Slashdot Mirror
Black Soot May Be Aiding Melting In the Himalayas
Hugh Pickens writes "The Himalayas, home to some 10,000 glaciers, are the main source of replenishment to lakes, streams, and some of the continent's mightiest rivers, on which millions of people depend for their water supplies. Since the 1960s, the acreage covered by Himalayan glaciers has declined by more than 20 percent with a rate of warming twice the global average over the past 30 years. Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon' — and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases — may be causing much of the rapid melting of glaciers in the Himalayas. 'Tibet's glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate,' says James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. 'Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt, and greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest.' The circulation of the atmosphere in the region causes much of the soot-laden air to 'pile up' against the Himalayas. The soot mixes with other dust from nearby deserts, creating a massive brown cloud visible from space that absorbs incoming solar radiation. As this layer heats up in the Himalayan foothills, it rises and enhances the seasonal northward flow of humid monsoon winds, forcing moisture and hot air up the slopes of the mountain range."
continent's mightiest rivers, on which millions of people depend for their water supplies.
It is more like hundreds of millions.
839*929
When you ride your ten-speed bike, you can usually spin the pedals backwards without any resistance whatsoever. It doesn't matter how fast you pedal backwards, you never will affect your forward momentum. The course you have already chosen remains unchanged.
So when we see scientists trying to come up with excuses for why ice packs are melting without a huge increase in global temperatures, we need to question both their motives and their data. Yes, we can see oceanic water levels rising *in certain localized areas*, but we aren't seeing the massive deluge that was predicted.
Hopefully we can finally put to bed the reality of global warming and focus on the real problem of global pollution.
(A + !B) != (A + B)
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
How long until the Abominable Smog Man evolves?
rewriting history since 2109
...which links to a god damn diagram, not an actual picture from space of a massive brown cloud. Way to fail submitter.
Global warming is clearly false. My evidence: It's so cold right now! And those emails which someone told me meant that all climate research was a scam. Give it up, hippies. You lost, we won, get over it.
i wasn't sure to believe until i saw the proof:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/himalayan_glaciers_h.jpg
Then I got very confused...
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
We have already noticed problems with soot. In fact I recall reading books about terraforming where soot was sprinkled on an ice cap, so the idea is pretty old.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
'Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt, and greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest.'
Becomes:
Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon' — and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases (...)
Quite shameless. I am almost impressed by the gall of the submitter...
The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong. Yet... if we started using renewable energy, it would still solve the problem.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Don't all apocalypse movies start with ominous scientific discoveries in remote geographical locations?
I hereby predict that within 4 or 5 years the UN will unveil a scheme to Save Mankind from, ummmmmmm, a passing neutron star. The scheme will feature a 1000 MT hydrogen bomb, spaceships, and short wave radio. Nicolas Cage, some hot babe, and a cute kid will survive...on Mars!
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Nuclear energy.
I'll admit I didn't read the article, but I don't understand how this is supposed to work.
If glaciers are responsible for the water supply, then if they don't melt, would these regions end up with no water at all?
Shouldn't these areas be depending on current precipitation for their water?
Or to put it another way, if these regions are depending on glacier melt from water accumulated hundreds of thousands of years ago, aren't they going to be screwed sooner or later? Either the melt isn't high enough and they don't have enough water, or the melt is too high and they'll run out later.
It would seem like the only sustainable situation would be if the melt equals new formation due to precipitation.
underneath we will have a shitstorm of politically biased comments
so i offer a third option, to climate change doubters and climate change believers:
1. who fucking cares whose fault it is
political recrimination gets us nowhere. its cold in the house because someone left the window open? ok, so you're going to sit there and scream at each other over who opened the window? here's a new idea: how about someone demonstrating actual responsibility and instead actually stand the fuck up, walk over, and close the fucking window: NO MATTER WHO LEFT IT OPEN
2. who fucking cares if we are heating up or cooling down or not changing
the fact is, we live here, and we are interested in controlling the thermostat. if it gets too cold, do something to turn it up. if it gets to hot, do something to turn it down. we are homo sapiens, this what we do: we do not adapt to our environment, we adapt our environment to us. we do not grow fur, we make clothes. we do not enter torpor at midday, we invent air conditioning
if you say we shouldn't mess with the weather, you are by extension denying the fact that we already are having an effect on the climate. so we might as well get involved with twiddling with the environment ON PURPOSE, because the notion that 6.5 billion humans can magically have no effect at all is a completely absurd premise on your part
this environmental attitude is the engineer's approach. fuck all of you capitalists, politicians, activists and hysterical whiners. the engineer will prevail here, because only we have the solution to what the rest of you simply bicker about
we need scientifically, factually sound well-researched methods for forcing change on our planet on purpose. and then we'll fix your fucking problem. something like seeding the dead zones of the ocean with iron
lets put it this way: make believe, for the moment, for the sake of argument, regardless of your beliefs, that
1. the earth is actually heating up
2. it is doing so because of nature, not man-made reasons
ok, well what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25%?
