Slashdot Mirror


Global Warming Has Made the North Greener

New submitter ceview writes "NASA has released its latest green data showing a creeping of green towards the northern hemisphere. From the article: 'Results show temperature and vegetation growth at northern latitudes now resemble those found 4 degrees to 6 degrees of latitude farther south as recently as 1982.'"

75 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Final nail? by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there any space left for more nails in this coffin? Pretty soon there'll be more nails than wood.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Final nail? by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm one of those that owns a lot of property in the north. That means in 100 years my grandkids will be sitting on a epic goldmine of realestate that all the people fleeing the new desert in the south will want to live. $1,000,000 an acre Bidding starts on the next heat wave.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Final nail? by KeensMustard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Another thing is that people who believed the earth is warming based on previous weaker evidence are not in any way better or more scientific than those more skeptical who required further evidence.

      Actually no, that's not a thing. "Who is better" was never a thing. CO2 doesn't care what you believe about it. You are never actually going to be able to negotiate with it.

    3. Re:Final nail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All data collection involves sources of uncertainty both known and unknown, therefore all interpretation of that data requires making estimations and assumptions that may be more or less acceptable to different people.

      "CO2 doesn't care what I believe about it" is irrelevant, the subjectivity occurs at a level higher than the behavior of the actual thing being measured. This is one more strawman that just confuses the discussion and is not a contribution to the advancement of science.

    4. Re:Final nail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Watch out for those termites and beetles though. Cold winters have been a barrier for pests in the forests of the North previously and those nice wooden mansions and ski cabins are at risk in the future, along with the rest of the forest.

    5. Re:Final nail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm arguing that the evidence that warming was occurring was not that strong until the late 1990s. It has leveled off since then but looking back at the last 100 yrs of records it looks like we should expect a couple decades of warming followed by a few of stability.

      The attitude I observe on slashdot is that it was wrong to ever be skeptical of this trend. This is unscientific.

      Now it is commonly accepted that the earth has warmed but the argument has moved towards whether or not this trend will continue which involves many more assumptions than just whether or not the data on warming is reliable. This is the normal progression of science, it is not a problem.

    6. Re:Final nail? by alen · · Score: 3, Informative

      What coffin?

      There were powerful storms when the world was colder and their frequency hasn't increased with warming

      Go look in Wikipedia. Northeast and Canada used to get hit with category 3 hurricanes on a regular basis
      Sandy was barely a 1

    7. Re:Final nail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its not clear yet what exactly the effect of CO2 is. Compare the last 100 yrs of CO2 to the last 100 years of temperature. The curves are not the same shape. As I mentioned before temperature seems to be following a step-like pattern. This indicates that if CO2 is the main driver behind this, various negative feedbacks are getting triggered at certain levels of CO2 or temperature. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is pretty clearly nonlinear so it is a mistake to think that past relationships will accurately predict future results.

    8. Re:Final nail? by killkillkill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What the Hell are you arguing, exactly? That maybe Global Warming isn't happening? I'd like to hear that argument, that the observations, namely warming global temperatures and decreased population of pirates, is not actually proof of Global Warming.

      Anyone who denies that the globe is warming is a fool. Anyone who claims the cause of global warming has been proven is also a fool.

    9. Re:Final nail? by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any chance this greening will significantly reduce CO2 levels? Or are we seeing an equal or more reduction in green somewhere else?

    10. Re:Final nail? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hush now, you're going to upset the zealots. Please don't offer them any links to history's most deadly storms. Whatever you do, don't mention Galveston. And, absolutely, do NOT mention that Mexico has had even deadlier storms, long before the age of industrialization.

      How 'bout that Spanish Armada?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:Final nail? by nblender · · Score: 2

      I have a small bit of property up north. A dozen acres of forest in central Alberta. My land hasn't had a forest fire in at least 85 years based on the age of some downed trees this winter. As I walk through my forest, I see a _lot_ of dry and rotting ladder fuel (dead trees leaning on living trees). My job for the summer is to wander around with a chain saw cutting and bucking all the ladder fuel and increase the rotting of the many logs laying down... The forest has been beaten back away from the house about 50 feet all around but we still worry about a forest fire taking it all out. I know we're a summer lightning strike away from complete decimation... Suddenly that tree-lined driveway is not looking so picturesque. In light of this news, it just means drier summers and more temperate winters...

