NOAA: Arctic Likely Free Of Summer Ice By 2050 — Possibly Much Sooner

Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have published research into the shrinking levels of sea ice in the Arctic. They wanted to figure out how long it would take before summer sea ice disappeared entirely. Since there's no perfect model for predicting ice levels, they used three different methods. All three predicted the Arctic would be nearly free of summer sea ice by the middle of the century, and one indicated it could happen as early as 2020. Two of the methods were based on observed sea ice trends. If ice loss proceeds as it has in the past decade, we get the 2020 timeframe. If ice loss events are large, like the 2007 and 2012 events, but happen at random some years, the estimate is pushed back to 2030. The third method uses global climate models to 'predict atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice conditions over time.' This model pushes the timeframe back to 2040 at the earliest, and around 2060 as the median (abstract). One of the study's authors, James Overland, said, "Rapid Arctic sea ice loss is probably the most visible indicator of global climate change; it leads to shifts in ecosystems and economic access, and potentially impacts weather throughout the northern hemisphere. Increased physical understanding of rapid Arctic climate shifts and improved models are needed that give a more detailed picture and timing of what to expect so we can better prepare and adapt to such changes. Early loss of Arctic sea ice gives immediacy to the issue of climate change."

Comments

I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate can change and it will change but predicting these kinds of trends to 2050 with any kind of accuracy is ludicrous at best, since they cannot even predict whats the weather next weekend.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[siride]

Predicting sensible weather in the short term is quite different from predicting broad climate trends. And as it happens, short-term weather prediction is actually pretty good these days. Hurricane tracks, for example, have fairly low error rates these days, outside of some exceptional scenarios. In what other field besides astronomy do we have that level of predictive ability and accuracy? Can we predict the economy? Social trends? What Egypt will do in a year? No. But we can predict the weather, regularly, and do a pretty damn good job. So stop shitting on the one field that is actually able to predict the future with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[ssam]

how can you predict the average of 100 dice rolls, when you can't even predict what the next dice roll will give?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weather and climate are not the same thing. Just as you can't predict whether a given coin toss will end up heads or tails, but you can pretty accurately predict the results of 50 or 100 or 1000 coin tosses in ensemble.

Second, there isn't a whole of precision in those climate estimates, as they range from 2020 (7 years away) out to 2050 (30 years later).

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate can change and it will change but predicting these kinds of trends to 2050 with any kind of accuracy is ludicrous at best, since they cannot even predict whats the weather next weekend.

Idiot who can't tell weather from climate gets modded up.

I have a bad feeling about this thread.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the worst analogy I have seen today.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[siride]

That's just because you don't understand it. I guess that makes it a subpar analogy, but by no means the worst.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[siride]

It's Slashdot. Despite being a tech and science nerd gathering spot, there's a strange strain of climate change denialism here. Maybe it's because the non-denialists don't bother commenting on these stories any more, leaving the denialists to defecate all over the comment section.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would require some sort of magic, and magic is even less Christian than science! (You know, unless it's magic told by the Bible or the Pope or something.)

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm impressed, you assert this almost as if you knew what you were talking about. But all evidence to the contrary, it's apparent you haven't actually read much of anything on the subject.

It's ok, Slashdotterers will still be around to comfort your in your senility.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jones_supa]

I've thought one reason to be that computers (both using and manufacturing them) actually contribute to the climate change and we don't want our shiniez taken away from us.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[ka9dgx]

It's single axis of ranking that make it hard to sort out things, and find the signal amid the noise. If there were ways to flag a point of view, for example, you could find things you agree with (or don't) and want to read, and filter out all the rage post crap.

As it's strictly a popularity contest at present... stuff that appeals to the usual crowd self reinforces over time, and you end up with the crowd that stays here.

The current work around is to scatter our attention at a bunch of broken sites, looking for one that better matches our view... and always being disappointed.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah?

Lick my muthafucking tip, till my perineum flicks,

involuntarily, merrily, you be suckin' my dick scarily,

shuckin' 'n' jivin,' bobbin' 'n' weavin,'

suckin' like a Hoover, pumpin' like Ingersoll-Rand even

You don't know what you talkin' about, put down the pen

get the fuck out and don't come back again,

Wannabe nerd tryin' to show off his brain,

compensatin' like hell for his micro-pain-no-micropeen

Sorry, guys....this is what happens when I troll after a triple blonde roast while listening to Snoop Dogg.
-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

That's a good line. I like it.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

Slashdot is also remarkably conservative. You see this regularly in terms of computer technology (anti-Wayland, anti-Gnome, anti-Windows 8....) but it is also true in terms of American politics. Climate change is going to require coordinated large scale governmental actions through incentives and regulation. Libertarians don't like it so they pretend there is no underlying problem

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

The remarkably strong anti-gun sentiment that dominates nearly every thread that involves anything firearm related doesn't support that slashdot is remarkably conservative.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

Anti-firearm tends to correlate with urban more than conservative.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change is going to require coordinated large scale governmental actions through incentives and regulation.

That won't do much cause the problem is more complicated than that. Why do people deny or ignore climate change? Because their lives depend on polluting and impacting the environment. Why can't people live without polluting? Because they need to eat, but most people aren't in a position to grow food, so they need to make money, and for most, the only way they know how to make money is to build something or provide a service that is mostly unnecessary yet impacts the environment. Worst the current economic models in most countries force people to work at least 40 hours a week to make enough money to eat, even though there's no need for everybody to work that much in order to make enough to eat for everybody. For the pedantic, substitute "eat" by "eat, get clothed, have a shelter and a bit of fun."

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[techno-vampire]

In what other field besides astronomy do we have that level of predictive ability and accuracy?

Ballistics.

Seriously, any part of physics that isn't significantly affected by quantum effects yields much more accurate predictions, as does chemistry.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they've done such a good job so far.

sheesh.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

This is mainly about energy. We could be switching energy production towards renewables. That's going to take years and short term will boost consumption. But everyone knows it is the right long term approach. We don't need to cut standards of living just incentivize the switch.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

And maybe because there are plenty of educated people here who don't drink the Kool Aid like you. If you'd bother to pay attention, there are plenty of scientists, who are uniformly smarter that your sorry ass, who also don't drink the Kool Aid.

 

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[budgenator]

Dice rolls can be predicted because unlike weather and climate they are not non-linear chaotic systems.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It's only April, and I'm willing to give this "comment of the year."

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[drsmithy]

Thinking you shouldn't be able to wander into a 7-11 and pick up an AK47 along with your coke and chips isn't being "anti-gun".

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[JubilantShank]

Well, you already can't do that, so... problem solved.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not. You only think that because you're not conservative.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that at no time in history could you walk into a 7-11 and purchase an AK47, I'd say that's exactly what you are. The more guns a society has, the lower the crime rate. For liberals who love to argue SCIENCE! FACTS!, you liberals sure do hate the truth about "gun control".

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not. Climate change is not just CO2 emissions. All those computer chips, all those plastic bottles need more than energy to make. And no matter how much we recycle, some of the material will pollute the environment, kill the fish, kill the plants... Do we really need a new smartphone every 2 years, do we really need to buy bottled water? Of course not, but someone needed to make money to buy food and they figured the best way is to make smartphones or bottled water and they convinced people that these things are absolutely necessary. And the rest need more money now to buy the unnecessary smartphones and bottled water so they convince others to buy some other unnecessary product or service... that uses a lot more than just energy to produce and impacts the environment.

If you think all it takes is renewable energy and government regulation, you're being extremely naive and severely underestimating the complexity of the problem.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[hairyfeet]

Bimbo Newton Crosby, its pulled out their posterior and when we are talking about basically killing the already half dead economies of most of the western world (Because China and India have already said we can take cap & trade and shove it up our asses and the "ZOMFG invisible hand free trade!" drones will NEVER let you just block trade with them) on numbers supposedly showing you what will happen decades in advance? Yeah I call shenanigans.

Look we ALL want less pollution but to actually achieve that some VERY nasty choices are gonna HAVE to happen. You will HAVE to cut off trade with the third world until they pass environmental laws equal or better than your own, you will HAVE to add trillions to the debt to build the infrastructure to support hybrids, not to mention billions on a "people's car/truck" that would be something like a hybrid diesel/electric so you can wean the country off of fossil fuels onto something like carbon capture diesel, and you will HAVE to get the NIMBYs to STFU and build new nuclear plants because none of our renewable choices will even cover what we use now, much less power even 25% of the cars on the road.

So these are all very hard choices that will have to be made, scams like cap & trade are just reverse robin hood by another name and won't lower greenhouses gases by a single pint, hell if anything they'll RAISE them because it will encourage more factories to be built within countries with lax pollution laws since there is zero penalty for just throwing it on a boat and shipping it to the west. Anyway you slice it people to make a REAL difference...its gonna fucking hurt. If done right it should hurt the rich just as much if not more than the poor (because if you take 100 million from a billionaire he isn't going hungry, take the same percentage from someone on minimum wage and they may end up homeless), it should hurt young and old, its gonna hurt all the way around.

But until you can get rid of the scammers, Al Gore on the left and the oil lobby on the right, and get someone willing to make those hard choices? Well its all fricking moot anyway isn't it?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

Climate change is not just CO2 emissions. All those computer chips, all those plastic bottles need more than energy to make.

That's resource depletion not climate change. Our resource discoveries are outpacing our usage. While there are going to be problems that's not high up on the list.

Do we really need a new smartphone every 2 years, do we really need to buy bottled water?

I hate the word need. But having higher bacterial content in the drinking water and drinking bottled water is less environmentally taxing than a clean water system would be. As for a smartphone every 2 years. We have a lot of breakage and they are wearing out. I'd assume this cycle will slow soonish.

I think pollution is a problem. But I don't think it is nearly as complex a problem or as costly a problem as climate change.
I don't think resource depletion is a serious problem.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[hairyfeet]

Nooo...it was because many of us that was for actually FIXING the problem saw the AGW platform hijacked by scammers who don't give a flying fuck about the climate or the planet, they just want to fleece you for themselves and their friends.

You watch me catch hell for pissing on their "dear leader" but Al Gore is the fucking worst of the lot, he actually has the giant brass balls to say farting around in a one man Lear jet or having a fleet of SUVs is CARBON NEUTRAL because he pays HIMSELF from his own little carbon bullshit company, and to top it off it lowers his fucking taxes to boot! That would be like moving money from my left to right pocket and not only demanding you tell me how wonderful i am for doing that but getting to take the money off my taxes for "moving fees". What a fucking scammer!

So many of us have gotten sick of the "don't do as I do, do as I say" and fucking scamming that has become the AGW platform. Its one thing if you have someone like Ed Begley JR who walks the walk and does without himself to make the world a better place, quite another when you have a fat fuck in a limo saying "You fucking peasants better tighten your belts" while he stuffs his fat fucking face. Fuck them, may they all fucking drown in the rising seas.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

what if we "know" the nature of statistics, understood it, and still think it's the wrongest analogy we've seen all day?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[clyde_cadiddlehopper]

Slashdot is also remarkably conservative. You see this regularly in terms of computer technology (anti-Wayland, anti-Gnome, anti-Windows 8....) but it is also true in terms of American politics. Climate change is going to require coordinated large scale governmental actions through incentives and regulation. Libertarians don't like it so they pretend there is no underlying problem

It is generally true that the past has too many constituents and the future doesn't have enough.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

how can you predict the average of 100 dice rolls, when you can't even predict what the next dice roll will give?

If you can't predict the next dice roll, how come the house always wins?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Thinking you shouldn't be able to wander into a 7-11 and pick up an AK47 along with your coke and chips isn't being "anti-gun".

Luckily, that's already illegal.

Just remember, what the anti-gun crowd is all about is banning Ruger Mini-14's with black synthetic stocks as "assault weapons", while, in the same bill, they declare the Ruger Mini-14 with a walnut stock "exempt from being considered an assault weapon".

Frankly, I consider the ignorance of the anti-gunners to be the biggest reason to oppose their positions....

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with being libertarian. You are talking about conservatives who like to call themselves libertarian because it is the latest conservative lying doublespeak . They think they are being oppressed because 70% of the country no longer thinks like they do, so now there conservative positions are all about gaining their liberty from the yoke of the evil liberal machine. However, they have no compunction curtailing liberty of everyone beyond a narrow spectrum of issues mostly involving the rich and/or the bigoted. The word you are looking for is fascist.

Fascists don't like it so they pretend there is no underlying problem.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[cheater512]

Erm the accuracy of predicting a single coin toss is THE SAME as 1000 coin tosses.

Where as climate is a far more complicated system sort of like where the probability of heads is determined by the previous coin flips.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hrmph, now you're being dense just to hold your side of the debate. Buddy, if you truly believe manufacturing smartphones, plastic bottles et al do nothing more than deplete resources, you're just as much in denial as those others you like to call "conservative."

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, any part of physics that isn't significantly affected by quantum effects yields much more accurate predictions

That is inaccurate. Quantum level predictions are *extremely accurate*. That's how we get chemistry and other things.

Individual events not affected by QM are more predictable, but that does not mean that QM is not predictable. It is just single events that are not predictable at QM level.