no, we artificially introduce methods for cooling the earth down. we do this, #1, for selfish reasons, but also for #2: a preservation of current species and ecosystems, as a side effect. are you going to let the amazon dry up because you don't like the idea of man fiddling with the environment?
yes, the planet could continue to evolve new species without human intervention. but what is really going to happen is that this planet is going to become a museum, under human supervision, of the current catalog of species and ecosystems that have evolved so far. why? because we want to fucking live here, that's why
so, for the deniers in opposition to supposition #1 above: if you don't believe the earth is heating up, you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate, and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point, correct?
and for the believers in man-made change in opposition to supposition #2 above: you believe that climate change is caused by man, you have to admit that to fix the problem we have to do it PROACTIVELY. please don't try to sell me the moronic bullshit that 6.5 billion humans can live on this planet like ghosts. this is a different kind of denial than those who deny climate change, but no less foolish
imagine that: no pointless recriminations and blame games, no living in denial and sticking your head in the sand
commence with the retarded partisan bickering anyway. meanwhile, us engineers will roll up our sleeves and will actually go and fix your fucking problem while you political assholes do nothing but bicker
more action, less "hot air"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong.
AGW skeptics have known about Asian black soot for 2-3 years. (It's also been found in Arctic pack ice and in the Colorado Rockies.)
I'm just glad that the "mainstream" has finally "noticed" it.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Since this goes against what I want to believe (and, worse yet, what massive corporations want to believe) this clearly must be bad science.
Sincerely,
Glen Beck
The Himalayas are obviously being heated by the methane gas produced by the hundreds of millions of vegetarians who live near them. Do you have a "solution" to that problem.
Seriously though, if CO2 is contributing, then nations that produce a lot of it need to spend their money finding ways to reduce their emissions (nuclear power plants, more efficient transportation, etc). A wealth transfer to poor countries won't help anything. And if solar cycles are the cause, there's not a darn thing humans can do about it except adapt.
Aerosal pollution over India and Bangladesh--2001
Haze over China--- 2003
Haze along the Himalaya Front Range --2004.
Smog over the bay of Bengal-- 2006
The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong. Yet... if we started using renewable energy, it would still solve the problem.
It's actually the Libertarians that are pushing much of this. They are currently allied with the "right wingers" as many of their goals are the same (smaller government, free market, local control).
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
the earth has had historic massive swings in climate, without any manmade input
obvious deduction:
even if you isolate all human effects, you're still going to have a dangerous heating up or cooling down at some point
therefore:
you are going to be involved in this sort of purposeful engineering at some point, no matter what humanity's effects are. the alternative is to just allow an ice age or the sahara covering half the globe and massive ecosystem/ species die off. that neglect is a superior approach?
so why not just sidstep all the pointless bickering and pointless blamegames and get down to proactive engineering now
we're going to be engineering our climate some day even if we all magically turn into environmental saints. you see that right?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
of the results of your actions in a complex situation
but you proceed anyways, because the alternative, doing nothing, is guaranteed to fail
what you seek: certain results from new strategies, is an impossibility, and should therefore never drive your decision making
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They could try getting glaciers to "marry" and produce children.
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/in-paper-magazine/sci-tech-world/glaciers-at-risk
http://www.umb.no/statisk/akrsp/06_publications_and_presentations/03_phd_and_masters_theses/5_ingvar_tveiten.pdf
The scientific bunch call it seeding. But the bunch who've been doing it for generations (way before the scientists figured it out) call it marrying.
