument intended to show the gap in logic present in the parent's post. It has nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe, it was very clear from the wording that this was a hypothetical argument.

Nonetheless, you, Moridineas, immediately saw a straw-man that you could set up and begin to knock down like a true internet tough guy. I posted an article because I thought that, even though it would be dangerous to validate your original whine about how nobody's defending this straw-man you built yourself (and therefore no one in the world but the climate change deniers have anything concrete to say), maybe it would demonstrate that not only are you grasping at straws, but the straws themselves are imaginary.

It was selfish, I admit. I couldn't bear the thought of you going to work and gloating about how those damned lieberals whine about imaginary ice but can't even give you the latitude and longitude of said imaginary ice. So I took a gamble.

I should have known better than to feed the troll. I am sorry, and you can consider this my formal apology to both you and myself.

Re:So

[Moridineas]

The AC said that this article automatically made global warming science "wrong", as if such a thing could be summed up in one word, and mentions Al Gore, as if he were a climate scientist.

No, actually you're still wrong. The original AC very specifically mentioned as wrong (direct quote) "elevated ocean levels and other disasters due to melting ice." Not the entire theory of global warming, etc. I'm not sure where you are finding evidence that the original AC claimed this article proves all global warming is false--I would ask you to point it out for me, but apparently by your standards, that is trolling. It's also interesting how you focus on his mention of Al Gore, when again, the original AC specifically said "If you don't like me mentioning Al Gore's name, insert the name of any of the other doom-and-gloom type of environmentalists"

(emphasis mine) This was a hypothetical [yahoo.com] argument intended to show the gap in logic present in the parent's post. It has nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe, it was very clear from the wording that this was a hypothetical argument.

No, read it again.

Sentence 1:

I can easily imagine an ice cap melting somewhere in the antarctic, raising the humidity, and a good portion of that water vapor attaching and freezing again somewhere else where it's cooler

THAT is the hypothetical. The poster was attempting to explain how the article could be right (ie, that ice is growing over most of the arctic) and at the same dangerous time melting could be occurring. (ie, Al Gore is not wrong)

Sentence 2:

That doesn't mean that the warm currents aren't having a devastating effect overall.

What does "That" refer to? "That" refers to sentence 1, the hypothetical. What the second sentence means is, even IF the article is true (ice growing over most of Antarctica), due to the theory in sentence 1, that still doesn't prove that "warm currents aren't have a devastating effect overall." REmember, this is in response to the original AC making a rather narrow point (not trying to disprove all global warming as you claim) about ocean levels and ice melting. Sentence 2 is NOT a hypothetical.

IMO, It's completely clear from the context here what is going on. What are you parsing differently?

It was selfish, I admit. I couldn't bear the thought of you going to work and gloating about how those damned lieberals whine about imaginary ice but can't even give you the latitude and longitude of said imaginary ice. So I took a gamble.

I should have known better than to feed the troll. I am sorry, and you can consider this my formal apology to both you and myself.

Honestly, since your first post you have displayed a shit-ton of anger and snideness here. Why so much sarcasm to a genuine question? I seriously don't get it. My original post was 6 words... What is it in 6 words that could POSSIBLY disagree with your world view that is so irritating to you? I really don't understand.

It's really lame to just label anyone you disagree with a troll, but unfortunately, that seems to more and more frequently be the level of discourse on slashdot these days. It wasn't always like this... In any case, since you've said you won't respond any further, thanks for responding as much as you did and keeping it reasonably clean.