    12. Re:Final nail? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What I've heard is that the estimation is that locked up natural gasses released by melting permafrost will outpace the CO2 consumed by new plant-life for a couple centuries before equilibrium is restored.

    13. Re:Final nail? by G0m3r619 · · Score: 2

      Exactly. People in general seem to blindly accept information from a single source instead of looking at various sources then forming an informed opinion. Fact is those in the AGW have been relying on a single idea. That human generated CO2 is what was driving the short warming we observed. This contradicts what geologists, oceanographers, and climatologists have known for a very long time. That changes in CO2 levels always happen after global temps change and never before. That it's global temps that drive changes in atmospheric CO2 and not the other way around. They also like to ignore the fact that when you look at the over all trend in global temps it's down not up. The warming stopped in the late 90's yet CO2 levels have continued to rise. In 2007 we saw global temps drop like a stone. The drop was so dramatic that 100 years of warming was virtually undone in just 12 months. This in no way supports the claims of the AGW supporters that CO2 is a driver of global temp changes. The debate has never been over whether or not the climate is changing. The climate is a dynamic system. It's always in a state of change. That's the nature of the system. So what did the people who support AGW do? They tried to redefine their argument and try to say anyone who doesn't agree with their view is denying that the climate is changing. This is 100% false. The debate has never been about climate change. It's always been about what is driving it. They refuse to accept the fact that there is very little evidence that human activity is having any significant impact. What little evidence exists is very weak at best. what has always bothered me about them is that they do not acknowledge the fact that our climate system is an open system. they never take into account conditions outside our planet. They even go so far as to claim that something as major as the sun has little to no impact on our climate. Pirse Corbyn, known as the worlds most accurate weather man, is able to predict climate conditions months to a year out with a high degree of accuracy. He is so accurate that farmers around the world use his data to plan their crops. He makes his predictions based on observations of our sun and the moon. This should tell anyone with a properly functioning brain that this man seems to have a far better understanding that any of these other researchers who's predictions have been completely wrong.

    14. Re:Final nail? by jemenake · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is one of the things which isn't mentioned when the topic of global warming comes up. GW is going to benefit some parts of the world. There will be some winners and some losers. Sure, it's going to suck in Florida and Arizona, but the northern states are going to start sucking less. Canadians, as well, will have much more fun with two, full weeks of Summer.

    15. Re:Final nail? by haruchai · · Score: 2

      There's no need for various negative feedbacks as there are strong cooling mechanisms that are concomitant with burning fossil fuels, namely aerosols.
      A secondary source of aerosols is vulcanism which has been shown to cause a dramatic worldwide drop in temperature shortly after large eruptions.
      These tend not to last more than a few years unless other eruptions occur but the significant increase in Asian air pollution and global air traffic are other contributing factors to a reduction in the rate of warming.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    16. Re:Final nail? by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please don't offer them any links to history's most deadly storms.

      Actually, please do provide those links. While you are at it, also provide the links where climate scientists said that there had never been big storms in the past.

      What? You can't? Then what are you talking about now? It seems to be a common tactic on the denial side to make disparaging remarks about those dreaded "alarmists" that attribute false statements to them. What is the matter? Can't you actually argue against the real things that the scientists say?

    17. Re:Final nail? by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      This is one of the things which isn't mentioned when the topic of global warming comes up. GW is going to benefit some parts of the world. There will be some winners and some losers. Sure, it's going to suck in Florida and Arizona, but the northern states are going to start sucking less. Canadians, as well, will have much more fun with two, full weeks of Summer.

      The trees in some parts of the world will have a good time, yes.

      For humans, the global economy will have a bigger effect on their standard of living. Which way do you think the economy will go when the waves start lapping at the foot of the skyscrapers?

      --
      No sig today...
    18. Re:Final nail? by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That changes in CO2 levels always happen after global temps change and never before.

      You're talking about Milankovitch cycles. Nobody is arguing that Milankovitch cycles are *caused* by CO2; that's a total red herring. They're *amplified* by CO2. The math doesn't work out if they're not, the cycle simply don't produce enough temperature variation without some kind of atmospheric amplification. That is to say, the sun heats up the earth a bit, and this causes more CO2 emission, which amplifies the effect several times over. The solar heating pulse comes first, followed closely by the CO2 pulse; together they reach the maximum temperature during the warm phase.