The linked diagramm is a dead giveaway that this is more of a PR stunt than usefull scientific research. No matter what the verdict, fact is: we are putting to much polution into the atmosphere and we need to stop. That's a fact, and no lobbying otherwise will change it.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
the ability to plunge the entire planet into winter: just detonate all of our nuclear warheads
we won't do that. i'm simply countering your supposition that the earth is large and we are small. we WERE once so small as you believe. we aren't anymore
we're simply not going to accept the next ice age or the next sahara age. we're going to actively prevent it. when the amazon is drying up, and the taiga is melting, and the streets of london and shanghai are as venice, we will find the industrial, scientific and political willpower to oppose that
simply because massive ecosystem change will imperil billions on this planet and their economic well-being. we will therefore assemble to resist climate change. this is what we do: we are homo sapiens. we do not adapt to nature. nature adapts to us
if you don't understand or believe we have the power to alter our ecosystem, or that for some reason we won't alter our climate when climate change threatens us, manmade or natural, then you are in some sort of serious denial about what kind of creature we really are
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Acreage"? Really? What's wrong with "surface area"? Should we now call length "footage", and volume "gallonage"?
At the very least use SI square meterage. ;-)
Why don't they just use white soot instead?
There is heaviest snowfall in New York !
The Horror:
A rate of warming twice the global average over the past 30 years.
Ah, a reason:
'Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt,
and thus in line with the global average:
and greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest.'
Wonder how many people will be claiming that this proves GW isn't happening and that it isn't man-made (like black soot from human activities isn't man-made!). Oh well, time to read the comments I guess.
De-forestation is a signficant cause of glacial melting in the Himalayas.
That's trivially true for EVERYTHING, therefore is invalid. If there are competitors who ARE NOT polluting, then we move our money to them. Or don't you believe the free market and capitalism have catastrophically failed?
Global dimming, and this article, are actually based on real facts.
Pro-tip: "facts" aren't things which just happen to match your personal world view. Or: why confirmation bias is something to try and avoid.
Oh, and BTW, if you'd read the whole summary, you'd note that a) the himalayan glaciers are melting *much* faster than any others on the planet, well above the rate expected when global warming is taken into account, and b) soot can only attribute for about half the melting, leaving the other half to... you guessed it, global warming.
Lastly: The earth is not cooling. No, it really isn't. You can say it is over and over, chanting it with the rest of your denier friends, as I'm sure doing so makes you feel better, not to mention so very superior, but it's a lie, plain and simple.
renewable energy
A marketing fad suggesting that the second law of thermodynamics is not valid. That said, the core problem is that growth is not sustainable, but everybody tries to deny it.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Back in 1970, at Resolute Bay in the Canadian high arctic, I had a discussion with two scientists about global warming -- back then, the Arctic Ocean had increased in temperature by 2.7 degrees over the previous 40 years!!! One identified mechanism was soot from the atmosphere, a byproduct of combustion and to a lesser extent, volcanic ash. The amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of an entire ocean by this amount is staggering...
This soot reduces the albedo of the snow and ice, resulting in less incident energy being reflected back into space and the unreflected energy raising the local temperature.
For anyone who cares to look, "global warming" is a function of very many causes creating a frightening synergy, greenhouse gasses though probably being the main culprit.
This is more relevant to western society:
Pollution Clouds over the U.S.
Glacial Melting in Greenland
We have to act fast! To get started, you can get a great deal on LED lightbulbs through my eBay storefront!
Global average temperature has fallen last three years, you say earth is warming. one of us has problem with "facts". Guess that fact doesn't coincide with your Al Gore Climatology religion's world view.
And where do you exactly think the black soot comes from if not from Indian and Chinese coal plants? Oh my...
