Slashdot Mirror
Recent Warming of Antarctica "Unusual But Not Unprecedented"
First time accepted submitter tomhath writes with a link to the abstract (full article paywalled) in Nature of an "Ice core study that concludes that climate change and associated melting of ice in Antarctica is more the norm than the exception, including rapid warming cycles as we appear to be in today. Study concludes: 'Although warming of the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula began around 600 years ago, the high rate of warming over the past century is unusual (but not unprecedented) in the context of natural climate variability over the past two millennia. The connection shown here between past temperature and ice-shelf stability suggests that warming for several centuries rendered ice shelves on the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula vulnerable to collapse.'"
Let the Global Warming flame-wars begin!
Story goes against slashdot groupthink. Climate deniers are stupid M$ users. Mod down!
Mass extinctions are also unusual (but not unprecedented). Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid causing them!
Climate on a penninsula is vulnerable to changes in ocean currents. I would say nothing to see here unless global climates can be correlated with the local climate.
Anything up to and including the entire planet being a blob of molten matter would be "not unprecedented".
Just because the world was really hot during the Jurassic does not mean that humans would enjoy living in that state again.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
I for one welcome our new...old....ones overlords!
A whole bunch of people do research and say the planet is getting warmer. More people back up the research and verify it. Okay, the planet is getting warmer. Here's what we think we should do to stop it from getting too warm to support most life. Yay! Problem solved -- BY SCIENCE!
Another bunch of people don't think the solution is, um, 'cost effective', in that it would inversely affect the amount of money they might be able to make. So, they do SCIENCE and come up with research that seems to refute the impact of the first research, or trivialize it, or in some way make it seem like doing nothing would be the best option.
Here's the problem: the first research IS STILL CORRECT. They haven't debunked the 'global warming' research so it is still the best bet for what is going on. Trying to convince the world that sitting on our collective hands will be just find will doom us all.
There is no such thing as normal. Normal is only a concept that we as humans have because we live such pathetically short lives. Normal simply isn't a natural concept, and we need to quit thinking of nature as being "normal" and start accepting that "change" in part of the natural cycle and learn to adapt with it.
The climate always has gone from warmer to colder and back and forth. Mostly it has been warmer, but it has also spent a fair amount of time under ice ages as well. I live in a place where I am 2000 miles from the nearest ocean and yet can find sea shells in my back yard from time to time. Things change and we need to quit fighting change and learn to adapt to our environment as our environment changes around us.
The continents will shift (there's a museum in Paris with an exhibit I have heard about that depicts how far the North American plate moves away from the European plate each year). Antarctica will eventually move away from the pole and simply melt. Other natural phenomenon will occur and we have to accept that we are simply one part of nature and to learn to live as part of it.
That being said, there is no reason not be be responsible with the environment and fight pollution for the sake of fighting pollution. Living sustainably is something that we have to do as our population becomes ever larger and we need to increase efforts for green energy like nuclear, thorium, solar and geothermal power sources. I really wish people would set aside politics on this and let science do the talking.....
There is no such thing as normal. Normal is only a concept that we as humans have because we live such pathetically short lives. Normal simply isn't a natural concept, and we need to quit thinking of nature as being "normal" and start accepting that "change" in part of the natural cycle and learn to adapt with it.
But there is such a thing as rate of change, right? And we can measure how long it took to get from temperature A to temperature B historically and we can then look at our own time period and compare how quickly or slowly the temperature is changing, right? The funny thing about life on Earth is that it's probably always going to be here in some form or fashion but it's those unicellular organisms that need lengths of time to adjust to extreme weather.
The climate always has gone from warmer to colder and back and forth. Mostly it has been warmer, but it has also spent a fair amount of time under ice ages as well. I live in a place where I am 2000 miles from the nearest ocean and yet can find sea shells in my back yard from time to time. Things change and we need to quit fighting change and learn to adapt to our environment as our environment changes around us.
Or perhaps we can adjust our actions to limit the amount of change? Why do you use a waste disposal system in your house? Why not just throw garbage and urine and feces where ever you want inside your house? You can always learn to adapt to your environment, right? You'll get used to the smell, you'll learn to make friends with the raccoons and cockroaches living in the debris -- possibly even feed off them. So why do you take these basic precautions to keep your home clean? Is your planning not comparable to policies that aim to keep the Earth clean?
The continents will shift (there's a museum in Paris with an exhibit I have heard about that depicts how far the North American plate moves away from the European plate each year). Antarctica will eventually move away from the pole and simply melt. Other natural phenomenon will occur and we have to accept that we are simply one part of nature and to learn to live as part of it.
Again we're talking about a process that takes tens of thousands of years versus what we've done in the past hundred years. The rate at which we are influencing our environment is increasing as our population increases. The Earth's plates are not speeding up. I don't understand your analogy nor do I see how it makes our problem seem unimportant -- plate movements have been known to be catastrophic for humans.