      Which is actually a very disturbing thing, because it suggests that if we do something to heat our planet, the planet will multiply the effect.

      Anyway, Earth already did our current CO2-dumping experiment in the past. It was called the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) - look it up. Its the last time Earth rapidly dumped large amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere in a short period of time. It changed the world so much that we give the subsequent era a different name - the Eocene.

      We're now creating the Anthropocene.

      --
      I tore these out of your symbol, and they turned into paper.
    19. Re:Final nail? by haruchai · · Score: 2

      The slight cooling of approx 0.1 C during that period was likely due to aerosols and air pollution. There wasn't much in the way of pollution controls and many people burned coal in their homes for heating. London, England was known for incredibly thick haze, the infamous yellowish "'pea-soup" fogs that were finally addressed in the mid-50s with laws forbidding residential use of coal in the city.

      Also, that period was mostly dominated by La Nina events or ENSO-neutral conditions with only 3 or so El Ninos vs 8 La Ninas

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    20. Re:Final nail? by haruchai · · Score: 2

      I was referring to volcanic release of aerosols not CO2.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    21. Re:Final nail? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      #1 thing to do about it- stop living in cities.
      #2 thing to do about it- those who are unable to do #1, should plant food.
      #3 thing to do about it- buy local as the #1 use of greenhouse gas causing fuel is SHIPPING.

      None of this is rocket science. If industrialization is the problem, we need to de-industrialize.

      And yet, I find, those who complain the most about global warming, are not the rural populations, but the urban ones.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    22. Re:Final nail? by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      Nothing wrong with the chart but maybe there is with your interpretation of it. A 5 year running mean is not particularly significant climatologically. Climatologist usually work with 30 year running means.

    23. Re:Final nail? by phlinn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes actually, although not what you think. Since the high period in the 40's isn't about as high as the high point in the late 90's, it's using adjusted data. Both GHCN and USHCN have warming trends in the adjustments. For USHCN in particular, without adjustments, 1998 was cooler than 1921 and 1931. The linear trend of the adjustments is roughly 6 times bigger than the linear trend in the raw data. GHCN didn't haves as large of an average adjustment, but there is a definite nearly linear trend in the adjustments for the 20th century.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    24. Re: Final nail? by Rational · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the reason for global warming denial was very rarely, if ever, healthy scientific skepticism (which no sane person has an issue with); but rather political and religious dogma trying to pass as skepticism.

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    25. Re:Final nail? by spiralx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It could easily mean that the mammals suffered less than other animals around that time. If 90% of non-mammals die out but only 70% of mammals die out then that will certainly lead to a massive expansion of mammals relative to other species; it's still the case that the vast majority of mammals died out though.

    26. Re:Final nail? by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      No, climatologists have always used 30 year running means since it was defined by the World Meteorological Organization as the standard for measuring climate which was before the IPCC was formed in 1988. Here's a FAQ from the WMO on climatology.

    27. Re:Final nail? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      Correlation is not by necessity causation, blah blah.

      Medieval Warming Period, blah blah.

      In the 11th century, Greenland was "Green", and collapsed as a colony after it wasn't, in the 14th., blah blah.

      The muthafuckin' sky is falling! DO SOMETHING!

      OK then here's something:
      You know what? If you took 1/2 of the US navy out of commision, and grounded 1/2 of all US military aircraft? You'd eliminate more atmospheric CO2 in a decade than trying a century of taxing tailpipes and turnpikes.

      But you see, everybody will have to do with less, because we can picture a cycle as a crisis, manipulating your higher instincts to shackle yourselves.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    28. Re:Final nail? by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      This isn't about denial. This isn't about climate scientists. This is about alarmists.

      Don't forget that like most alarmists, many of these alarmists likely have corporate-backed agendas. They hate the corporate-backed agendas of the oil industry, but deny that there are companies promoting clean cars and clean energy that stand to make billions of dollars of extra profit if they succeed in convincing governments and citizens.

      Not everyone needs to spend thousands of dollars extra on a Prius instead of an equivalent gasoline car. Many people would sorely miss that money, and Toyota's shareholders would be much richer. The world will not suddenly be in better shape because we all have Prii. There are many better, more cost-efficient and more practical ways to reduce pollution and emissions. But the GW lobby is backed by corporations who want nothing more than governments to place a tax on every citizen that goes straight to their bottom line.