"And if solar cycles are the cause, there's not a darn thing humans can do about it except adapt."
you really believe that?
if climate change threatens our economic well being, you rest assured that century or two of focused scientific innovation and politically supported engineering and industrial policies will, without a doubt, counteract natural changes, like a cooling or a heating solar cycle cause
nuclear detonations at volcanic regions to cool things down under cloud cover (study factual little ice ages after massive historical volcanic eruptions in man's historical written record)
purposeful amping up of CO2 output to greenhouse effect heat things up
there's all sorts of things we can do
we have amazing technological abilities compared to just a century ago, nevermind what powers we will discover in another century or two
in 2 or 3 centuries, this entire planet will have a micromanaged climate, if civilization doesn't break down. then the issue will be political bickering between, for example, morocco wishing to do away with more sahara so it can can grow more crops, while brazil says this costs them money to counteract the related drying up of the amazon due to morocco's efforts. we already see this sort of environmental bickering between nations over the damming and controlling of rivers that cross national boundaries
lets put it this way: our ancestors would be in amazed awe at our ability to completely redirect an entire river if we wanted to, and as we frequently do in today's world. but ancient man, in looking at the hard work of beavers, would not think it in the realm of the impossible for us to do that one day
likewise, today, looking at how past volcanic eruptions have led to mini-ice ages, i, like ancient man before me looking at beavers, see that future micromanaging of our climate is not impossible, and will be someday a mundane matter-of-fact effort, like garbage disposal and plumbing
you just lack imagination and perception
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Global average temperature has fallen last three years
Uh, no, it hasn't. And even if it had, let me introduce you to a concept called "noise". Or: Why three years of data doesn't represent anywhere close to a trend.
But, keep lying in the face of facts. I'm sure it makes you feel so very much better.
how many hundreds? why are you so imprecise? is it 500 million? 200 million? are we forgetting 300 million due to laziness? that's just appalling.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You'll be crying when you're in the greatest depression in history. You won't have a job AND the world's farms will be turning into deserts, there will be no more fish to eat, and cows will be illegal to raise.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Have you got any in a different colour please?
that the Chinese put a railway right through the middle of Tibet either.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I don't know nor care about those living anywhere that has no winter and I'm not including to those in the south that wear parka's because it dips below 20c. Those people have no idea what winter is. For those that are again experiencing a real hard winter may have noticed how fackin unseasonably cold it is again this year. Once again the northern hemisphere is getting it up the ass again because that's the only warm place left. All this after another unseasonably cold summer. When will this cooling going to stop, before large numbers of the northern population have to move south, because they can't afford to live in the cold and pay the cost of heating.
Counter to the fudged numbers obtained by removing any weather stations reporting this cold from the data stream simply because it doesn't fit the preconceived model. Those in the north should just submit their heating bills showing the fuel consumption as data. This would likely be a more reliable method of plotting temperature the last several years. Oh and time is running out for the sea level to rise and flood us all. Each year that the sea level doesn't go up, means that in subsequent years the level has to rise by that much more in order to reach the target world flood. But I digress. All I see is snow and feel the cold, along with more and more arctic sea ice building up. Where is that ice free northwest passage? I want to book a cruise.
And the proponents of AGW have known about this for at least 6 years. And it was (as I recall) in the "mainstream" back then, if I recall correctly.
We have to stop the silly bickering about 'Global Warming/Climate Change'.
I think that most people are willing to
1) accept that our current consumption and development patterns are largely rooted in the availability of cheap oil and/or coal, and
2) agree that burning these fuels (indiscriminately) is both wasteful and polluting.
I'm going out on a limb here but also I think that few people truly understand the benefits/significance of carbon-trading.
IMHO, we need to first focus on making small changes that reduce our utter dependence upon fossil fuels. And then tackle the larger issues.
In the meantime, I fear that, collectively, we've got our heads in the sand and, in the absence of a 'global' solution, will risk doing nothing at all.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the Earth isn't a closed system.
We get an external energy input from the Sun, and emit energy into space. The amount of energy on the planet isn't constant. We could make it grow by reflecting less, or making it shrink by say, launching chunks of coal into space, or reflecting more energy.
That said, "renewable energy" is a bit of a misnomer, as oil will get created, at large enough timescales (though nowhere near fast enough to match consumption). On the other hand, so long the Sun is there we'll keep getting energy from it.
renewable via more direct solar input. Still more quickly replenished than oil.
Submitter, I have no trouble at all visualizing what "a massive brown cloud visible from space" would look like. I'm gonna need you though to go ahead an produce me a picture of this here event of which you speak.
the link says it all
there are engineers who get stuff done, and there are whining ignorant morons who take up space. that's pretty much the entire human race
technical universities: start assembling the geoengineering major programs of study now, to get a jump on the upcoming scholastic trend
liberal arts universities: start a program on reality tv programs. pffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i'll ask questions before shooting, if you promise to take action when the time is right
always mindlessly acting is just as dangerous as thinking deeply and never acting
there is just as much danger in your bias towards inaction as in my bias towards action
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You mean using the existing solar input 'better', as opposed to going to the the Sun and turning it up a notch or two, right?
sheesh.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Get caught in one lie, make up another, woo, woo!!!!