That being said, there is no reason not be be responsible with the environment and fight pollution for the sake of fighting pollution. Living sustainably is something that we have to do as our population becomes ever larger and we need to increase efforts for green energy like nuclear, thorium, solar and geothermal power sources.
So I guess we can agree on that. Our record so far on sustainability hasn't been reflected too well in the ocean. And burning fossil fuels is directly influencing it in addition to just plain overfishing. So is it still taboo to start to talk about curbing that stuff?
I really wish people would set aside politics on this and let science do the talking.....
Funny, your post about "times change deal with it" really seems to undermine nearly all the published peer review research on the topic. Your post is a shining example to me of how someone can interject their own politics and policies into a scientific endeavor and masquerade as being the voice of reason and science themselves. Tell me, what sort of first hand results have you collected and examined that I obviously do not have access to?
My work here is dung.
By my calculations, if everybody ran flashblock, we could reduce global warming by 17,000,000,000,000,000 Watts a year. Better bring a sweater.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Also, I think reasonable explanations exist for the periods of fast warming they found in ~200 AD, and 1600AD - looking at the chart, they were generally preceeded by large downward spikes, and represented the temperature restoring to its previous level. My speculation is that these events correspond to the gigantic volcanic eruptions in Taupo at around 200AD, and maybe Huaynaputina at 1600AD. Large eruptions project large amounts of sulphates into the atmosphere, which has a strong, but temporary cooling effect. When these sulphates disappear from the atmosphere in a matter of decades, this would lead to dramatic warming, as the climate 'catches up'.
I wasn't going to respond since I have mod points and figured I'd mod up a good response instead. Too bad it's all been cheerleading for believers and deniers. Anyhow, this result isn't evidence for or against climate change. It's another data point. The fact that people think it is evidence for one side or the other shows most people still don't understand climate change. I know statistics and thermodynamics are hard as are non-linear systems. Blah, blah, blah.
Here's the deal. Global warming refers to *average* temperature increase. In order for the average temperature to increase we should expect a higher frequency of warmer events or events driven by increasing warmth. We're not in a pot on a stove over a fire that constantly increases in temperature (actually don't pick at that analogy too much because at a microscopic level it is somewhat similar). As global average temperature increases we should see more warm days but not necessarily the hottest days ever recorded. So, in this case, if we see more frequent unusual events like this one or not, then we might have some evidence one way or the other, but by itself it tells us nothing.
Of course that means we want to study the baseline climate variability, because that is how we find ways of confirming, refuting, or improving the above stated theory. That climate varies, even more than by the amount cause by human activity, is obvious from the climate record, and in the cases of natural climate variation, we want to look for proxies as to what the natural forcing was that caused it. AGW is the delta between the climate that should be without AGW, and what is observed. The long increase in Antartic ice size should have decelerated, but not reversed into a historically abnormal warming (specifically if you pull down the supplemental data, there are four, and perhaps five similarly rapid warming events in their studied period in the geographic area that the scientists looked at).
What irks people who study climate is that "natural variability" is the latest foxhole for "burn more carbon until catastrophic events occur in the present." The "Carbon until catastrophe" paradigm is the fall back from the denial paradigm, with the usual suspects pimping it in the usual places.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
The Year without a Summer (1816) had a global temperature drop of 0.4C to 0.7C.
It was thought to be caused by a series of volcanic eruptions combined with an historic low in solar activity.
The result was:
All that and more with a global variation of <1 degree Celsius.
It really is in our interest to keep global temperature averages from fluctuating too far from what we're accustomed to if possible. The repercussions with such a dramatically larger population could be catastrophic.
We can legitimately rape our planet and... you know...the planet has a way of shutting the whole "global warming" thing down. (Too soon?)
Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
How many ice ages we've had during last couple of millenias? I remember one ended about 10,000 years ago and during it large parts of Northern hemisphere were under a few km's of ice.
Humans, including those afraid of climate change, would not enjoy an ice age. The holocene is not the 'post-glacial', we're 10,000 years into an interglacial - about as long as the warm half of the previous interglacial lasted.
I'm completely convinced that human activity is influencing the climate, but I'm entirely unconvinced that a few degrees warmer climate equals disaster, famine and mass extinction. Global climate has been stuck in a rut for the past 2.5 million years, swinging wildly between ice ages and interglacials, and it can't seem to escape from the cycle. Maybe our burning of fossil fuel can give the final push, and rid the world of the permanent ice caps on the poles that have been keeping our climate hostage over the past 2.5 million years.
Sure, low lying lands will flood, but vast amounts of land in North America and Northern Asia that are too cold today will become available for cultivation to compensate.
Hehe - hook, line and sinker.
Hint: Strummer's first name was Joe. Though to be fair, he was more an observer of the political climate rather than the actual climate.