      Get back to me when it can be shown that my wallet is the only thing standing in the way of the end of the world.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    29. Re:Final nail? by SlippyToad · · Score: 2

      I smell a "it hasn't warmed since 1998" argument here.

      Which is utter nonsense. I think every year now, the statistics show the last 9 of 10, 10 of 11, 11 of 12 and so on years were the warmest on record.

      Point being, the last decade has been the warmest ever recorded since records were taken.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    30. Re:Final nail? by roky99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is some information on this site that gives an overview of the adjustments that have been made to the USHCN data and provides links to further detailed references. I am no expert but my impression is that the adjustments have been made for sound and fairly standard reasons such as time of observation. Furthermore, and the whole point of that page, a different method of adjustment has been applied that yields very similar results. This would tend to suggest that both methods are robust.

      It is a standard 'skeptic' tactic to complain vaguely about 'adjustments' to data as if adjustments are intrinsically wrong or suspicious whereas in fact it is rare in science for raw data not to need some pre-processing before robust conclusions may be drawn from it. However I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Unlike me, you might very well be an expert on this topic, so I'd be interested if you could explain specifically what you think is wrong with the adjustments.

    31. Re:Final nail? by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      Once again I find myself having to ask the a familiar question. Do you have any evidence at all that there us some massive conspiracy between scientists from many disciplines as well as politicians from all points on the political spectrum?

      I feel fairly confident that I can answer for you, and say that you do not. Scientists have been talking about global warming for a very long time, it wasn't something that magically appeared in the 80s. A few politicians were also talking about it back in the 70s.

      Finally, it is not the scientists who are pushing for taxation to fix this problem. Of course there are other solutions. They could just make it illegal to emit above a certain amount of CO2. This would result in all of us having to throw out our old cars, and would wipe out certain industries, but it would work.

      But that is not a practical solution in anyone's book, and the political fallout would be overwhelmingly higher than people's current complaints about taxes. Perhaps if you can propose a way to fix the problem then people might listen and you could change the world, but denying that there is a problem and claiming that it is all a conspiracy is not a helpful solution.

  2. More green? by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Funny

    So the world is becoming more green due to global warming?
    I'm confused, is this good or bad?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:More green? by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd be curious to see where the green belt lay during the Medieval warming period. Of course its existence has been discredited now, and tales of dairy farms and Viking settlements in Greenland have been dismissed as an anecdotal myth and stricken from Wikipedia.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warming_Period
      8 mentions of Greenland, including a temperature chart, and a photo of a viking settlement. Conspiracy theorists operate entirely independently of the facts.

    2. Re:More green? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      It's kind of a tricky one. Large swathes of coastal areas will be inundated. This is a problem because that's where most of the people live, and it will be hugely disruptive to move them elsewhere. Europe, northern India, most of the southern US, Brazil and large areas of South America would be swamped if the ice caps melted. Even in higher areas you can expect major trouble as dry hot areas spread and extreme weather becomes more common.

      However a lot of Siberia and Canada would become very habitable, and the higher temperatures, precipitation and carbon dioxide levels should in theory lead to an increase in the overall size and diversity of the biosphere, more rainforests basically, as long as we don't cut them all down again.

      Also on a personal note, I would miss snow.

    3. Re:More green? by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >and tales of dairy farms and Viking settlements in Greenland have been dismissed as an anecdotal myth and stricken from Wikipedia

      It wasn't myth, it was MARKETING. The claim that Greenland was green, indeed the very name, came from a Viking chief called Eric The Red - who was spreading a massive scam to lure Vikings to settle in the land he had taken over.
      It was, basically, a good old fashioned property scam. Turns out the fixer-upper was a lot more fixer than upper, in fact thousands of Vikings died in the first few years - mostly from starvation and frostbite.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:More green? by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So the world is becoming more green due to global warming?

      The article doesn't say anything about the world becoming more green. Only that the north, above the 45th parallel is. That's Canada, Northern Europe, Russia and up to the arctic. It doesn't say anything about the balance between that and desertification nearer the equator.

      It does fit with other studies and models to help confirm the reality of global warming though.

    5. Re:More green? by Sique · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not the world, which becomes greener, it's the North. If at the same time the equator regions become aride, coastal areas sink under the sea and deserts are growing, then we get a huge migration from the equator to the northern regions. It's up to you to decide if that's good.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:More green? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Informative

      90% of ocean rise will be thermal expansion, not melt, FWIW.