These guys are determined to control the world any way they can, who cares how many suffer and die.
Something that was a bit of a surprise about a nuclear war between Pakistan and India seems to be important here as well. Nuclear war between India an Pakistan would lift quite a lot of soot into the troposphere because of all the combustible material in cities. It turns out that solar heating of that soot causes the heated air parcels to rise into the stratosphere. That means that the soot does not fall out right away and is spread over the globe, blocking sunlight and cooling the planet enough to cause crop failure and famine around the world. http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47829/story.htm
This same mechanism is playing a similar though smaller role here by causing stronger updrafts. Interesting confirmation.
It's actually the Libertarians that are pushing much of this. They are currently allied with the "right wingers" as many of their goals are the same (smaller government, free market, local control).
And, as is typical of the ideological zealot, any evidence which may cast doubt on the practicality of their goals is rationalised away. Or just outright denied, and the messengers attacked.
If this was presented as a pollution problem, you could get the right-wingers on board. After all, Edmund Muskie sponsored the Clean Water Act in 1971, and despite Nixon's veto it was overrriden and became law. Republican members pretty much have supported it. When the EPA gets back to pollution control, they will find many right-wingers willing to support these efforts.
Sadly, they will also find many right- and left-wingers unwilling to pretend that any pollution controls within the U.S. will solve any significant global pollution problems. The developing countries will resist joining in, as it will raise costs and diminish growth, and China is quite literally a black hole of pollution with no intention of limiting growth or raising costs to even halt the increases, much less reduce.
In a way, we are entering a perfect storm of globalization, massive industrial development, fossil fuels as a
cheap path to industrial prosperity, and the attendant rise in global pollution and genuine climate impact. CO2 is not so much of a problem as particulates, but it is much easier to sell punishing the developed countries rather than set new standards and prevent the avalance of underdeveloped countries spewing so much more. China will eclipse the US in this impact, if they haven't already, and we have no prospects of limiting their spew. Africa is next, and more is the pity, since Africa could be a miraculous eco-economy if they could bear to live a little below their industial potential and stop killing one another so wantonly. South American is well on its way to completely developing their lands, with the requisite loss of habitat and forest. We may one day realize that the deforestation of the Amazon did more to ruin Earth than every car and coal power plant ever built. And there are other forests under attack.
If were only so simple, but this global problem is not being addressed globally yet. And I see little hope for it to be so any time soon. Many developing countries want to 'get theirs', and get it now, figuring they can get the developed countries to either give up theirs, or fix it in technology. We might be able to, but probably not, unless it is a truly global solution. And there is no forum to discuss this honestly, so it will continue.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Anyone who has lived in a snow prone city in the spring will tell you that the soot covered snow is the last to melt.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
No matter what the verdict, fact is: we are putting to much polution into the atmosphere and we need to stop.
Really? Because I thought we were trying to reduce CO2, which we breathe out and plants like a lot.
If you really want to stop pollution, then you better get on with changing the AGW people's minds because they are doing nothing to address pollution that's not "CO2 pollution". Like black soot...