What's the difference between single events and overall systems? Kind of like predicting weather vs. climate ;) Think about. We are squabbling over 0.1C temperature changes while individual spots on the planet can fluctuate 80C annually.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet we have no idea when hurricanes will occur, how many will occur, where they will occur or how strong they are until they have formed. How is tracking an existing object a prediction?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[siride]

Why waste your time worrying about the few scammers? It seems like you are just constructing for yourself a reason not to bother at all. If Al Gore is a scammer, then find someone else who isn't and support their work. What does it solve for you to rant and rave about a few loons?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[siride]

Predicting where a projectile will go is on quite a different level from predicting the behavior of the atmosphere of a planet down to a level as small as a town several days in advance. Tell me, can ballistics predict where the projectile will be in a week?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[currently_awake]

They predict flight paths years ahead with rockets/probes. I believe the biggest problem with weather predictions is you need massive resolution to accurately model the planet, and getting sub meter accuracy on a global scale just isn't financially possible yet.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[siride]

Plus chaos theory. And despite that, we still do a good job.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[khallow]

Slashdot is also remarkably conservative. You see this regularly in terms of computer technology (anti-Wayland, anti-Gnome, anti-Windows 8....)

I'll bite. What does that have to do with being conservative?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[techno-vampire]

It is just single events that are not predictable at QM level.

Yes, and that type of thing is exactly what I was thinking of. Maybe I should have been more specific.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

conservatives seek to preserve things as they are it is a resistance to change and progress in the messy way it often occurs in real life. Wayland is a change to Linux. Gnome3/Windows 8 is a change to the desktop paradigm towards an entirely new paradigm based on new hardware.

I was saying that this the computer manifestation of it. The political manifestation is the Republican party.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[khallow]

Wayland is a change to Linux. Gnome3/Windows 8 is a change to the desktop paradigm towards an entirely new paradigm based on new hardware.

And because "Slashdot" opposes a few changes, it means they oppose change in general? How does that work?

The political manifestation is the Republican party.

Like the Republicans oppose change because it'll lead to sweatshops, union busters, slavery, and social Darwinists wandering the streets?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

And because "Slashdot" opposes a few changes, it means they oppose change in general? How does that work?

First off you are switching from asking what the change meant to disagreeing with the underlying facts. /. is generally, recently, opposed to paradigm changes. I could pick others like the conservatism towards languages. You don't see a lot of /.ers embracing new language paradigms. You don't see them generally embracing new ideas in databases much. If you disagree make a positive case of a general acceptance of change.

Like the Republicans oppose change because it'll lead to sweatshops, union busters, slavery, and social Darwinists wandering the streets?

Are you now arguing the Republicans aren't a conservative party in the classic sense?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Guy Harris]

how can you predict the average of 100 dice rolls, when you can't even predict what the next dice roll will give?

If you can't predict the next dice roll, how come the house always wins?

Assuming you're not just trolling, the answer is "the house always wins on average". Somebody might luck out and Win Big, but enough people don't win at all that the big wins and the small wins are more than cancelled out.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Guy Harris]

The remarkably strong anti-gun sentiment that dominates nearly every thread

Statistics, please? I see both strong anti-gun and strong pro-gun comments (when I bother to look at all - the SNR is pretty low on most gun discussions - so maybe I just don't look at enough threads).

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Guy Harris]

Hrmph, now you're being dense just to hold your side of the debate. Buddy, if you truly believe manufacturing smartphones, plastic bottles et al do nothing more than deplete resources, you're just as much in denial as those others you like to call "conservative."

Presumably, then, if you're (also? same AC or different?) arguing that "climate change is not just CO2 emissions", what you mean by that is "climate change is emissions of various greenhouse gases, including but not limited to CO2", and are arguing that manufacturing smartphones, plastic bottles et al cause the emission of greenhouse gases other than CO2.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Guy Harris]

And maybe because there are plenty of educated people here who don't drink the Kool Aid like you. If you'd bother to pay attention, there are plenty of scientists, who are uniformly smarter that your sorry ass, who also don't drink the Kool Aid.

And there are also plenty of smart scientists who do, in your words, "drink the Kool-Aid".

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[manu0601]

Can we predict the economy?

Yes we can: there will be a crisis

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[manu0601]

Libertarians don't like it so they pretend there is no underlying problem

And by the time reality will force them to recognize there is a problem, it will probably be too late to fix it

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[siride]

That would be the equivalent of saying "it will rain at some point". It's not a prediction so much as an observation about the fact that it always rains again somewhere (or, in your example, economies always falter at some point).

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[manu0601]

I was ironic. But to be serious, there is still some information in my prediction: capitalism is unstable, and crisis do happen. Just like there is a difference when I say "it will rain at some point on earth", and "it will not rain at some point on mercury".

And to prevent the next question: I do not have a crisis-free economical system to propose.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

So then you admit that reputable scientists disagree with AGW and at the same time are not shills for this or that industry, etc. eh?

And please, realclimate? A hotbed of political activism and environmental wackos.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[AK Marc]

You will HAVE to cut off trade with the third world until they pass environmental laws equal or better than your own, you will HAVE to add trillions to the debt to build the infrastructure to support hybrids, not to mention billions on a "people's car/truck" that would be something like a hybrid diesel/electric so you can wean the country off of fossil fuels onto something like carbon capture diesel, and you will HAVE to get the NIMBYs to STFU and build new nuclear plants because none of our renewable choices will even cover what we use now, much less power even 25% of the cars on the road.

I'm with you in spirit, but the generally negative tone isn't "productive".

But until you can get rid of the scammers, Al Gore on the left

But Al Gore proposed to do the same thing as you. Except, the plan didn't punish 3rd world countries nearly as much as your plan. It's the same idea, just differences in details.

The US will never get anyone to sign on to the "we poisoned the earth already, so you don't get to" stance. Though my plan would be to do neither. Tax all imports according to a "location scale". Bad labor laws? Tax for you. Bad environmental laws? Tax for you. Use slave/prisoner labor in exports? Tax for you. Tax the "cheat" paths 25% more than the estimated gain from the cheat. You might as well raise your wages to US minimum and pay US minimum health care and vacation, or you'll pay that much anyway in the tax on your widget. Repeat for environment and other issues. Let them make all they want domestically. Let them export to "worse" countries. But to get in the US (and likely the UE if the US adopted this), you must pay tax equal to the lowest standard in the place of sale.

Oh, and you are factually wrong, in that solar could provide 100% of US energy needs. It's just there isn't enough money in it for the established companies, so it's always given bad press. And yes, if solar was 100% of power, we would need to consider nighttime production or storage, but the problems with that are mainly political and cost, not technical.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[catchblue22]

Climate can change and it will change but predicting these kinds of trends to 2050 with any kind of accuracy is ludicrous at best, since they cannot even predict whats the weather next weekend.

Again, the above is a perfect example of bullshit, or if you want a more polite term, "poppycock" or "humbug". Quoting from the above link...

Bullshit is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising.

"bullshit" can be sometimes be distinguished from lying...

"Bullshit" does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication; with only basic knowledge about a topic, bullshit is often used to make the audience believe that one knows far more about the topic by feigning total certainty or making probable predictions.

The parent poster seems to implicitly (and deliberately?) confuse climate and weather. There are numerous quality discussions about chaotic systems, the differences between climate and weather, and how climate is predictable farther into the future than weather. The existence of these arguments, and the poster's seeming ignorance of them seems to indicate to me that the poster simply does not care about the truth, but cares rather only to appear to be truthful to those less well-read in science. As such, he falls nicely under Princeton Professor Harry Frankfurt's definition of a bullshiter given in his 2005 monograph 'On Bullshit':

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[AK Marc]

Erm the accuracy of predicting a single coin toss is THE SAME as 1000 coin tosses.

The chance of 1000 tosses being an exact number is much smaller than the chance to guess the next toss. Also, the chance of guessing 1000 tosses within a 5% margin is very high. 5% margin on the next toss is the same as 0% margin, which is why it's easier to guess 1000 than 1. And it is a good analogy for weather. The chance of a single event at a single point of time is X, but the chance of a repeat is more "stable" than any single event.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[rickb928]

What?

A six-digit UID writes this? Are you senile? Slashdot is about as conservative as HuffPo. A foot wide and a millimeter deep.

Just answer anyone with an anti-religion rant and see what happens. It doesn't matter WHAT you answer with.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[AK Marc]

Nobody has *ever* even suggested taking our shiney. There have been discussions that would lead to higher prices, but those are always shot down by the people who want to save up for their 3rd summer home, 2nd ski villa, or 4th yacht.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[rickb928]

Make smartphones tough enough to last 3 years and I'll keep one. I did, My G-1.

Yhe public water system where i live is saddled with minerals that make it taste like bleagh, and chlorine that makes it taste like the pool. I decant RO water every chance I get, and learned that ice reduces the aftertaste, but chilling water for ice is also wasteful.

It's unlikely any flat panel TV will last as long as the XL-100 I had to dispose of because no one could adopt it.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

Slashdot is about as conservative as HuffPo. A foot wide and a millimeter deep.

You got me on that one. I don't even know how those metaphors mix. One is saying the opposite but strong, and the other is saying not much commitment.

Just answer anyone with an anti-religion rant and see what happens. It doesn't matter WHAT you answer with.

I wouldn't accuse /. of being pro-religion

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Nimey]

Because finding an excuse not to care gives him an excuse to do nothing.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[hairyfeet]

Are you THIS fucking stupid, or are you such a flag waver you don't give a fuck if you get assraped as long as they wear the right t-shirt? Read the God damned link the ONLY things that will get passed if you support AGW right now is FUCKING SCAMS, you will do NOTHING, not a God damned thing, to lower carbon by a single fucking pint, ALL YOU WILL DO is make fat fucks like Al Gore rich!

If your idea of "doing something" is giving money to scammers, fuck don't let me stop you, just send all your money to the nearest televangelist and call it a fucking day. Hell you might as well, its the same bullshit, just a different wrapper.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[hairyfeet]

Oh bullshit, solar panels aren't even 50% efficient right now and if you sit down and do the figures without mommy government tilting the scales with tax breaks and other bullshit? It will NEVER break even, it won't. get rid of every tax break on oil and coal? they WILL make money, do the same for solar? DEAD, its dead as a doornail. Don't get me wrong, that does NOT mean we shouldn't be spending on R&D, just the opposite, i think we need to spend like crazy on R&D so that we'll be the ones to find the breakthroughs on renewables but right now? Solar don't cut it.

And your "tax" idea sadly is just bullshit because it ALWAYS leads to the same place, lobbyist buys congress, gets breaks passed for THEIR country, you are right back in the same boat only you just made things worse and gave scammers more money, congrats. Don't believe me? Then WTF is China doing with most favored nation status? They do every nasty thing in the book to their people yet they are put on the same footing as Canada? WTF? Of course we ALL know the real reason why that is, too many rich making money off of disposable Chinese workers, too many lobbyists making out checks. fuck man the worst polluting coal plants in this country have exemptions from every God damned reg because they bribed the shit out of the politicians! I wish I still had the link as somebody actually got the owner of those plants cornered and the fucker bragged that the reason he can do WTF ever he wants is because "I can pick up the phone at 3AM and call the POTUS and he says "sir" to me"

so I'm sorry but until you get the scammers like Gore out of the system you might as well just send your paycheck to a televangelist, its the same thing, one says he is gonna save the afterlife, one says he's gonna save the world, both are completely full of shit. Just read this to see why that don't work because those guys are already ahead of you, they will have 400 loopholes already set up before the thing even gets to a fucking vote. either you be a bastard and say "this bullshit stops now" or you just accept all you are doing is giving your wallet to a televangelist who is telling you what you want to hear, sadly that is pretty much your choices friend.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[AK Marc]

The problem is the price is too high, so the solution is to increase tariffs against solar panels. If the Chinese are selling them below materials cost, then we should be buying more, not less. Gasoline IC engines are around 20% efficient, and they lasted 100+ years, so low efficiency isn't indicative of uselessness.

so I'm sorry but until you get the scammers like Gore out of the system you might as well just send your paycheck to a televangelist, its the same thing, one says he is gonna save the afterlife, one says he's gonna save the world, both are completely full of shit

From where I sit, you are calling for the same thing as he is. You have a problem with the solution because you think it works, but you don't like the personality of the people who will profit most. Got it. Fuck the Earth, we want the conservative 0.9% to make the trillions from the scheme, not the liberal 0.1%.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jewens]

Which is odd since the majority of crime that could be deterred by permissive concealed carry laws also tends to correlate with urban.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Guy Harris]

So then you admit that reputable scientists disagree with AGW and at the same time are not shills for this or that industry, etc. eh?

I'd have to study more of what they say to see whether that's the case or not. Even if they're reputable in their field and not shills for fossil fuel industries, that doesn't mean they're actually right.

And please, realclimate? A hotbed of political activism and environmental wackos.

And the reason why I should believe you when you make that assertion is? Are you reputable, or are you just an anti-AGW wacko?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[riverat1]

When it comes to climate what you're fundamentally talking about is an energy balance problem. It's not at chaotic as you think. There is energy coming into the system and energy going out and the difference is how much energy is retained. A change in energy retained causes all sorts of secondary effects like a change in temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans, a change in the level of water vapor in the atmosphere, and tertiary effects like changes in glaciers and weather. Both incoming and outgoing energy can and have been measured and there is a difference.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[riverat1]

It's a beautiful example of the use of statistics. They statistically analyze the chance of any particular roll coming up and set the odds on the bets in their favor.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[AK Marc]

And I see slashdot as being very pro-gun. You apparently are.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[AK Marc]

The more guns a society has, the lower the crime rate.