      And it won't do anything like kill stuff -- it will increase plant cover as large land masses become better able to support plant life. The increased CO2 actually helps in this aspect. We know this from much warmer periods in the past.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:More green? by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can read the icelandic sagas, and in the Grnlendinga saga (Bjarni Herjolfsson's voyage), they explicitely describe Greenland to be covered with even larger glaciers than Iceland.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re: More green? by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      H2O shrinks when it goes from frozen to liquid. Thermal contraction.

      Which has nothing to do with anything...

      The volume of water displaced by floating ice is exactly the volume of water the ice will fill when melted.

      The ice on land currently doesnt effect sea level, so here too the contraction when H2O goes from solid to liquid is meaningless.

      The thermal expansion being discussed is that of liquid water as it warms.

      You are proof that a little bit of knowledge is a terrible thing. You know that water contracts when it goes from solid to liquid, but you clearly have no idea what it means in practice.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re:More green? by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There were viking settlements in Canada and the USA. as far south as Ohio.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:More green? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      "However a lot of Siberia and Canada would become very habitable, "

      You have never been in northern canada in the summer. The black flies alone will keep it from being habitable.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:More green? by rve · · Score: 3, Informative

      Only that the north, above the 45th parallel is. That's Canada, Northern Europe, Russia and up to the arctic.

      When you say Northern Europe, you really mean nearly all of Europe except for parts of Spain, Italy and the Balkans.

    12. Re:More green? by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I love how that wikipedia article begins...

      Essentially.. "The medieval warm period was local to the north atlantic, except for all the other warm periods in the world that coincidentally were at the same time."

      Certain climate researchers quietly campaigned to edit history itself, emailing colleagues (such as David Deming, University of Oklahoma) asking them to help get rid of the medieval warm period ("We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.") Deming even testified before congress about the effort.

      Global warming may be a problem or it may not be. One problem is for certain, and that certain climate "researchers" are playing politics rather than science.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    13. Re:More green? by Sique · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look at how much grant money is given out these days to GW research. There's the reason why. As always, follow the money and it will usually lead you to the answer.

      Not much at all, compared to the money that is given out for instance for oil exploration and new extraction technologies. So follow the money.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re:More green? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      One problem is for certain, and that certain climate "researchers" are playing politics rather than science.

      Yep, Deming is known for making extraordinary claims with less than ordinary evidence, he's a "conservative think tank" scientist who abandoned peer-review years ago. Nobody has "edited history", science has self-corrected on the issue in the manner one would expect.. In other words, at first it was thought that the MWP was a global phenomena, further scrutiny by intellectually honest skeptics (ie: scientists) did not support the claims, so the claim has been refined. It's not a fucking conspiracy, it's how science works and why we no longer believe the earth is flat.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    15. Re:More green? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Not much at all, compared to the money that is given out for instance for oil exploration and new extraction technologies. So follow the money.

      To argue for the GP: oil exploration money is not available to academic climatologists. He was saying, if you're in academia doing climatology, and if you want funding, be a global warming scientist.

      It's a separate argument from the availability of money to political interest groups. Except in the case where the academics become the interest group (because they want that government funding). Nasty feedback cycle there.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re: More green? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      The volume of water displaced by floating ice is exactly the volume of water the ice will fill when melted.

      Yes, for fresh water ice in fresh water and for salt water ice in salt water. If it's fresh water ice in salt water, the difference in density makes a tiny difference in displacement. So, icebergs that calved from glaciers would be slightly different from sea ice.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    17. Re:More green? by dirtyhippie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Canada? sure. but in the USA? in ohio? I don't think so.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_colonization_of_the_Americas

    18. Re: More green? by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Sea ice is also fresh water (with brine trapped in the pockets admittedly, though that drains over a few years). That salt being forced out of the forming ice increases the density of the water below adding to the "down at the poles" part of global water circulation.

  3. I've played this game! by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've played Sim Earth. I know what happens with global warming... the equator becomes a giant desert, but the temperate regions all become tropical. If you ask me, now's the time to buy land farther north. It's only going to go up in value as natural resources like water become scarce in heavily populated areas. In the not too distant future, water pipelines will be more valued than oil.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:I've played this game! by ultranova · · Score: 2

      If you ask me, now's the time to buy land farther north. It's only going to go up in value as natural resources like water become scarce in heavily populated areas.