But that's what happens when you decide the science is settled and don't let people ask questions about what is really the root issue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Which "last three years" are you cherry-picking? 2006 through 2008? 2008 was a La Nina year.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
that is, a post that has to loudly and voluminously announce how much they don't care
paraphrasing shakespeare: methinks the lady doth protest too much
hey, genius, if you didn't care... YOU WOULDN'T POST
proof of not caring is not commenting, not being here
there really are people who don't care about this debate. those people are playing videogames or twiddling on facebook right now. if they saw this thread, they wouldn't even roll their eyes (too much caring in that effort), they'd just click away, truly uninterested. meanwhile, you: you're deep in a thread writing a large comment about how much you don't care. no one is holding a gun to your head to post a comment, friend
fact: if you comment, emotionally, voluminously, AND WITH ALL CAPS, you obviously fucking care
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Thoughtful people are slowly, slowly awakening to the idea that the climate alarmists predicting doom for the planet's climate may be less than completely right. Previously, the melting of the himalayan glaciers was positively, definitely, absolutely, without doubt, guaranteed attributable 100 percent to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The simple fact is that nothing technical that supports the AGW theory that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from "pre-industrial" levels to the current level has caused (or even contributed to) any measurable amount of planetary warming. Similarly, there is nothing to support the popular idea that some arbitrary co2 concentration is necessary to maintain our current planetary climate conditions. Our current knowledge of the things that might affect the Earth's climate, and the magnitude of their effect, is primitive, and dominated scientifically by the equivalent of 15th-century flat-earthers. Go to the NSIDC (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) website and read their 'news and analysis' to see how they spin every little uptick in the arctic ice cover. Would you trust agenda-driven people like that to tell the unvarnished scientific truth about...anything? They are the technical equivalent of eugenics people excavating an african anthropological site. If the Earth's climate continues to cool (as it has for the last two years) they will keep spinning it as validation of their models, right up until their funding dries up and they have to pull the power plug on their computer and website. Anyone (Al Gore comes to mind) who claims to know all, or even any, of the answers to global climate change is being blatantly dishonest. It was hysterically funny to see record low temperatures and snow visit Copenhagen at the same time that planetary leaders were meeting there to discuss global warming.
Aren't you that douchebag troll who thinks you're smarter than everyone else because you refuse to use capital letters and punctuation?
How many people have a choice though when it comes to say MS and their locked in proprietary formats that you may need for work or to communicate with other businesses? The so called "free market," is empirically actually quite a bit less free than idealist Libertarians state it is. Much like Communism pure Libertarianism looks good on paper, and in practice? Not so much...
And p.s. have fun driving on government paved roads, and eating your lunch which is poison free thanks to FDA inspections, and withdrawing money from your government propped up bank because free market capitalists were so Fing stupid about about "commercial paper," while you bitch about the terrible, horrible, government.
Anyone who is actually paying attention to the way the world actually works and who doesn't have an ideological axe to grind realizes a mixed economy that preserves competition, but that also has regulations like Glass Stegall, environmental regulations, and a basic social safety net is more stable, sustainable, and provides a better quality of life for it's citizens. Communism vs. laisez affair capitalism is a false dilemma for neither of those has been shown to work by history. A mix of small businesses, co-op, and regulated big businesses with unions and a social safety net OTOH seem to come through with both the innovation that the market drives and a decent sustainable standard of living for all.
Europe ring a bell?
Hopefully all you net.libertrains.greed.greed.greed learned something about the fallibility of markets in the last 24 month of market crash fail. You so called conservatives do care about stability and prudence don't you ala Edmunde Burke, don't you? Or is your dirty little secret that you call yourself "conservatives" but are really advocates of unstable constant churning change? Make sure to say hi to the kids in Bhopal and Shell's Nigeria the next time you genuflect before large corporations. K, thks, by
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Lastly: The earth is not cooling. No, it really isn't. You can say it is over and over, chanting it with the rest of your denier friends, as I'm sure doing so makes you feel better, not to mention so very superior, but it's a lie, plain and simple
The oceans appear to be warming, so if by "the heat content of the oceans and atmosphere is increasing" it is probably correct to say "the Earth is not cooling".
The "global dimming" question is a curious one. So far as I know the situation is still that earthshine measurements indicate the Earth's albedo is increasing, while satellite measurements over the same time suggest it is very slightly decreasing. Sometimes the fact is that we have two reasonably good measures of the same thing and they disagree with each other. In that case it is simply anti-scientific to assert that one or the other result is a fact and the other is not. Both are facts. We just don't know how to reconcile them.
Science provides knowledge, not certainty.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
It's actually the Libertarians that are pushing much of this. They are currently allied with the "right wingers" as many of their goals are the same (smaller government, free market, local control).
And, as is typical of the ideological zealot, any evidence which may cast doubt on the practicality of their goals is rationalised away. Or just outright denied, and the messengers attacked.
You mean like Barbara Boxer calling for an investigation and prosecution of the people that leaked the CRU emails?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I thought global warming wasn't happening?
I think that most people are willing to
2) agree that burning these fuels (indiscriminately) is both wasteful and polluting.