The higher the crime rate, the greater the chance that an anti-gun law will be passed. Which is the cause? Anti-gun laws cause crime, or crime causes anti-gun laws?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[AK Marc]

Drop past Wal-Mart for a soda and a http://www.walmart.com/ip/Colt-LE6920-Carbine-Semi-Auto-Rifle-223-Rem-5.56-NATO/21677322.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[knorthern knight]

> It's Slashdot. Despite being a tech and science nerd gathering spot, there's
> a strange strain of climate change denialism here. Maybe it's because
> the non-denialists don't bother commenting on these stories any more,
> leaving the denialists to defecate all over the comment section.

Nobody's denying climate change. Climate has been changing the past 4 billion years; climate is changing now; and it will keep changing for the next 4 billionn years. Deal with it.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[terjeber]

You need to go back to school

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[cyber-vandal]

Yeah that's why the US has the lowest crime rate in the world . Countries that don't shit on their poor people are the ones with the lowest crime rates, that's why Switzerland has a low crime rate, not because people have guns.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[pantaril]

how can you predict the average of 100 dice rolls, when you can't even predict what the next dice roll will give?

Quite easily. In 100 six-sided dice rolls, there would be on average 16.6 ones, 16.6 twos, 16.6 threes, 16.6 fours, 16.6 fives and 16.6 sixs.

Actually the more dice rolls you allow me to perform the more accurate my prediction about the result would be. It's called statistics.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, how can these "scientists" predict that July of 2014 will be warmer than January of 2014 in the northern hemisphere, when they cannot even predict the weather next weekend?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

Urban environments have experienced what permissive concealed carry (in effect though rarely in law) would look like. There have been periods of time and neighborhoods where large numbers of people carry handguns concealed. What are otherwise unpleasant situations escalate into lethal situations. Even if there is some level of crime that is deterred people would rather have 5 additional shopliftings or vandalisms in exchange for 1 less shooting. Obviously guns can help when there is a total breakdown of policing. But that's far rarer than guns helping to lead to breakdown of policing.

The FBI is of the opinion that a gun was fired 260 times in 2011 resulting in defense of life.
About 50x that number died in gun related homicides and another 70x that number in gun related suicides.

I think most urban people would agree those are about the numbers they've experienced.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[riverat1]

Very few of the scientists who are actively studying climate disagree with AGW. Those who disagree should delve into the subject and try to provide an explanation that does a better job than the current paradigm to explain the observations than the current one. Then I'll start listening to them.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[cheater512]

Nope. The probability of a coin toss is 0.5. That is the same if it is 1 toss or 1000 tosses.

If you are trying to guess a specific number then sure 1000 is easier, but that's only because with 1 toss you can only go 1 or 0 which are both equally far away from 0.5.
With 1000 you'd of course go for 500 but the probability is still 0.5 (0.5 * 1000 = 500).

What would you guess for a billion? Yep 500,000,000. (0.5 * 1,000,000,000). Same probability. Nothing changes.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[32771]

>Well its all fricking moot anyway isn't it?

It feels like this is certain. Partly since the ideas you mentioned to circumvent the problem are not really all that workable. Imagine the >2000 nuclear power plants you need to substitute the energy stored in coal, oil, and gas. What will the rate of >=INES6 events be? Remember we still can't eat wild animals in some parts of Germany due to Chernobyl, so much for the backyard.

Then you shouldn't forget that all geological resources need more and more energy to get them out of the ground over time due to declining concentration, so at some point your netto energy always declines to where your society reverts to a simpler state if you can't find anything new and better.

Then you always have the waste problem that you hope the environment will swallow but doesn't - that also affects your netto energy.
The problem now with our favourite waste CO2 is that it will stay with us for a long time, look at the following for a good explanation ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsnaXlhctLY ).

Combine this with the fact that we haven't come up with any clean replacement technologies that are put into production in a credible way (renewables in my country support ~2% of electric energy consumption and we seem somewhat committed), it should become apparent that the catastrophic non-linear climate change will hit us right in time when we run out of energy to deal with it.

Also notice that on the psychological level we won't be able to make the right decisions, first of all the effects of CO2 are delayed by around 40 years http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html this will take the otherwise sensible "show me" guys out of the pool of people you can get behind your "do something, anything" agenda. Then as things go down people will fall prey to hyperbolic discounting and say lets use those resources as the danger is far away.

They are under pressure from netto energy decline now and also decide against investing in new and uncertain technologies that will give them less netto energy anyway but could help with things in the future, (this has been called the energy trap http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/, and is more generally mentioned by Denis Meadows while not involving energy), hyperbolic discounting at work again.

Notice that many people have researched the issues, politicians have attempted to deal with the issues in some halfhearted form and gotten nowhere. Also notice that people have no problem to go to war over resource issues and risk loss of live for more oil or gold (the latter being the worst reason). I'm pretty sure that they also have no problem accepting loss of live on a grand scale, but it does have to happen later and maybe stretched out over time and space so we don't notice that much.

Because of that, I'm 100% certain that no action will be taken regarding climate change that will amount to substantial preventative measures. Which is easy to say since way back in the 19th century was the time to plan ahead, and some good insights that could have led to action then, never had any impact.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[KeensMustard]

Nooo...it was because many of us that was for actually FIXING the problem saw the AGW platform hijacked by scammers [nakedcapitalism.com] who don't give a flying fuck about the climate or the planet, they just want to fleece you for themselves and their friends.

Then let's look at the evidence: firstly you say that in general, people on slashdot adopting a counter position do so because emissions reduction schemes (i.e cap and trade, emissions trading, direct legislation for reduction) are a scam. But they think the actual phenomenon of anthropogenic climate change is real:

This guy thinks the reduction in arctic sea ice is caused by underwater volcanoes: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3645525&cid=43442631. If he thinks that anthropogenic climate change is real, why is he saying that it is not? This seems disingenuous.

This guys seems to think that the predictions of climate science can't be trusted - although bizarrely, he posted a link which indicates otherwise: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3645525&cid=43441341. If he though those predictions could be trusted, why not say so? This seems disingenuous.

This guy thinks that the arctic ice is not melting at all: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3645525&cid=43441403 - if he thinks that AGW is real (and evidenced by melting arctic ice) why did he not just say it? This seems disingenuous.

This guy thinks it's happened but won't get off his arse and do anything about it because it will mainly happen to poor people: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3645525&cid=43443501. If, he, as you claim, is genuinely concerned about climate change, why does he not just say so? This seems disingenuous.

Notably, these positions are all:

1. Notably lacking any hard evidence

2. In contradiciton with one another

As is yours.

Why is the true position?

Which out of the whole crowd of you is telling us the truth?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[siride]

Wow. I bet you think you're so very clever. You obviously know that "climate change" refers to AGW, and yet you decided you'd play a semantic trick. Boy, you sure got me! You must be the smartest of your friends.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[rickb928]

Not very strong, and not very enduring. I know, mixing Imperial and Metric is confusing.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Why??

I've already got a Mini-14 (walnut stock), which is functionally identical to the AR-15 clone but without the bother of being considered an "assault weapon".

No, I don't have any 30 round magazines, alas. Closest I could find were 35-rd magazines....

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jewens]

Ok, I'm no gun nut but I do enjoy arguing for its own sake so here goes.

Urban environments have experienced what permissive concealed carry (in effect though rarely in law) would look like. There have been periods of time and neighborhoods where large numbers of people carry handguns concealed.

Were the concealed carry people in your uncited example the type of citizens who would qualify for a permit if they were legal? The kind of responsible concealed carry permit holder that would best be a crime deterrent tend to also be the type that wouldn't intentionally break the law no matter how strongly they may disagree with it.

What are otherwise unpleasant situations escalate into lethal situations. Even if there is some level of crime that is deterred people would rather have 5 additional shopliftings or vandalisms in exchange for 1 less shooting.

Here you are considering a trade-off between non-violent property crimes and shootings, to be fair you must compare between more similar crimes. How many additional rapes are the people willing to accept? Muggings? Car-jackings?

Obviously guns can help when there is a total breakdown of policing. But that's far rarer than guns helping to lead to breakdown of policing.

Citizen owned guns are probably most effective somewhere between the two extremes. In a lawless state self defense becomes an arms race, in a police-state they weaken the power of the state (not necessarily a bad thing), and somewhere in the middle they serve as an additional layer of defense against an immediate threat while deterring overall crime-rates making the limited police resources more effective.

The FBI is of the opinion that a gun was fired 260 times in 2011 resulting in defense of life.

That number clearly excludes law enforcement officer discharges, of which there were 36 in NYC alone during that same year. Also missing from that statistic are the untrackable number of times mere brandishment of a firearm achieved the same end (i.e. defense of life).

About 50x that number died in gun related homicides and another 70x that number in gun related suicides.

I think most urban people would agree those are about the numbers they've experienced.

The ratios you quote are meaningless since the numbers are measured with wildly different methodologies and errors (see previous point).
And lastly and most politically incorrect of all: How many more Columbines or Sandy Hooks would you be willing to accept if we eliminated gun-related suicide entirely?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jewens]

PS: And how did we end up discussing this in a thread about AGW denialism?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Sarius64]

Yep, keep talking Democratic Party line. Like anything, honest conversation never enters into your mantra. Don't like the Civil Rights Act? String up some more darkies like your forefathers did.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

climate change -> climate denialism -> conservative politics -> gun policy

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

My forefathers? Where my family lived there was no meaningful klan activity. The Democratic party was the party for Catholics and the working class while the Republican party was Protestant and merchant class. The two parties worked together and helped to build a decent society. Then the southern racists that currently run your party took the Republican party over the New England Republican party are now running the Democratic party while working with the working class interests that formed the traditional Democratic party.

The Republican party in the 1950s was a great party. And if they still existed I'd be voting for them. But they don't.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's clever of you, but it's also the exact point of the post you are replying to.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Reziac]

climate change -> climate denialism -> conservative politics -> gun policy -> Godwin

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[toddestan]

So you don't "support" AGW because of people like Al Gore? Are you, like the vast majority of deniers, too fucking stupid to separate the science and the scams? Just because Al Gore may be a hypocritical idiot doesn't make the science false.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

Were the concealed carry people in your uncited example the type of citizens who would qualify for a permit if they were legal? The kind of responsible concealed carry permit holder that would best be a crime deterrent tend to also be the type that wouldn't intentionally break the law no matter how strongly they may disagree with it.

Its hard to know. Very strict concealed carry laws have gotten rolled back in many states. So today most people whom you would want to have guns would qualify, at the time not so much. But I don't think the best deterrents are people with clean records. When I was growing up we had organized crime. Those guys were excellent deterrents to disorganized crime but wouldn't pass a background check.

Here you are considering a trade-off between non-violent property crimes and shootings, to be fair you must compare between more similar crimes. How many additional rapes are the people willing to accept? Muggings? Car-jackings?

I'd be curious if car-jackings don't correlate strongly with gun availability. But muggings I'd agree that's a good case were gun deterrence could work well. OTOH mugging is super easy to stop via. policing because muggers have to do so many per day.

Citizen owned guns are probably most effective somewhere between the two extremes. In a lawless state self defense becomes an arms race

Yes it does. And there ratios of criminals to non criminals matter.

and somewhere in the middle they serve as an additional layer of defense against an immediate threat while deterring overall crime-rates making the limited police resources more effective.

That's what I'm unsure of. I think you need to be pretty close to the anarchy extreme.

The ratios you quote are meaningless since the numbers are measured with wildly different methodologies and errors (see previous point).

I'd agree with the statistical problems I'd assume they are large enough differences to correct for statistical issues. Cut 50x down to only 25x or even 10x and it is still overwhelming.

And lastly and most politically incorrect of all: How many more Columbines or Sandy Hooks would you be willing to accept if we eliminated gun-related suicide entirely?

We lost 20k per year to gun related suicides. All the school shootings combined don't get you to one month's worth. More importantly we had in Arizona exactly the situation the gun advocates wanted armed people in the crowd. They couldn't do anything into the cover fire stopped (31 rounds expended). And then the armed guy closest misidentified and was getting ready to kill one of the heroes who was disarming Loughner. Obviously we don't want to draw too much from one case, but the whole armed deterrence / shooting back didn't work out so well under more or less perfect conditions.

 

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[DrProton]

Seriously, any part of physics that isn't significantly affected by quantum effects yields much more accurate predictions, as does chemistry.

Nonsense. You got that backwards. Ever heard of an atomic clock, the most accurate timepiece? It is quantum mechanical. Chemistry is quantum mechanics. How does chemistry work without atoms and electrons, which are quantum objects? I think you confuse Heisenberg uncertainty with measurement accuracy.

The most accurate measured quantities are quantum mechanical, e.g. the spin-flip transition of the 1s ground state of hydrogen, "hyperfine" frequencies, or maser frequencies. You think you can specify ballistic results to a part in 10^12 or better? Using an atomic fountain, measurements accurate to a few parts in 10^15 have been performed. This extends the results of Norman Ramsey, who won the Nobel Prize for his research.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Social trends?

Well, I predict I won't be getting laid this week.

Also, I predict this post will not be modded up.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[AK Marc]

The probability of a coin toss is 0.5. That is the same if it is 1 toss or 1000 tosses.

The probability of *A* coin toss is 0.5, but the aggregate probability of 0.5 over 1000 coin tosses is not.

If you are trying to guess a specific number then sure 1000 is easier, but that's only because with 1 toss you can only go 1 or 0 which are both equally far away from 0.5. With 1000 you'd of course go for 500 but the probability is still 0.5 (0.5 * 1000 = 500).