      If water becomes scarce enough in heavily populated areas to justify transporting it continental distances, I very much doubt anyone is going to be interested in protecting your property rights. You'll be trampled by a flood of refugees fleeing the drought.

      A civil society is not going to stay civil if food or water run out.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:I've played this game! by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If water becomes scarce enough in heavily populated areas to justify transporting it continental distances, I very much doubt anyone is going to be interested in protecting your property rights. You'll be trampled by a flood of refugees fleeing the drought.

      Fifty to one odds you're American. Anywhere else, and you'd know what's going on outside your borders. Let's look at a place where there's already large amounts of desert, limited water resources, and tons of refugees. There's an entire continent with these problems called Africa. And would you know what -- there's property rights there. If there's one thing you can learn from them, it's that bullets are cheap. You have nothing to worry about on that front.

      The other thing is, you make it sound like tomorrow the equatorial region of the planet's going to suddenly go apocalyptic and everyone will be rushing out of there overnight. Dude, this isn't Hollywood. Even at the incredible speed at which global warming is occuring, we're still talking about something that's happening at a speed unlikely to significantly change the environment you're living in within your lifetime. When I say significant, I mean "I lived in a lush forest when I was born, and now it's an apocalyptic desert where no rain falls." It just isn't happening that quickly. It's devastating, and very bad for us as a species, but it's not happening quickly.

      Which means such an exodus would happen in small enough numbers that it'd be less like Army of Darkness and more like 28 Days. Large tracts of nothingness, the occasional person... nothing you can't handle with a high power rifle and some explosives, dear.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:I've played this game! by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      No it's not.

      I pay $0.06 a gallon for water, and they pipe it to my home.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  4. Re:excellent by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    what's not to like then?

    America is truly God's chosen country :P

    The trouble is, if 'north' moves any further north, we are going to have to go and liberate Snow Mexico...

  5. My mother's garden has earthworms by evilsofa · · Score: 5, Informative

    My mother's garden has earthworms. This may seem unremarkable to you, but she has been living in Fairbanks, Alaska for over 40 years now and last summer was the first time she has ever seen earthworms in her garden. The climate is supposed to be too cold for too long for them to survive in the wild.

    I have other relatives who live in Denali Park, Alaska, in the midst of the Alaska Range and near the tallest mountain in North America. Over the past 4 or 5 decades, they have been watching the treeline creep hundreds of feet up the sides of the mountains.

    1. Re:My mother's garden has earthworms by realkiwi · · Score: 2

      Just a couple of questions: how did they get there? Have they been migrating north underground?

      --
      realkiwi
    2. Re:My mother's garden has earthworms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Stuff You Should Know podcast episode from Dec 15th 2010 is entitled "How Earthworms Work". It actually had some fascinating things discussed, including the distance that they can move per year and how far they can migrate in a year.

      Apparently all earthworms in North American were killed in the last Ice Age. All Earthworms we have now are immigrants from Asia and Europe that hitched a ride on plant roots brought over in very recent human migration.

  6. More greenery =/= food crops by Maow · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't doubt that the far north is getting greener, but don't think for a moment that it'll lead to food crops way up north.

    Food crops require copious light, not just absence of freezing / cold to produce crops. Oranges & bananas more so than lettuce, more so than moss.

    When the sun is low on the horizon at noon, there just isn't enough sunlight to make the land productive for agriculture.

    Not to mention the relative lack of rich organic material and somewhat acidic soil for the most part.

    If this were not the case, then a simple greenhouse with a heater situated way up north would allow for hobbyists to grow all year round; this hasn't been the case and isn't likely to change.

    The above is as I understand it as a gardener and a Canadian who laments the lousy winter (non-)growing season in the mildest part of the country and with good soil.

    1. Re:More greenery =/= food crops by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Thankfully we always have the plankton from the oceans of the world to fall back on. That stuff is tasty.

  7. USDA plant hardiness zones have changed by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 5, Informative

    The USDA has updated its map of plant hardiness zones to reflect the new, warmer conditions. You can argue about whatever you want to argue about, but the reality is here that you can grow things further north than you could before.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  8. ...has a liberal bias by freedom_surfer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As the great Colbert said - Reality has a liberal bias!

    1. Re:...has a liberal bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, but mostly because conservatism has a stupidity bias.