No, why on earth would people be willing to accept that?
Cheap energy is the single biggest reason for the incredible technological development we've seen since the industrial revolution. THAT SAME TECHNOLOGY has gotten rid of most of the pollution we used to have, fixed "a few" diseases, raised the standard of living, put more people above the poverty line than ever etc etc.
That same technology can do the same for the rest of the world as well. At the same time, we're (still thanks to a cheap energy source!) able to further our technological progress and thus we're soon (two decades) able to use other forms of energy cheaply as well.
We want to get to that point as FAST as possible. Not as slow as possible.
it's in my head
But - and I cannot stress this enough - we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future..
But in the book of Hansen et. .al does it not also say that Thine Global Climate Models art in good agreement with the most holy of temperature reconstructions? Surely the divinely inspired scriptures of Science can not contradict one another, for Science is proven truth.
I appreciate your points, and am convinced the underlying evidence supports the notion that unprecedented AGW is unproven. I am more saddened though by the entirety of the debate reverting to the same tired arguments we saw in the dark ages over how holy books should be interpreted and which priests and prophets really were authoritative. Anyone thinking that the scientific method could overcome flaws in human nature must be having their souls crushed by the debates being run today.
Troll- when you hit on exactly the essence of what its all about, this is who you be to the keepers of the dogma. /. Moderation is the epitome of exactly this. Fact is, so called science will bob and weave on the AGW topic from here on in, changing it to Climate Change and now Carbon Soot as the new enemy. Soot = Dust and dust reflects sunlight and thus the earth will cool and that is no different than all your nuclear winter scenarios. Dont forget to feed the trolls, they are necessary to the complex ecosystem unlike tool moderators
Melting Glaciers, see a myriad of other complex interactions more than CO2 or Carbon Soot could ever be.
Yeah the bankers choosing the wrong algorithms to calculate risk on derivatives, a speculative real estate bubble, and no background check loans for houses had nothing to do with the crash right Curunir wolf? Note these actions were all chosen freely by market actors with no government coercion involved whatsoever. Even the Libertarians big hero Alan Greenspan admitted there was a "flaw," after the crash, look it up if you don't believe me. The problem with conservative Libertarians is you guys are all about responsibility until *you guys* fuck up, and then guess what, it's the "gubmints" fault. How about banksters and real estate agents looking in the mirror and manning up about a serious screw up? Too bad tax payers were left holding the bag on that one, I read for 1.4 trillion we could have paid off *all* Americans sub prime mortgages thus preventing Americans from being foreclosed *and* bailing out the banksters sketchy derivatives. Of course that makes too much sense because it benefits everyone as opposed to a chosen few rich people, right?
And note I actually cheer on Ron Paul and Libertarians when they challenge empire abroad, and police state at home and challenge why a private bank the Federal Reserve mints our money, that is all good stuff. Too bad your faith in the 100% rationality of market actors is so misplaced. Hint greed distorts peoples ability to choose rationally during bubbles which occur often, look up "irrational exuberance."
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
So your problem is that the worlds leaders were lying before, when they disregarded global warming? ....Or now that they are working towards fixing global warming? ...Or that they are lying politicians and you enjoy making fun of them at every oppertunity?
(maybe even imagined ones?)
That said, "renewable energy" is a bit of a misnomer, as oil will get created, at large enough timescales (though nowhere near fast enough to match consumption). On the other hand, so long the Sun is there we'll keep getting energy from it.
A good definition is "energy source that is renewed at the same rate it's used". It also nicely covers using things like wood for energy, which can be either sustainable or non-sustainable.
Well this graphseems to contradict your assertion, even the NASA graph shows the 5year means could be flat, too early to tell for sure. If the PDO has in fact shifted phase, the global temps will drop towards middle 1960's levels, the ocean will cool and the water will contract lowering sea levels.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"But filtering soot by adding smokestack scrubbers (which 1st world countries started doing many decades ago) is a heck of a lot cheaper and less disruptive than destroying the world economy to eliminate CO2."
Man made aerosols have a significant cooling effect. Oblig graph. The obvious solution that is staring everyone in the face is an international ban on new coal fired plants. They were all built in my lifetime and will all need replacing in the next 30-40yrs. The western world has given the coal industry billions over the last decade for so called "clean coal" (10 billion in Australia alone), where's the beef?