No, the probability of exactly 500 after 1000 is about 2%. It'll be a curve around 500, with a max at 500, but it is not so concentrated at 500 as you assert.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[AK Marc]

The question wasn't about whether you personally needed another AR-15 clone, but whether you "could" buy an "assault weapon" casually. You can. The posts indicating it's "illegal" to pick up an "assault weapon" with coke and chips are wrong.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[CrimsonAvenger]

The question wasn't about whether you personally needed another AR-15 clone, but whether you "could" buy an "assault weapon" casually. You can. The posts indicating it's "illegal" to pick up an "assault weapon" with coke and chips are wrong.

No, it's illegal to do so at a 7-11, unless the cashier also holds an FFL, which makes him just another gun dealer.

Note also that one of the points *I* was making is that the difference between an "assault weapon" and a "Not assault weapon" is sometimes as small as the material the stock is made of.

It should also be noted that even if you buy a walnut-stocked Mini-14 (not an assault weapon), and then replace the stock with a synthetic stock with pistol grip, it is STILL NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON!

The law is written specifying makes and models as "assault weapons" or "exempt weapons". Which you have, in the case of the mini-14, will be determined by the serial number of the piece (which won't change just because you replace the stock. Or the front sight. Or put a 35-rd magazine in the magazine well instead of the five rd magazine that comes with).

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[AK Marc]

Ah, then I undersand all your "distinctions" and find them pedantic and irrelevant.
Is there a ubiquitous store that sells coke, chips, and an "assault weapon" (or something close to it)? Yes.
Are there logical inconsistencies around the definition of "assault weapon"? Yes.

The pro-gun insist that if the anti-gun can't even define assault weapons in a meaningful way, they should be trivialized. But I find the converse to be true. If the gun-nuts can't accept a definition they disagree with as a point of fact, rather than a topic of debate, they are similarly insane/stupid and should be trivialized.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[hairyfeet]

Actually I'm a socialist that leads communist, I just fucking hate reverse robin hood scams which is ALL the crap&trade shit is! All you are doing is the classic "We have to do something!" fallacy which always ends up not doing a God damned thing but letting a few guys at the top make out like fucking bandits without actually fixing shit, its another bridge to nowhere, another regulation that will have 40 fucking loopholes written in before it gets to the floor, its fucking bullshit.

If you are gonna do that shit, why not just send your money to a televangelist that says Jesus is gonna fix it? You'll be doing the same thing, neither will fix jack shit, both will allow a few at the top to make out like bandits, and at least most of the preachers do try to keep the fucking smug levels down, whereas Gore and friends are douches to the 1 billionth power.

If he was real and honest and walked the walk like Ed Begley Jr, who lives in a modest house and drives electric cars because he doesn't want to ruin the environment? I would be 100% behind him but he doesn't, he is just another fat fuck sitting in a limo stuffing his fat face telling YOU that YOU need to use less while he blasts the AC and throws his wrappers out the window. Fuck him and fuck anybody that supports the whole "do as I say, not as I do" bullshit because YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, nothing real will get done as long as these snake oil scammers are selling their bullshit.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[budgenator]

Being chaotic is a qualitative property not a quantitative property, chaotic systems often have numerous periods of stability. People often mistake erratic behaviour as chaotic, and stable behaviour as non-chaotic.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh bullshit, solar panels aren't even 50% efficient right now

What is the point of that statement? Fossil-fueled and nuclear power plants are not even 50% efficient right now. Explain why it matters for solar but not for other fuels. It's almost as if there is some other parameter that is more important, like dollars per watt or something similar...

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[hairyfeet]

Because just as corn ethanol is a pointless dead end but has a shitload of lobbyists to keep that crap going so too is the greenies gonna keep throwing money down the pisser on solar panels when there are other things that may turn out to be MUCH better in the long run, tidal generation, molten salt solar, high altitude wind extraction just to name 3.

Again this ALL comes down to scammers using the "ZOMFG we have GOT to do something!" crowd to their own ends, because there is a hell of a big difference between doing something and doing something SMART or effective. I mean you could hear a tornado is coming your way and you can cover yourself in feces and do the Charleston, after all that IS doing something about the situation, but all that will accomplish is making it easier to find your dumb dead ass by the stench. A SMART person would go into a shelter and live to see another day...see the difference? With current tech solar panels are the former, you simply can't make the math work without government tilting the living hell out of the scales, you just can't.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[tbannist]

Can ballistics predict how many times private smith will hit his target during next weekend's target practice? No? Then ballistics and physics are clearly not science because they has no useful predictive ability... Or at least that what I've being told to believe by loud angry people who aren't scientists.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[tbannist]

You mean, by the time reality forces them to recognize there is problem, they'll deny that anything could have been done while simultaneously blaming government for the problem.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[tbannist]

Read the God damned link the ONLY things that will get passed if you support AGW right now is FUCKING SCAMS, you will do NOTHING, not a God damned thing, to lower carbon by a single fucking pint, ALL YOU WILL DO is make fat fucks like Al Gore rich!

Strange because previous cap and trade systems actually reduced emissions. The point of cap and trade schemes is to make them attractive to rich assholes so they'll see a profit opportunity and support them. Regulation or taxes are both better and more effective systems, but this the United States of America we're talking about and if you don't get some of the fat rich people on your side, it's not going to happen at all, and that's even costlier than buying off the rich assholes.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[riverat1]

It's not really clear at this point whether climate is truly chaotic or not on the large scale. I found this post on the subject that is quite interesting. As well as the post some of the comments are quite pertinent.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you disagree make a positive case of a general acceptance of change.

I think you're being too vague measuring conservativeness only by acceptance of change.

I would classify slashdot more as utilitarian than conservative. Slashdot accept and reject things based on perceived utility. A new paradigm/language/whatever is often rejected because slashdot does not see any value in switching.

But if something new does have perceived utility, slashdot would embrace it. Say, the open source initiative. You mentioned Wayland vs Linux, but remember that Linux itself was a change from a Windows-dominant world.

One other indication that slashdot is utilitarian as opposed to conservative is how slashdot has no problem rejecting free market capitalism or libertarianism (things conservatives usually support, because conservatives think we "had" a free market and free society, and want to keep it that way/roll society back to those Good Old Times). For whatever reason, slashdot feels that those things do not provide maximum utility. This sets up the stage for a minority of conservatives and libertarians to whine about just how "socialist" the slashdot mob is.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Reservoir Penguin]

My N900 going strong into it's 3rd year. However it is objectively slower and has worse screen than newer models, so upgrading is not just following fashion.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[techno-vampire]

Or at least that what I've being told to believe by loud angry people who aren't scientists.

As you say, they aren't scientists. Ballistics is used to determine where the projectile will strike, depending on how it's aimed and how much charge there is and it's very, very good at that. How often a particular marksman will hit the target is outside its purview.

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[jbolden]

I think you're being too vague measuring conservativeness only by acceptance of change.

There is a problem. The word conservative has overlapping meanings and is vague.

But if something new does have perceived utility, slashdot would embrace it. Say, the open source initiative.

Open source predates /. /. was born out of the open source initiative, i.e. the Linux movement.

You mentioned Wayland vs Linux, but remember that Linux itself was a change from a Windows-dominant world.

Well first off, I agree that /. used to not be conservative. I think this is a recent change.

On the issue of the underlying fact I don't fully agree. The Linux movement came out of the academic Unix community. Basically a way of providing a bad Unix on x86 for much less money than a good Unix would cost. /. when it started had a lot of people like me who had come to Linux from UNIX. We were interested in Linux because it gave us the opportunity to do stuff we would have liked to do on an SGI/AIX/Solaris box cheaply.

The next wave was definitely Linux enthusiasts who were moving away from Windows and were looking for a desktop operating system with capabilities well beyond what Windows 98/ME offered.

how slashdot has no problem rejecting free market capitalism or libertarianism

I wouldn't agree with you. I'd say that in general /. is pro capitalists and leans libertarian. How often do you hear calls for government takeovers the database industry for example?

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source predates /. /. was born out of the open source initiative, i.e. the Linux movement.

This indicates another problem with measuring something as vague as conservativeness: who is conservative or not depends on where you set your point of reference.

Well first off, I agree that /. used to not be conservative. I think this is a recent change.

This ties in with the point of reference. It appears your point of reference is "recent", however long ago that is. You seem to think that anybody who consistently rejects new things that has happened since then is being conservative. My view is that they are rejecting those things because they see no worthwhile utility to embrace the changes.

I see it like how PC desktop sales have gone down: people aren't buying new PCs not because they're conservative, but because their old PCs are "good enough" and there's little utility gain to upgrade (but slashdot would totally recommend switching to an SSD)

I wouldn't agree with you. I'd say that in general /. is pro capitalists and leans libertarian. How often do you hear calls for government takeovers the database industry for example?

I think this is a false dilemma. Rejecting capitalism and libertarianism doesn't mean you unconditionally Love Big Brother.

I do think slashdot has a more liberal stance towards public education than conservatives or libertarians. I also think slashdot is more accepting of government breaking/preventing monopolies, instead of "let the free market handle it" or "it's government that created those monopolies in the first place!"

Re:I thought this was over and done already?

[khallow]

Are you now arguing the Republicans aren't a conservative party in the classic sense?

I notice when you get called on the fallacy of equivocation (that is, shifting between definitions in order to make an argument), only then do you complain that "conservative" is "vague". But here, we see that you are using two different definitions, the "classical" sense and the sense of opposing change in general. The vagueness of the two definitions doesn't excuse your little game here.

Or not...

[kenh]

Long-range climate predictions are nearly always wrong, despite their insistence to the contrary, I suspect they may be wrong again.

Or not...

Re:Or not...

[Mashiki]

I'll be betting that it'll be wrong again. Then again if it's "ice free" by the summer of said year, we'll actually be at a point where we were previous to the last ice age. Which of course could mean really good stuff, or really bad stuff depending on your PoV.

Re:Or not...

[bill_mcgonigle]

hey, give them some credit - at least it's a testable prediction that can falsify their model. That's progress.

Re:Or not...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be betting that it'll be wrong again. Then again if it's "ice free" by the summer of said year, we'll actually be at a point where we were previous to the last ice age. Which of course could mean really good stuff, or really bad stuff depending on your PoV.

And how much time did it take to get from Point A to Point B the previous time we were at Point B.

Also, your post and the GP are completely useless. They were the best of times, they were the worst of times ... how much does that tell us? Nothing, absolutely fucking nothing. Here we get a falsifiable prediction and it's met with people shitting on it with apathy.

Re:Or not...

[Black Parrot]

I don't know about "long range", but the medium-range projections have almost always proven to be too optimistic.

I suspect IPCC feels political pressure to tone down the bad news.

Re:Or not...

[nospam007]

I predict that the weather tomorrow will be better, worse or like it is today.

Re:Or not...

[huckamania]

Or maybe it's just the pressures of reality. Ice loss this year will be about average and way above last year. Last year the artic lost ice cover due to, gasp, the weather. This year it is tracking about normal and overall thickness has actually increased.

If the warmistas can just find the missing heat, the debate would be over. But there's the rub.

Re:Or not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed.

Re:Or not...

[JubilantShank]

Yeah. The great thing about humans is that we're pretty damn adaptable, as a whole.

Things like the mini-ice-age in Europe a few hundred years ago, and the dust bowl in the 1930's, didn't mean the end of the human race, and even some of the worst predictions - more storms, higher seas, more rain where there was already too much, less rain where there wasn't enough, etc - won't mean the end. We'll adapt, because that's what we do.

There's a reason humans are on top right now - we can adapt more easily and consciously than any other creature. So, it won't be good, or it could be, or whatever. It won't be the end, just inconvenient.

Re:Or not...

[DiamondGeezer]

Its not testable at all. Its a prophecy set so far into the future that the modellers will likely be dead before 2050. There is no way to tell in any intervening period before then that the claim can be proven false.

Its not science at all. Its a religious belief in the validity of mathematical models which cannot predict climate in the near term better than by chance.

Re:Or not...

[khallow]

Its not testable at all. Its a prophecy set so far into the future that the modellers will likely be dead before 2050.

But 2050 will happen and it's not that far away as climate time scales go. That the hypothesis can be eventually confirmed or rejected in a reasonable time is enough.

Re:Or not...

[mrchaotica]

The modelers are grad students and probably in their 20s. The guy who's name goes first on the papers but who didn't do any real work might be dead, but the modelers will probably still be alive...

...unless Climate Change kills them first, of course! ; )

Oh, and FYI: the phrase "climate in the near term" is nonsensical. It's like trying to talk about an "average at a point" or something.

Re:Or not...

[KeensMustard]

hey, give them some credit - at least it's a testable prediction that can falsify their model. That's progress.

Not entirely sure what you mean - because of course models are inherently testable. If they show a meaningful result at all this result can be compared to what actually happens == testable.

By this means models which are inaccurate are discarded and models which aren't are kept. Simple enough.

Perhaps you mean that these results are testable - unlike the predictions of certain industry sponsored naysayers (Anthony Watts, Christopher Monkton et al.) which are varied and often self contradictory? I'm not sure that self contradiction means that the ranting of these lunatics cannot be falsified. Rather, they falsify themselves. As I've said before merely guessing is a better predictor of the future than climate denialists, because a random guess does not have inbuilt bias.

Re:Or not...

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already had a falsifiable prediction regarding temps...guess what? They failed. Prediction falsified by reality. Of course the AGW crowd can't admit it so they come up with yet another theory to explained why their first one failed. Now they dare us to prove that one wrong.

Re:Or not...