  9. Greenland by ixarux · · Score: 2

    Greenland shall no longer be a misnomer with word-roots lost in time. It shall take its place amongst geographical locations whose names describe their characteristics, such as Iceland and that town in Wales.
    It shall finally be green.
    Greenland. Now actually green.

  10. It takes thousands of years to get soil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    So when you emigrate to Canada because your land is now a desert, make sure to drag along a few billion tons of topsoil with you.

  11. Re:excellent by someone1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are you aware, that most of the population of the USA lives on the shore?
    Living in a half submerged skyscraper might be novel, but kinda unhealthy.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  12. "Towards the northern hemisphere" by Toam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It isn't heading towards the northern hemisphere, it's heading towards the north pole. There is plenty of "green" in the northern hemisphere already.

    1. Re:"Towards the northern hemisphere" by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It isn't heading towards the northern hemisphere, it's heading towards the north pole. There is plenty of "green" in the northern hemisphere already.

      I think that is the key point. People should also realise that places that are currently green further south may well become desert - this doesn't mean more green it means green further North. It seems to confirm predictions that the "Wheat belt" may move North from the contiguous USA and central Europe to Siberia, Northern Europe, Canada, and eventually possibly Alaska.

    2. Re:"Towards the northern hemisphere" by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but the unprovable mays that you present are equally as likely as donkeys flying out of my ass.

      Well there is evidence of increasing desertification. Now do you have evidence that donkeys are likely to fly out of your arse or is that just uninformed speculation.

  13. Re:Disruptions by camperdave · · Score: 2

    Climate change is normal and continuous, and the ecosystem is robust to change... at normal rates of change. The real question is whether it is robust enough to survive the pressures we humans are putting on it? We're dumping all sorts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and at the same time, we're clear-cutting forests - the lungs of the planet. Not only that, but the number of people living on this rock has doubled in my lifetime. They've all got to be clothed and sheltered, fed and watered. We're digging up and smelting metals and dumping the residue into the lakes and streams. We fill in marshes, and level mountains. We redirect rivers. The kind of changes we ask the ecosystem to handle are massive and rapid; not thousands of generations, or hundreds, but sometimes a mere one or two generations.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  14. Re:excellent by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    That's enough to bury a house. How would you get out the front door?

    You don't. It's why god invented booze.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. Re:excellent by coinreturn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are you aware, that most of the population of the USA lives on the shore? Living in a half submerged skyscraper might be novel, but kinda unhealthy.

    Especially if you're in the bottom half.

  16. Re:excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's absolutely true if you call "Antarctica" "The Arctic" and call "The Arctic" "Antarctica". Otherwise its exactly backwards.

  17. But sadly, no alligators... by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... in Durham, in spite of the fact that alligator reproduction is an excellent bellwether and they are abundant a mere 150 miles away due East on the coast. 1 degree is 70 miles North, 4 to 6 is (say) 350, so by now there should be alligators in Virginia on the coast and central NC where I live FROM the coast. Alligators can only reproduce when a winter is frost free, as temperature determines the gender of the alligators in the egg. First and last frost in Durham haven't discernibly changed in the forty years I've lived here, starting back in the last "the Ice Age is starting" panic in the early 70s. There have been some bitterly cold winters and some remarkably warm ones -- much like the winters over all of the last century. We've set 100 year records for snowfall in the last 13 years, had a snow and ice storm on the Outer Banks (and inland) where it never seems to snow in mid-April, and had a killing frost in May, three full weeks after our supposed last-frost date. We've had winters where the Bradford Pears and Redbuds started to bloom in mid February (easily a month early), where it hasn't snowed at all, when you could sunbathe in mid-January, at least if you picked your days.

    This winter was amazingly normal. A handful of small snowfalls, a few warm days, but mostly cold, often wet and cold, with lots of frost. The Bradford Pears and Redbuds still haven't bloomed, although we've had a few days of really nice spring-like weather (quite seasonal) and it didn't frost last night although it did the night before. The massive snows of winter all fell to the west or to the north, never quite reaching us here (except as cold nasty rain a few degrees above freezing -- got a lot of that).

    There's plenty of scientific evidence of warming, as long as you pick your days, pick your events, pick your years, pick your starting points, and don't look at all the evidence that contradicts it. As everybody knows, scientific studies prove that green jelly beans cause Acne.

    rgb

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.