Pea soupers caused by burning coal killed large numbers of people for over a century. The industry did not clean up voulentarily, it had to be forced to do it despite bogus claims it would destroy the economy and leave millions freezing to death.
Banning new coal plants will not "destroy the world economy", however it will destroy those parasitic corporations who are unwilling to change and this is why we see so much anti-science propoganda surrounding the issue.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
you don't know how to read the graph you linked - that solid black line plummeting downward from over 0.6 to below 0.5 is my point
I hear a lot about climate change on science programs - good ones, like the BBC or ABC radio here in Australia, not the daft Discovery Channel. I hear a lot of perspectives on facets of climate change - the various things contributing to it (both natural and artificial) and the various ways it will (and is) affect animals, plants, oceans, atmosphere, insects, migration patterns, human life, etc.
I liken life on this planet to moss clinging to a rock. "The Earth" isn't the issue - "The Earth" doesn't give a shit about the thin, wispy film of vapour and ooze that, thanks to a noisome magnetic field, hasn't yet been cleaned away by the purifying rays of solar wind.
And here we reside, for now, clucking proudly at our own existence. Point being, minute changes - of only a few degrees on average - in this vast and complex system we call "the environment" can have catastrophic effects. Point being, it's happened before, will again, and we should not take our to-date comfortable lives for granted. Point being, by talking about "fiddling" with the climate, we're playing with the only card we have.
So, to me anyway, the only clear, rational course of action is not to come up with crazy schemes to "manage" our environment. That way lies ruin and regret. The only rational course I see is to do our absolute, utter best to get the climate back to what it was - in terms of CO2 content, etc. - at pre-industrial times.
That will be our "control" environment, if you like. If the Earth still keeps warming, or cooling or turning a nice shade of purple, well then, who could argue it's not a natural phase. The bickering goes away (hopefully). But in the meantime, climate changes we are seeing are *statistically relevant* and we have *little time* to play with.
There are two roads. One, keep going as we are and hope to hell that technology will give us comfortable lives, no matter how much coastline, habitat, species and weather predictability are lost. Second road: Return the atmosphere to its pre-industrial condition and hope to hell that prevents more climate change.
Both clear and logical courses, though neither have guaranteed success. But I imagine it will be *much easier* to protect people from economic fallout from making the necessary changes, that will be protecting them from climatic fallout.
The economy has always been a tool, a figment of our imagination. Perhaps it's time to grow up as a species, put down our toys and start *thinking like a species*. That's my humble, dumb-ass, non-scientific, observer's take.
if you feel like all of these interests are compelling you to care, this shows problems with your own psychology, not the world around you
you're a hysteric. calm the fuck down and do whatever the hell you want. no one is forcing you to do anything
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Uh, no it doesn't. See those little blue balls? Those are temperatures! Note how they have *not* been consistently dropping for 3 years straight? How it was a drop, an increase, then another drop? And how, regardless, it all falls comfortably within the noise in the graph?
Sorry, no, the idea that the world is somehow now magically cooling because of a single cold year (the others are *well* within the trend line) is absolutely absurd, and anyone who makes that claim is either lying or completely blinded by their personal ideology.
Well, there are laws against stealing data from computer systems.
So, did you look at the dotted line at the end of the black line? It shows where they expect 2009 to end up. All of your cooling has mysteriously disappeared this year.
Well, there are laws against stealing data from computer systems.
There have been a lot of people claiming they were stolen, so maybe she assumed that was the case. But emails are stolen all the time - often revealing information that Boxer is all too willing to use (without comment on how it was obtained), so long as it supports her agenda. But all of a sudden now she's concerned about unauthorized access to some other country's computers.
There was a claim of responsibility by the whistle-blower among the files.
The emails were sent to the media before they got out in public.
Plus, there are plenty of suspects.
And if you appreciate science, I found an interesting analysis from an expert (get it - he's an expert, so you can't question it without *years* of advanced study) which basically proves that it had to be an inside job.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
hahaha, a dotted black line of "expectations"? that's been the climate modellers problem all along, let's just put the "hockey stick" on that graph if wishful thinking to justify agendas is the goal
There are 5 days left in 2009. There was maybe a month to go when they added that dotted line. I think they had a pretty good idea where 2009 was going end up by then.