[Geirzinho]

They're claiming it will be ice free _by_ 2050, not spontaneously in that year! You can verify their claim every summer up to that year.

If their model says the trend is linear and they are right, half the ice is gone in 2032 (they'll probably have some feedback, so check their trend prediction).

Re:Or not...

[AK Marc]

And if it's wrong, it was correct, but we sequestered enough CO2 to avert the issue. That's the complaint, if it's right, it'll be "too late" to matter. And if it's wrong, then some other variable was changed from now until then, but the prediction was correct.

Re:Or not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for thinking/looking far back enough. No one has explained how the last ice age ended, with a model. That ended some 10K years ago changed the face of the earth and kill off most of the mega fauna. Hey, what happened to all the Mammoths???

Shit is going to happen and we need to plan for it. We do not seem to be going back towards and ice age so maybe we should move more of the population inwards and get off the FUCKING beaches. We should have abandoned most of NOLA and moved the ninth ward people North of Lake Pontchartrain, as one example.

Re:Or not...

[Reziac]

'Zac'ly... and last time the OhNoes of polar ice went around, someone pointed out that there was no less ice than before; rather, it had just moved around, as it normally does. So... it depends entirely where you measure it. Measure it where it wasn't last year and is this year, and suddenly you can show a vast increase in the amount of polar ice. Do the reverse and you can show that it's disappearing.

Kinda like measuring the depth of the ocean over a sandbar.

Re:Or not...

[sg_oneill]

[quote]If the warmistas can just find the missing heat, the debate would be over. But there's the rub.[/quote]

You know it depresses the shit out of me that people on slashdot can use the word "warmista" to mean "scientist" and not get downvoted into oblivion.

Come on guys, lets not act like frigging creationists here. Your all getting crazy at scientists but are any of you guys actually climate scientists with the qualifications to tell me *why* you think the science is wrong.

And no cherry picking dubious graphs off cranky sites like watts-up doesn't count.

Re:Or not...

[Black Parrot]

Come on guys, lets not act like frigging creationists here. Your all getting crazy at scientists but are any of you guys actually climate scientists with the qualifications to tell me *why* you think the science is wrong.

The science has become so well established that acting like creationists is the only option they have left. (Creationists have the same problem.)

In another thread I posted a couple of common arguments that creationists and global warming deniers both use to rationalize ignoring scientists. They also share arguments for ignoring the science itself:

"If you can't do it in the lab, it isn't science." (Here's wondering whether they ever pause to consider how many entire branches of science they define out of existence with that claim.)

"If your theory can't predict $TRIVIALDETAIL then it's useless."

Basically, when you want to reject well established facts there are only so many ways to rationalize doing so.

Re:Or not...

[swalve]

The species might survive just fine, but that doesn't mean it won't be hell for the individuals.

Re:Or not...

[hkmwbz]

They've been doing testable predictions all along, and the models have held up very well indeed.

Hurry up damnit

[ColdWetDog]

The only chance (and it's a damned small one) of getting the various political entities motivated to actually do something is for major shifts to happen in a time frame so obvious that even Rush Limbaugh can figure out there is an issue. If the Arctic weather system collapses, pushes the jet stream away and lets Europe freeze ...
Damn it again.
That'll just confuse them even more.
We're doomed.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[emilper]

what, will the political entities regulate the sun to run smoother ?

Re:Hurry up damnit

[ColdWetDog]

Left up to some US state legislators, they'd probably try.

Look you loons, the climate IS changing, humans ARE pushing the carrying capacity of the planet, things ARE going to come to a head. Most likely in the lifetimes of some of the younger Slashdotters or at longest, their progeny (assuming a few will, like the original land dwelling animals, crawl out of the swamp and reproduce).

Details left as an exercise for the student or their favorite dystopian author.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[Anonymous Coward]

The Russians and Canadians are counting on it.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[Anonymous Coward]

humans ARE pushing the carrying capacity of the planet

Hold on! I'm not a climate change denier, but this claim screams for a citation.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[siride]

That's slashdot for you. Climate change isn't real, but humans are a cancer that should be destroyed.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[ColdWetDog]

Boy this was hard.

Or even harder

Re:Hurry up damnit

[Flozzin]

That's slashdot for you. Climate change isn't real, but humans are a cancer that should be destroyed.

I would think that if you are inclined to believe that humans are a cancer you'd be more willing to believe in climate change.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[siride]

That's kinda the point of my post. It's a weird juxtaposition of posters here.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[Black Parrot]

What makes you think Limbaugh doesn't know GW is happening?

Re:Hurry up damnit

[Anonymous Coward]

The only chance (and it's a damned small one) of getting the various political entities motivated to actually do something is for major shifts to happen in a time frame so obvious that even Rush Limbaugh can figure out there is an issue. If the Arctic weather system collapses, pushes the jet stream away and lets Europe freeze ...
Damn it again.
That'll just confuse them even more.
We're doomed.

Only if it is real.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Look you loons, the climate IS changing,..."

It's a good thing for cold, wet dogs.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[tmosley]

No, they will simply command the tides. Of both the seas and the people fleeing from the countries that these politicians have destroyed.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[tmosley]

Robots, dude. Robots.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[tmosley]

I don't think ANY partisan has any sort of grasp on reality.

Which is probably why I always get downmodded by members of both parties.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[Pharmboy]

When you are using Wikipedia as a citation, you are either lazy, or you don't understand what Wikipedia is.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[ArsonSmith]

I understand you may not be aware, but there is more than one person that makes these posts to Slashdot.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[Compaqt]

He didn't ask for a definition of carrying capacity. He asked for a citation that the earth is at carrying capacity.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[Anonymous Coward]

Good one...
Oh yeah, my name is Butch O'Dell, not anonymous coward.

Re:Hurry up damnit

[Anonymous Coward]

If they did not include some kinds of common schizophrenic ritual massacres, their weather models will be biased with big errors. Maybe even inverted...

Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how long we've waiting for the Northwest Passage to open up? Finally we will be able to move goods between Europe and Asia in weeks rather than months!

Re:Finally

[Sique]

The Northwest Passage was already open, and the MV Camilla Desgagnés was the first commercial vessel to cross the passage. The Beluga Shipping Group is planning to set up regular services.

Re:Finally

[DiamondGeezer]

The Northwest Passage has opened repeatedly since at least the early 20th Century.

Re:Finally

[riverat1]

Not really unless you're talking about large icebreakers or voyages that took more than one season to accomplish. It's only been the last 10 years or so that vessels not hardened for ice have been able to make the journey in the late summer.

Re:Finally

[tbannist]

The Northwest Passage has opened repeatedly since at least the early [21st] Century.

Fixed that for you. It took about 3 years to travel the "Northwest Passage" in the 1950s (they had to wait out two winters in the Canadian Arctic), and the crew that did the traversal were nearly killed several times when their ship was caught between massive iceflows. Obviously, Canadians would have noticed and have been using the shipping lanes, if they had been open regularly before now.

maundering along to the future...

[harvey the nerd]

There are other models that are based on solar modulation having to do with orbits and magnetic field strength. According to them, we're going back into the deep freeze 2020-2040, so don't worry about it.

Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

I will be able to water ski from North America to Russia, always wanted to do this.

Re:Excellent!

[RabidReindeer]

I will be able to water ski from North America to Russia, always wanted to do this.

You already can. And Sarah Palin might even wave as you go by!

Seriously, check the map. You don't actually need to cross the Pole to reach Russia from Alaska.

Re:Excellent!

[budgenator]

I think in the Aleutian Islands there is only 3 miles between Russia and the US at one point, if true it would be swimable.

Re:Excellent!

[heathen_01]

Not only is it possible but it has already been swum by a man with no arms and no legs.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that's called a fish.

Re:Excellent!

[plover]

No, his name was "Bob".

Too late

[phantomfive]

Professor Wadhams at Cambridge already predicted the collapse by 2015. Here is a reference. This site predicts 2030 at the latest.

Climatology isn't a dart board, you don't make a ton of predictions and then claim you are right when one of them hits. You go back and do further research to understand the climate better.

Re:Too late

[Kjella]

Climatology isn't a dart board, you don't make a ton of predictions and then claim you are right when one of them hits.

When there's a lot of scientists, there is likely to be a lot of predictions. Some may be well founded, some may just be lucky but the one scientist who made the right prediction is probably going to say he was right because he was. It's the model's performance over time that'll matter.

Re:Too late

[phantomfive]

Yeah, so in a hundred years, we will probably have a better understanding of climate science, and more knowledge with which to make predictions. Right now this is a sorry showing for 'scientific consensus.'

Re: Too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Please send that memo to Jim Hansen.

Re:Too late

[KeensMustard]

Professor Wadhams at Cambridge already predicted the collapse by 2015. Here is a reference [guardian.co.uk]. This site predicts 2030 at the latest [arcticice.org].

Actually that link says that the collapse we see happening now was predicted to start in 2015. Which (to be explicit) is the opposite of what you claimed.

But chances are you posted it up and have never read it, relying on the summary concocted by some money grubbing reblogger to be factual, even though you've been burnt before.

Have you been visiting wattsupwiththat.com again? I thought your mom told you to stay away from that place. It does things to your head.

Re:Too late

[phantomfive]

He said it would be gone by 2015. He's said it multiple times. In short you're an idiot, or at least you play one one the internet.

Re:Too late

[hkmwbz]

The sorry showing here is your poor understanding of science, I'm afraid. The scientific consensus is still there, whether you like it or not.

Re:Too late

[phantomfive]

Heh, you've probably never read a scientific paper in your life. As if you know about 'consensus.'

Re:Too late

[hkmwbz]

Case in point. Thanks for confirming what I wrote about you.

The consenus is not found by reading a scientific paper, or even two or three. The consensus reflects the collective position of the science/scientific community. The consensus is what the rest of us who are not scientists can rely on for the best understanding on what the science says.

Re:Too late

[phantomfive]

Apparently you are a mindless tool, but that's alright, many people are. I would encourage you to educate yourself so you also can say things worth listening to.

Fact is, right now with your current skills you don't even know how to figure out the collective position of the scientific community.

Re:Too late

[hkmwbz]

You are the one who thought that reading just a single scientific paper would give you the scientific consensus. For those of us who are not stumbling around in the darkness of denial, it's pretty to figure out. Those who are in denial will often deny there is even a consensus (and if they accept that there is one, they insist that it's because of cheating, conspiracies, etc.).

Re:Too late

[phantomfive]

Who said that reading a single scientific paper would give you scientific consensus? Your reading comprehension needs work as well.

Learn to think logically. Learn to do science, and you'll be able to contribute a lot better to the conversation.

Re:Too late

[hkmwbz]

See, there you go again. No, phantomfive, I do not need to do science to point to the scientific consensus. Logic? That's what you lack. That, and knowledge.

The scientific consensus is clear. You will keep denying it because you are a science denier.

Re:Too late

[phantomfive]

Who ever denied science? Now you are making things up.

Re:Too late

[hkmwbz]

Your claim was:

Right now this is a sorry showing for 'scientific consensus.'

This is pure denial. The consensus is clear. Scientists have a good understanding of the matter.

Re:Too late

[phantomfive]

What is the scientific consensus for the arctic being free of summer ice? You don't know.

Re:Too late

[hkmwbz]

What are you talking about? You are just being a typical denier now.

Empirical curve fitting suggests sooner.

[dr2chase]

One approach looks only at ice volume measurements, and explicitly ignores theory because the existing theoretical models failed to predict anything like the ice loss that we observed. Using the simplest accelerating-curve-fit, we get first ice free in September 2017, and six months per year ice free by 2025.

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/08/more-on-arctic-sea-ice-volume.html

Re:Empirical curve fitting suggests sooner.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that the method that was used to calculate the height of Adam and Eve to about 100 feet?

Re:Empirical curve fitting suggests sooner.

[lorinc]

Here are more curves that were posted in the comments of the blog you're linking:

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas

Clearly, the exponential model has the best fit (which is not very surprising), and says 2015, take or give 1 year for 95% confidence. Of course, there is no theoretical model behind, but most of the time, the theoretical explanation comes after the empirical fit.

Re:Empirical curve fitting suggests sooner.

[nadaou]

There are a couple of good "Arctic Death Spiral" plots out there, none of them look very encouraging.

https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-volume#asivds http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201303.png https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

Re:Empirical curve fitting suggests sooner.

[nadaou]

> There are a couple of good "Arctic Death Spiral" plots out there,
> none of them look very encouraging.

Here's another worth looking at:

• http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png

Re:Empirical curve fitting suggests sooner.

[tmosley]

So when 2016 rolls around with no significant change to the ice caps can we cut this stupid "ice caps r gunna melt" meme?

No? I didn't think so.

Sigh...

Re:Empirical curve fitting suggests sooner.

[dr2chase]

Exponential may have the best fit, but exponential is a very aggressive estimate. Quadratic is a conservative simple choice, and it's not completely divorced from theory -- the short-term "obvious" additional heat input is linear in reduced albedo, which gives you quadratic.

I'm not terribly happy at just saying "screw the theory, look at the curve fitting", but theory (such as we know it, which is a lot of the problem here) has severely underpredicted the melting.

Re:Empirical curve fitting suggests sooner.

[32771]

I would assume that exponential fits best where you have a feedback system. Since less ice leads to possibly more methane, less albedo, and more mixing, those trends will lead to a temperature increase that again will lead to less ice and so on.

This is counteracted by the depletion of ice, the depletion of stored methane, and the reduction of currents due to ocean stratification.

This my naive understanding, ask climatologists and you get more feedbacks and interactions. Here is a link:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.de/2012/08/diagram-of-doom.html

Re:Empirical curve fitting suggests sooner.

[speederaser]

So when 2016 rolls around with no significant change to the ice caps can we cut this stupid "ice caps r gunna melt" meme?

No? I didn't think so.

You must be trolling because It's hard for a rational person to look at this chart and think there will be "no change" when 2016 rolls around. (Hit "download attachment" to see the chart).

In 1979 the minimum was over 16,000 cubic kilometers of Arctic ice. In 2005 the minimum was 9,000 cubic kilometers. Last year it was just above 3,000. The best curve fit of the data (seen on the chart) shows the Arctic will probably be ice-free by 2016.

There is no global warming, enough of this $HIT, S

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no global warming, enough of this $HIT, Slashdot.

Let's ignore the fact that arctic ice is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

Arctic ice extent is normal. Look at the DATA not the propaganda doomsday soothsayers claims.

"From 1988 until a few years ago, a lot of multi-year ice was getting transported into the North Atlantic during the winter. This caused a large drop in the thickness of the ice. What they don’t want to talk about is that this pattern has reversed. The amount of multi-year ice is increasing since 2008, and during this past winter almost all of it moved west towards the Beaufort Sea, where it will slow summer melt."
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif

"Climate experts tell us that the poles are melting down, which is why global sea ice area is eighth highest on record for the date."
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008

Re:Let's ignore the fact that arctic ice is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

Arctic Ice is normal
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

Re:Let's ignore the fact that arctic ice is normal

[siride]

Let's do only pick this one particular time when the ice is still below normal, but not by the much, and pretend like there's absolutely nothing going on. That's a winning strategy!

Take a look at the two year trend. At no point has it ever been at normal, much less above it, and many times it's been significantly below normal for significant periods of time. The trend is unmistakable.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

I'm not surprised that ice recovers in the winter when it's still quite cold. The Earth's tilt hasn't changed. The summer trends are unmistakable, though, and not be ignored.

Re:Let's ignore the fact that arctic ice is normal

[Black Parrot]

Arctic ice extent is normal.

If by "normal" you mean "what you would expect if global warming was proceeding faster than the predictions".

Re:Let's ignore the fact that arctic ice is normal

[DiamondGeezer]

And meanwhile in the Antarctic, the year-on-year trend is growth. By 2050 the penguins will be able to walk to South America without swimming.

Or perhaps extrapolation of tiny trends is an idiot game believed by idiots.

Re:Let's ignore the fact that arctic ice is normal

[budgenator]

Normal might be too strong, but arctic sea-ice extent is certainly above the average for the 2000's.

Weather report as of 28 minutes ago (20:00 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 6.7 meters per second (15.0 miles per hour) from West/Southwest in Resolute, Canada. The temperature was -13 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,014 hPa (29.94 inHg). Relative humidity was 71.8%. There were broken clouds at a height of 427 meters (1400 feet) and overcast at a height of 914 meters (3000 feet). The visibility was 2.0 kilometers (1.3 miles). Current weather is Light Snow . Arthropolis

so it's still plenty cold enough. Personally I think Ice loss is more a matter of Sea currents and wind direction than temperature, and the ice is flowing more toward the bottleneck of the Bering Straits than the Greenland Sea. Right now the ENSO index is holding close to neutral so I don't expect anything noteworthy happening this summer, the rate of warming has been zero and the temperature anomaly has stuck in the .3-.10 degree range for 15-20 years. I just don't see anything to get excited about.

Re:Let's ignore the fact that arctic ice is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

By 2050 the penguins will be able to walk to South America without swimming.

Yeah, because the oceans will have boiled off.

Re:Let's ignore the fact that arctic ice is normal

[riverat1]

The Arctic sea ice extent during this time of year doesn't really tell you much. The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land and every year it pretty much freezes right up to the edge of that land with only a few spots like the Fram Strait where it can expand to the extent that conditions warrant. It's the minimum extent in September that tells you most about the health of Arctic sea ice. Chances are the minimum extent in September this year won't be quite as low as 2012 but in a few years another new record will be set. That's what happened after the previous record low in 2007.

When you talk about the rate of warming you need to consider not only atmospheric temperatures but ocean temperatures as well. The warming continues apace if you look at both.

Re:Let's ignore the fact that arctic ice is normal

[tbannist]

Arctice sea-ice extent might not be as helpful as you think:

Extent

Extent defines a region as either "ice-covered" or "not ice-covered." For each data cell, it is a binary term; either the cell has ice (usually a value of "1") or the cell has no ice (usually a value of "0"). A threshold determines this labeling. A typical threshold is 15 percent, meaning that if the data cell has greater than 15 percent ice concentration, the cell is labeled as "ice-covered." The Sea Ice Index products have a threshold of 15 percent. A threshold can also be as high as 30 percent.

Extent is sometimes described in terms of area (in square kilometers) covered by at least some ice (above the threshold). Extent is different from the total area in that if a given region has a percentage of ice concentration greater than the threshold, the entire region is considered "ice-covered." Total area tells how much of the region is actually covered by ice. Arctic- or antarctic-wide sea ice extent is always a larger number than area.

From the National Snow & Ice Data Center.

If it only takes 15 percent coverage of an area for it to be considered "ice", then an arctic ice pack that is getting thinner and more spread out and thus melting faster could easly appear to be larger than it really is. After all the ice from square kilometer could be spread across 6 kilometers and though the same amount of ice is present in each scenario, the second would appear to have 6 times as much ice. Because of this problem, volume measurements tend to be more reliable and informative than sea ice extent.

Possibly tomorrow

[Sla$hPot]

Or in 10 years or in 20 years or the year after that or.... quiet please!

We're now pissing money down the drain

[Anonymous Coward]

trying to stop this, we should be spending it on working out how to deal with the issues.

Re:We're now pissing money down the drain

[phantomfive]

We're not actually spending much money trying to stop it.........

Re:We're now pissing money down the drain

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... yell ourselves hoarse trying to tell the train to stop, or getting off the tracks. Decsions, decisions...

Negative ice

[Anonymous Coward]

If current trends continue, negative sea ice in 2040, and an entire negative ice cap by around 2080. Next up, negative ice age!

I'd trust climate models a lot more than extrapolation, though both are likely pretty inaccurate; at least the level of inaccuracy is estimated and stated.

Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

it's no longer a discussion,
Climate change will happen - the only question is how much more extreme will future changes be?
I'm mostly interested in how evolution will be effected? Especially homo-sapiens? So little environmental changes brought humans here and even - much more recently has lead to racial difference.
I'm eager for the future...

Re:Evolution

[gmuslera]

Change evolution for adaptation and natural selection, is not that evolution means improvement (as in faster, smarter, more complex, etc), just that what results is more adapted for the new environment, or the rough stages going toward it. If the change is fast enough, wont be a lot of margin for adaptation, and could result in few enough survivors that could end in full extintion. it almost happened to us 70k years ago with the Toba supereruption when we wen't down to around 15000 humans.

Re:Evolution

[DiamondGeezer]

A modern society would have plenty of warning if a supereruption were to happen again on that scale, and plenty of resources to mitigate the effects (though not all obviously). I'm not saying it wouldn't be disruptive, but it wouldn't push humanity to the brink of extinction.

Re:Evolution

[cffrost]

A modern society would have plenty of warning if a supereruption were to happen again on that scale [...]

That is not necessarily the case... Regarding Yellowstone (VEI-8, the same explosiveness class as Toba), the USGS states, in part, the following:

"Massive caldera-forming eruptions, though the most potentially devastating of Yellowstone’s hazards, are extremely rare—only three have occurred in the past several million years. U.S. Geological Survey, University of Utah, and National Park Service scientists with the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO) see no evidence that another such cataclysmic eruption will occur at Yellowstone in the foreseeable future. Recurrence intervals of these events are neither regular nor predictable." [Source. Emphasis mine.]

Re:Evolution

[Sarius64]

I don't disagree with your premise, but evacuating North and South America when Yosemite pops may be problematic.

Re:Evolution

[riverat1]

A modern society would have plenty of warning if a supereruption were to happen again on that scale ...

I'm not so sure about that. It's easy to imagine that it would be less than a year between the first indications that something's happening and the actual eruption and that scientists would not be able to tell if it was just going to be a more normal scale eruption or a supereruption before it happened. An eruption on that scale probably doesn't lead to the extinction of the human race but it certainly could cause millions or perhaps even billions of deaths especially if it's in the northern hemisphere.

I predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

some good climate change content will help justify the NOAA and get the research scientist's team continued funding.

Re:I predict...

[siride]

Only climate scientists care about funding and it's clear it's all they care about, to the point that they don't even bother doing real science anymore. Everybody else in the world does things for the right reasons and never worries about funding or PR. And the "skeptics" are only in it to save humanity from the evil climate scientists. They have nothing to gain monetarily or in political capital. Straight from the goodness of their hearts. It's only those zany climate scientists we have to worry about, with their scheme to, uhh, take over the world by, uhh, convincing us to use clean energy sources and, uhh, their zeal to understand an interesting part of the planet. Yeah, those guys are pure evil moneygrubbers, I tell ya.

Re:I predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only climate scientists care about funding and it's clear it's all they care about, to the point that they don't even bother doing real science anymore. Everybody else in the world does things for the right reasons and never worries about funding or PR. And the "skeptics" are only in it to save humanity from the evil climate scientists. They have nothing to gain monetarily or in political capital. Straight from the goodness of their hearts. It's only those zany climate scientists we have to worry about, with their scheme to, uhh, take over the world by, uhh, convincing us to use clean energy sources and, uhh, their zeal to understand an interesting part of the planet. Yeah, those guys are pure evil moneygrubbers, I tell ya.

I know you are being ironic, but these kinds of arguments are coming from extremely well-funded big-oil and rightwing (aka corporation friendly) lobbying and opinion-building. Despite their best attempts they struggle to dispute the science using credible scientists (much like creationism) so they discredit it instead. If you watch Fox News you often see this strategy.

Re:I predict...

[siride]

I know. Isn't it sad?

Re:I predict...

[Black Parrot]

Arguments I've actually heard:

Evolution denier: You can't trust biologists because they've all been brainwashed by their education.

Global warming denier: You can't trust climatologists because they've all been brainwashed by their education.

Evolution denier: You can't trust biologists because they're all part of a conspiracy to deny the existence of God.

Global warming denier: You can't trust climatologists because they're all part of a conspiracy to bilk the government for research money.

Re:I predict...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

You do understand climate change is being used by politicians as argument for even greater government command-and-control of the economy, don't you? Even though there are plenty of solutions which do not require such; those are ignored because they don't fit with the agenda of politicians.

In this, the scientists are fulfilling their role as "useful idiots".

Secondly, moving inward from the seas over 100-300 years, when few modern buildings last that long anyway, is not the major trouble people think it is. Compare it to slowing the economy such that we lose 10 or 20 years' worth of tech every 100 years.

So after 300 years, we'd be at 2250-ish tech, compared to 2313 tech. Have we saved lives?

Imagine people in the 1713 thinking, thanks to an oracle, that they should do something about climate change. So they did, and the increased command-and-control caused lag. Now you're sitting here in 2013 with 1950-level tech.

Have you saved lives? Something on the order of several hundred million needless dead would suggest a foolish path was followed.

Similarly people in 2300 will think us idiots, us ape-like ignorant slobs with year 2013 level tech, who thought it wise to retard growth.

Re:I predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that you refuse to realize this is a business.

The researcher who did the research, has a decent job after likely studying in a pretty specialized field. The researcher has a mortgage, a car loan, maybe a couple of kids in college. The US is in shambles and most average people with a decent education are afraid of the future. Publishing research that reinforces the accepted view and generates headlines results in accolades, continued funding and a job. This is a good thing in this economic environment.

The issue of funding goes up the chain of command, eventually helping to justify the existence of the organization itself and the pensioned jobs of the folks working there.

I don't really care about joe research scientist and sensationalist science in general - but I do find it entertaining so many people refuse to take a critical look at.

Real problems are things like irreversible pollution, fracking, the dangers of using surplus warhead material in nuclear plants, etc. But its not as sexy.

Re:I predict...

[taz346]

Except that moving inward from the sea, for many people, will mean that their country will no longer exist. And resolving the causes of climate change requires improving technology, not limiting growth.

Re:I predict...

[tmosley]

How many black people are you willing to starve to death to TRY to stop the seas from rising, even though you already know you can't?

Because much of Africa is fed by US agriculture. Agriculture that is 100% dependent on fossil fuels at every step of production. You might not care that the price of rice or flour has quadrupled, but that kills a few hundred million people. Not to mention that you are doing this at the same time that there is an economic depression. You might just start killing American poor.

But hey, as long as you bellyfeel doubleplus good, who cares, right?

Re:I predict...

[DiamondGeezer]

Wow, the straw man production line is in top form!

Re:I predict...

[siride]

What are these magical alternative solutions? The only reason we started talking about the government is because the private sector already wasn't doing anything about it, still isn't doing anything about and doesn't look to be doing anything about it in the foreseeable future. If it weren't for massive government subsidies and other incentives and regulations, I doubt we'd see what green tech we do actually have. The free market simply does not care about what will happen in a hundred years, as you astutely point out. But somebody has to or we're fucked. Actually, we're starting to be fucked now, but the changes so far haven't been catastrophic thankfully.

Re:I predict...

[siride]

But these aren't strawmen. People actually say these things. In this very thread, I responded to a comment that said that the scientists are only publishing stuff to get more grant money.

Re:I predict...

[dinfinity]

Compare it to slowing the economy such that we lose 10 or 20 years' worth of tech every 100 years.

If the assumption that 'greater government command-and-control' retards economic growth were true, you may have had a point. Your belief that it is true is not enough.

In the real world, the element that slows down progress the most is protectionism by profit-driven oligarchies and monopolies. Imagine how economies around the world would have looked if oil prices hadn't been kept artificially high by the OPEC.

Re:I predict...

[khallow]

will mean that their country will no longer exist.

I don't care for some odd reason. They can always move the country somewhere else or figure out how to conduct the business of government in the sea, if they really want to keep it. Maybe they could repurpose a cruise liner for that.

Re:I predict...

[khallow]

Aside from a century of developing green technology alternatives to fossil fuels, what have the Romans^Wmarkets done for us?

Re:I predict...

[khallow]

If the assumption that 'greater government command-and-control' retards economic growth were true, you may have had a point. Your belief that it is true is not enough.

One merely needs to look at actual government command and control systems. The fundamental problem is that even if governments were economically competent, and they aren't, they wouldn't be competent enough to understand the complexity of everyone's needs and desires and somehow magically come up with a near optimal solution to that. Markets work a whole lot better.

In the real world, the element that slows down progress the most is protectionism by profit-driven oligarchies and monopolies. Imagine how economies around the world would have looked if oil prices hadn't been kept artificially high by the OPEC.

Note here that OPEC is a collection of countries, not for profit businesses.

Re:I predict...

[currently_awake]

The reason African countries import food from the US is because it's so heavily subsidized that local farmers can't compete. The massive drop in US farm output that will result from desertification/global warming is the best thing that will ever happen to African countries. They will finally have jobs (in farming) and not have to sell their resources cheap to import food.

Re:I predict...

[siride]

I said: "If it weren't for massive government subsidies and other incentives and regulations..."

And even with those, it's still generally not profitable. Oil and other fossil fuels run the show.

Re:I predict...

[KeensMustard]

I don't care for some odd reason.

I'm not convinced that it really matters - but the reason is probably because you are a psychopath.

They can always move the country somewhere else or figure out how to conduct the business of government in the sea, if they really want to keep it.

Here's a thought - we could take you stuff and give it to them. That would at least partially alleviate their loss.

Re:I predict...

[dinfinity]

The fundamental problem is that even if governments were economically competent, and they aren't, they wouldn't be competent enough to understand the complexity of everyone's needs and desires and somehow magically come up with a near optimal solution to that.

You move from 'greater command and control' to 'come up with a near optimal solution'. This is clearly a straw man. Giving a government more power in a market doesn't entail that private entities immediately become completely irrelevant and that the only thing influencing what is put to market is that government. Things like taxing, subsidizing and regulating are simple examples of how a government can steer a market away from or towards undesirable or desirable behaviour without being the sole player in that market. In addition to that: for some markets, the latter is the most effective strategy to maximize economic growth (public infrastructure etc.).

Note here that OPEC is a collection of countries, not for profit businesses.

Stop kidding yourself. The behaviour of the OPEC is driven by profit-seeking lobbyists and oil sheikhs, not bureaucracy. Were it not for regulations against colluding and enforcement of those regulations by governments, almost all markets would eventually be run and exploited by cartels or monopolists. The OPEC just happens to be an incredibly powerful international cartel.

Re:I predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

Secondly, moving inward from the seas over 100-300 years, when few modern buildings last that long anyway, is not the major trouble people think it is.

What makes you think Florida has as much as 100-300 years left?

Re:I predict...

[Black Parrot]

If you want to deny reality, the first thing you have to do is convince yourself that the experts aren't really experts, to "justify" ignoring them.

Re:I predict...

[Sarius64]

Contributing factor, I agree. But ignoring the wanton roaming warlords could be hazardous to your health, too.

Re:I predict...

[MooseMiester]

What eventually happens in a government command and control system is the same thing that has happened for the last three, four thousand years.

A small group of extremely smart folks with zero compassion for their fellow man eventually enslave everyone else and live glorious lives of pure narcissistic pleasure.

Remember this, all you liberals screaming for the complete elimination of the opposition. You aren't going to get UTOPIA you're going to get the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Medieval Rule, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc. etc. etc. We are a lot closer to this today than we ever have been already.

Re:I predict...

[volmtech]

How do we send the developed world back to the 19th century and force the third world to stay there? It wont be the "evil" climate scientist but someone with political power and GUNS. If we cut back quickly billions will die of starvation. Do it slowly and the Earth will suffer more extreme climate change and those who survive will still have to reduced population levels by 50% or more. How do you insure that only the right (few) people have children? How will you punish those who cheat?

Re:I predict...

[Stephan Schulz]

You do understand climate change is being used by politicians as argument for even greater government command-and-control of the economy, don't you? Even though there are plenty of solutions which do not require such; those are ignored because they don't fit with the agenda of politicians.

In this, the scientists are fulfilling their role as "useful idiots".

How is that the scientists' problem, or casting the science in any doubt? Facts don't vanish because they have unpleasant political effects, wether necessarily or not. If a largish asteroid were heading towards earth, that would most likely also cause giant government programs to spring up. But would that be a reason for scientist to ignore the rock? Or, historically, entering WW-II caused a giant government intervention in the US. So would it have been ok to keep Pearl Harbour under wraps? Some scientific or historical facts don't jibe well with some political views. But that does not mean that science or history have to bend. It means that the people holding the view need to accomodate the facts, or live with the mental discrepancy. You know, "your own opinion, but not your own facts".

Re:I predict...

[khallow]

Here's a thought - we could take you stuff and give it to them. That would at least partially alleviate their loss.

Molon labe. How could everyone wants my stuff rather than just taking modest steps to improve their own lives?

Re:I predict...

[khallow]

You move from 'greater command and control' to 'come up with a near optimal solution'.

If you're not coming up with something near optimal, then you're wasting time and resources.

Re:I predict...

[khallow]

If it weren't for massive government subsidies and other incentives and regulations

and? Governments dump a lot of money into a lot of things. We don't normally assume that we wouldn't have, say immigration or house building, without a vast government bureaucracy to regulate or subsidize it.

Re:I predict...

[siride]

I have no problem with the government doing this. It points out, though, that the private sector is unwilling or unable to take on these tasks. That's not necessarily and indictment of the private sector either. I think that many economic systems have their strengths and weaknesses. Rather than insisting that one or the other can do everything, why not mix and match? The markets won't solve long-term environmental problems like AGW, but the public sector can. So let the public sector do it.

Those who insist that the private sector can and will (or already has) solved these kinds of problems are wrong. The private sector alone hasn't. Again, not necessarily an indictment of the private sector, but definitely an indictment of those libertarian types who think that a free market left along by government regulation and prodding would produce optimal outcomes for every problem facing civilization.

Re:I predict...

[khallow]

It points out, though, that the private sector is unwilling or unable to take on these tasks.

There is the default reason - because it isn't worth doing.

Those who insist that the private sector can and will (or already has) solved these kinds of problems are wrong.

You have a reason you say that? I find it interesting how the people who laud the governments' ability to do things have a remarkable inability to argue the value of the things that government does.

The thing is, even without government subsidies we would still have electric cars, renewable energy generation, and a number of other things. These have value even in the absence of government subsidy.

Also government subsidies aren't always a net good. For example, your complaint that free markets don't solve "long term" problems. They solve the big problems like overpopulation and poverty.

And the notorious short sightedness of modern businesses can readily be explained by the incentives that governments provide for short term thinking such as "too big to fail", massive R&D subsidies that crowd out private funding, Keynesian-style economic strategies that reduce the risks of making bad decisions, and the various government incentives for creating various sorts of economic bubbles.

For example, in the US, many private universities and research funding was sponsored by the private sector prior to the Second World War. Similarly, a number of businesses has created powerful R&D groups. Yet most of these activities have died in the past few decades.

Again, not necessarily an indictment of the private sector, but definitely an indictment of those libertarian types who think that a free market left along by government regulation and prodding would produce optimal outcomes for every problem facing civilization.

Like government solved the problem of companies thinking too long term?

Re:I predict...

[siride]

> There is the default reason - because it isn't worth doing.

This ends up being a circular argument. The private sector didn't do it because it wasn't worth doing. How do we know it wasn't worth doing? The private sector didn't do it. I happen to think that regulation to ensure a fair marketplace is worth doing, and the private sector by definition can't do it. That's one of many things.

> You have a reason you say that? I find it interesting how the people who laud the governments' ability to do things have a remarkable inability to argue the value of the things that government does.

Or you just have a remarkable inability to listen or care. Social welfare programs, environmental regulations, publicly funded research, education subsidies, rural electrification, roads, etc. etc. etc. It's a long list. I'm sure you'll come up with some contrived reason why the private sector would have done all of these things better, or why it's not really the government that's doing these things, or why the government is actually doing them so awfully, but we accept it because we are blind liberal idiots. I'm still happy to support these types of government operations...and also call out bad government (military aggression/MIC, corporate welfare, spying on citizens, the criminal "justice" system, bloated bureaucracies that could use quite a trim, congress, etc. etc.).

> Also government subsidies aren't always a net good. For example, your complaint that free markets don't solve "long term" problems. They solve the big problems like overpopulation and poverty.

Well, maybe if you had read my post, you'd see that I said that the private sector does some things really well and the public sector does some things really well, and it's in our best interest to use both where they have their strengths, rather than go for a one size fits all. So yes, I'm perfectly happy to agree with you that government subsidies don't always lead to good (ethanol, for one, and maybe even some loser green subsidies).

I don't think that the market actually solves overpopulation or poverty per se. It solves poverty for some people, but generally leaves a lot out in the cold, especially when there are other societal biases in play (and let's face it, there are and always will be and the market doesn't care). The market thrives on generating and exploiting abundance until the train runs out. An out of control population is great for a market (more workers, more markets, more money)...until the crash comes.

> And the notorious short sightedness of modern businesses can readily be explained by the incentives that governments provide for short term thinking such as "too big to fail", massive R&D subsidies that crowd out private funding, Keynesian-style economic strategies that reduce the risks of making bad decisions, and the various government incentives for creating various sorts of economic bubbles.

No, I just don't buy this in the general case. Government stimulus doesn't explain companies with no hope of a bail-out that go for cost-cutting and layoffs to improve next quarter's profits and shareholder returns. Short-sightedness is a fundamental feature of a free market by its very definition. It's reactive. It adjusts to the needs of the marketplace at the moment. A company cannot afford to spend 20 years doing research and then come out with a great product. Nobody will fund them for 20 years. They have to come out with a product now. And they have to keep making money, or else they go under. The long-term generally isn't profitable except for big firms (which by necessity there will only be few of) that can afford to have loss-leaders and similar mechanisms to gain marketshare or develop the next big thing without worrying about how to keep the lights on tomorrow. And firms certainly won't ever care about general environmental problems, because the issue is too broad. And firms are NOT going to care about what the Earth will be like in 100 years because of their pollution. How could the market eve

Re:I predict...

[dinfinity]

If you're not coming up with something near optimal, then you're wasting time and resources.

1. 1. That does not make 'near optimal' any less of a straw man.
2. 2. Any improvement over the current situation with a positive return on investment is not a waste by definition. It can only be less profitable than other improvements. I.e.: the baseline is not 'the best we can do', but 'changing nothing'.
3. 3. You imply that markets driven by private entities automatically lead to 'near optimal' solutions. The reality is that the strategies of manipulating demand by playing on the primitive drives of humans and the already mentioned one of colluding and/or consolidating are the most effective ones. Again, in unregulated markets, progress slows down due to these strategies.

You ignored most of my previous comment. I'd like to believe that means that you agree with what I wrote, but considering your reply it seems that you are simply closing your mind for other points of view and wish to cling on to an irrational antipathy against 'government'.

Re:I predict...

[khallow]

This ends up being a circular argument.

Not at all. If it is worth doing, then the private sector eventually does it. I was just responding to the nonsensical argument that we need to squander vast sums of public funds because something isn't being done by the private sector.

Re:I predict...

[siride]

"Worth doing" is not true. The real condition is that it must be able to insure cash flow. That is, it's worth having private parties pay for directly. Not everything falls into that category. The people who need it may not have any money (helping the poor and sick). There may be no one distinct party or set of parties that can or should pay for it under market conditions (taking care of the environment outside of some specific cases). The market is not a magic bullet. It's great and does a lot of awesome things very efficiently, but it can't do everything. And that's actually okay.

Re:I predict...

[khallow]

Or you just have a remarkable inability to listen or care. Social welfare programs, environmental regulations, publicly funded research, education subsidies, rural electrification, roads, etc. etc. etc.

Classic example of what I was talking about. Roads have an obvious return on value (at least when people use them). The rest of your list doesn't. Some of those such as most of the "social welfare" programs, environmental regulations, and educational subsidies even have negative return. Where's defense and law enforcement? Firefighting?

I don't think that the market actually solves overpopulation or poverty per se. It solves poverty for some people, but generally leaves a lot out in the cold, especially when there are other societal biases in play (and let's face it, there are and always will be and the market doesn't care). The market thrives on generating and exploiting abundance until the train runs out. An out of control population is great for a market (more workers, more markets, more money)...until the crash comes.

The number of "some people" which you refer to is currently the world's entire population. Every country on Earth shows increasing wealth building per capita, even in the worst off such as the ever popular example of Somalia. And increasing wealth is negatively correlated with population growth everywhere.

And in the past 50-60 years, our scientific programs have been the envy of the world (also many of these labs lasted well past the time that we started doing a lot of public funding, and they did well in their day...when companies cared -- once downsizing and outsourcing became the motto, R&D become a cost-center -- the fact that gov't was footing some of the bill was just icing on the cake, but not the root of the problem).

Well, what else could do it? Greed isn't any more prevalent now than it was. How we do business hasn't really changed to favor the short-sighted. Government-based shielding of the private world from bad decisions is the big move.

And by not locking up research in private institutions with a profit motive, the fruits of the research can be shared both within the research community and outside of it.

I see you don't get it. There's all this free research going on. Why should businesses bother with R&D when they can get it for free?

Re:I predict...

[siride]

> Classic example of what I was talking about. Roads have an obvious return on value (at least when people use them). The rest of your list doesn't. Some of those such as most of the "social welfare" programs, environmental regulations, and educational subsidies even have negative return. Where's defense and law enforcement? Firefighting?

You're thinking is far too limited. Environmental regulations have a positive return, but not in the same kind of direct way that the market cares about. If you have a sick population and depleted fisheries and land that can't be used due to pollution, that has a cost, a big cost, on society and the market. But these problems often take so long to manifest themselves and are so dilute, that the market will never be able to price them in. That's why we have this term "externality" to describe these types of things. Same with social welfare and education.

Defense, law enforcement and firefighting go in the "etc. etc." section.

> The number of "some people" which you refer to is currently the world's entire population. Every country on Earth shows increasing wealth building per capita, even in the worst off such as the ever popular example of Somalia. And increasing wealth is negatively correlated with population growth everywhere.

And that's great.

> Well, what else could do it? Greed isn't any more prevalent now than it was. How we do business hasn't really changed to favor the short-sighted. Government-based shielding of the private world from bad decisions is the big move.

There's a lot more money available, a lot more at stake, at lot more potential to exercise that greed in amazing ways.

You keep talking about this government-based shielding, but it actually only affects a small part of the market. Sure, big oil and big banking are doing well with government shielding, and nobody's happy about that. But many other businesses have no such shielding, and also have to pay the burden of regulation and litigation, all government-induced costs and restraints.

> I see you don't get it. There's all this free research going on. Why should businesses bother with R&D when they can get it for free?

I get it, I just don't have a problem with it. You say "why should businesses bother when they can get it for free" like it's a bad thing. I see it as a great thing. We use public money to create basic knowledge that can be used by the private sector to build products and improve people's lives and make some money in the process. I see that as a win-win, and a great investment on the part of the public sector. And unlike with private sector research, the results will not be encumbered with patents or hidden away as trade secrets.

I think we just have a fundamental disagreement about the validity of public institutions. You seem to think that the private sector can and should do everything and that anything it doesn't do isn't really worth it, based entirely on the motive of monetary transactions. I happen to think that the world is a bigger place than what can make money, and that some things are so disconnected and distributed that the only solution is a public sector one. Environmental protection is the big one. There's simply no sane way to price in environmental costs over the long-run using an entirely private sector, market-based approach. Some regulation and taxation will bring the externalities of the environment into the market, and the market will take care of the rest. Again, seems like a win-win to me.

Make no mistake, I am not at all happy about the way our big government is being run today. I don't think, however, destroying public institutions is the solution. That's throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Re:I predict...

[khallow]

Environmental regulations have a positive return, but not in the same kind of direct way that the market cares about.

You mean the "export to third world countries" kind of way? Believe me markets care about that.

. If you have a sick population and depleted fisheries and land that can't be used due to pollution, that has a cost, a big cost, on society and the market.

Not really. The costs of these sorts of things have been exaggerated. And markets aren't affected by these sorts of things. Especially when such as the cases of sick people and depleted fisheries, markets have been excluded.

There's a lot more money available, a lot more at stake, at lot more potential to exercise that greed in amazing ways.

This is the sort of weaselly bullshit I've come to expect when peoples' prejudices are questioned. You don't have a clue. As I noted, nothing really has changed. It doesn't matter if there are orders of magnitude more money than there are now. That's irrelevant to greed. It scales with quantity of money quite readily. Similarly, the "potential to exercise greed" is grossly overstated. The economy and the many markets have changed in a number of ways over the past century, but not in a way that magically causes greedy people to act differently. What has changed is that now, when you make enormous mistakes, there is a government out there to bail you out.

You say "why should businesses bother when they can get it for free" like it's a bad thing.

Well, is a bunch of short-sighted businesses which can't be bothered to do their own research good or bad? I think it's bad.

Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be very worried about this prediction. Luckily all the Global Cooling they predicted earlier will cancel the Global Warming out.

Re:Oh no!

[hkmwbz]

They did not predict global cooling. It's another denialist myth. The consensus, even in the 70s, was that it would be warming. And they were right.

Do what? It's already done.

[SuperKendall]

The only chance (and it's a damned small one) of getting the various political entities motivated to actually do something

The United States at least, is done. We have hit Kyoto targets. If that was going to help, then it should help; otherwise obviously no further reductions will help much.

If you truly believed what you say, you would be heavily pushing for fracking and nuclear energy. But we both know that's not going to happen, so take your hypocritical and obviously mindlessly liberal (trigger word: Rush) stance and try and scare someone else. The rest of us can think for ourselves.

In the meantime, if there were really a crisis all sorts of leaders would be eschewing personal jets and other things that emit far more carbon than I will in a lifetime. When people in power start acting like there's a crisis, instead of just claiming there's a crisis - at that point I'll put some credence to there being a real problem that needs addressing.

Satellite data on ice mass [Re:Let's ignore th...]

[Geoffrey.landis]

The most unambiguious measurement of arctic ice at the moment is from the GRACE satellite (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment), a satellite that is measuring the mass of ice on the poles.

These results do not support your statement "the amount of multi-year ice is increasing." In fact, it is significantly decreasing

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/multimedia/chart20121129.html shows the graph.

Here's an animation showing specifically the data from Greenland: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/archive/PIA13955_Greenland_Ice_Loss_20111205-640.mov

A test problem from my applied probability class

[GodfatherofSoul]

We took a look at past average temperatures and plotted the standard deviation and where the last 10 years of temperatures lie. The odds of this being a natural trend basically exceeded the age of the universe.

Re:Do what? It's already done.

[ColdWetDog]

Hardly liberal. If you think that most conservatives like Mr. Limbaugh you live in an especially special place.

No, frakking isn't going to help much of anything except give us a few years before fossil fuel costs really go through the roof. It's not going to help unload the excess carbon from the environment. Natural gas is only marginally 'greener' than coal. Not enough to matter.

Nuclear power is another subject. IF we could do it correctly (better siting, upgrading, monitoring and decomissioning of plants as well as some sort of half reasonable way to deal with waste) it would be fine. Since we seem to be doing none of those things and since even solar and wind are cost comparable to nucs, it's not much of an answer, IMHO.

Kyoto was a bad political joke and had little to do with slowing global warming. It was simply a test of political will and as such, failed.

And yes, if humans, especially those in a 'leadership' position did something other than try to outrace the next guy in terms of carbon consumption it might help. However, the real problem is the several billion people trying to work their way up from dismal poverty to something better and scooping up all sorts of resources in the process. Can't say I blame them, but it is causing enormous, intractable problems.

All in all, Homo Industrialis won't deal with this problem very well. But it will get dealt with. It's just going to be ugly, protracted and scary.

Re:Do what? It's already done.

[Flozzin]

They need those jets to tell us plebs about the crisis. I also enjoy that a solution to stopping climate change is higher taxes.

Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Once the ice age is finally completely over, Greenland can once again become a booming botanical powerhouse, as it was 25,000 years ago.

Imagine the possibilities once Greenland becomes arable again.

Re:Awesome

[gmuslera]

Before Greenland becomes arable, you should be able to figure what yo do with the hundreds of millons of people that will be displaced as the countries/cities they live today, and where they get their food, becomes underwater. You know, big cities and fertile lands usually are close to rivers and coasts. And if that is not enough, think in the lost crops all around the world because the weather will not be as stable, and much more extreme, as it used to be.

Re:Awesome

[stenvar]

Before Greenland becomes arable, you should be able to figure what yo do with the hundreds of millons of people that will be displaced as the countries/cities they live today

Even in the worst case, it would take centuries for the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps to melt. People migrate so much faster than that that nobody would even notice even the most rapid sea level rise.

You know, big cities and fertile lands usually are close to rivers and coasts.

Yes, and there will continue to be rivers, coasts, and fertile deltas, just like there have been for the past 10000 years during the enormous sea level rise we have experienced so far. Those aren't static features in the landscape, they are dynamic and just adapt to whatever the sea level is. (Ditto for coral islands.)

And if that is not enough, think in the lost crops all around the world because the weather will not be as stable, and much more extreme, as it used to be.

The climate hasn't been stable in many millions of years. We're on a roller coaster ride between glaciations and interglacial periods, with frequent spikes and dips. The idea that climate has been stable and is being upset by human activity is the left wing version of young earth creationism; apparently neither creationists nor progressives can cope with the idea that the earth and humanity are constantly changing.

Re:Awesome

[phantomfive]

If the Greenland ice melted completely, it would be bad. There's not really a way around that. Sure, humans would survive, but that's not really a description of 'good.'

Re:Awesome

[stenvar]

Are you simply not listening? It would take centuries for the Greenland ice to melt. On that time scale, people wouldn't even be aware of the changing coastlines, they'd simply slowly move around as conditions change, as they always have.

Re:Awesome

[phantomfive]

Right. Back in the real world, "bad centuries from now" is not the same as "good." At least act like you have some relation with reality.

Re:Awesome

[DiamondGeezer]

"The idea that climate has been stable and is being upset by human activity is the left wing version of young earth creationism"

If I had mod points then that sentence would be worth at least a million. Climate change alarm is based on a myth of past climate stability - it is disguised creationism.

Re:Awesome

[b4upoo]

It is even worse. Think of a city like Miami which is close to ocean level and the implications of flooding. The location of garbage pits, graves, fuel and chemical wells that have accumulated over the last 160 years would be astounding and every bit of that would end up in the ocean. Long term flooding of Miami would probably pretty much destroy the Atlantic ocean eco system at the very least and maybe a great deal more than that. And that is one city of two million people. So many coastal cities would go under that the impact would be unbelievable. Florida even has several nuclear reactors built near or on beaches with no real elevation at all. As far as I know even if we started today there is no way to shut down those reactors and clean them out as well as cleaning out spent fuel in storage. The farm land west of South Florida's cities is pretty much exclusively the land that produces American food crops in fall and winter.

Re:Awesome

[gmuslera]

Global sea level rise won't be very abrupt. What is abrupt is flooded cities because a single storm (you have several to pick last months, no need to go back to Katrina), or most crops in a region wasted because a heavy rain or hailstorms. Then people die, starve, or get poor. But most won't move from there, tradition, religion, having the graves of their parents or whatever will keep them there, even if those isolated incidents becomes common. By then the alternative places to where they could move will be already taken out, either flooded with people or just owned by speculators. Also, you don't take an structure that was build and self adjusted in centuries to support a lot of people and just rebuilt somewhere else holding the same amount.

Yes, more land will be available, and will eventually be fertile, but during all the transition and changes and storms and whatever you must keep feeding a lot of people. And if well we were able to cope with previous transitions, with far more population it will be harder or with more impact on human lives. It could be ok for you, as long as you are not in the other side of the fence.

Re:Awesome

[stenvar]

Right. Back in the real world, "bad centuries from now" is not the same as "good." At least act like you have some relation with reality.

In what way is it "bad" if centuries from now the coastlines are a bit different? They are different now from what they were centuries ago, and you don't even know it.

Re:Awesome

[stenvar]

Global sea level rise won't be very abrupt. What is abrupt is flooded cities because a single storm (you have several to pick last months, no need to go back to Katrina), or most crops in a region wasted because a heavy rain or hailstorms

That's utter nonsense too. Storms and bad harvests happen all the time. If climate change has any effect at all, it will be to change their frequencies slightly. There is nothing "abrupt" about it.

By then the alternative places to where they could move will be already taken out, either flooded with people or just owned by speculators.

Yeah, like the feudal lords of a few centuries ago owned all the land and they are still in power, right?

Thanks for showing again that left wingers are just as confused about history and science as right wingers.

Re:Awesome

[Kjella]

"The idea that climate has been stable and is being upset by human activity is the left wing version of young earth creationism"

If I had mod points then that sentence would be worth at least a million. Climate change alarm is based on a myth of past climate stability - it is disguised creationism.

Nice straw man you've put up there to cut down, too bad no real scientists say that. Hell, if the climate hadn't changed here since the last ice age this message would be coming to you from deep under the ice cap. Here for example is a graph of the last 2000 years, last 12000 years, last 450000 years. The climate changes naturally but not like now, which is all the time I'm going to waste arguing with a closed mind. And even though the planet has been hotter than it is now (look at the 450k year graph, nobody's denying this shit) a rapid man-made climate change won't leave nature or people time to adapt. Change that happens in a century is different than change that happens over 10000 years.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way is it "bad" if centuries from now the coastlines are a bit different? They are different now from what they were centuries ago, and you don't even know it.

So, London and Alexandria were all in different places few hundred years ago? Check, thanks for letting us know.

I guess those 200,000,000+ people that live in Bangladesh will just have their borders moved over so they are not few meters under water. Perhaps Texas could be New Bangladesh?

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Before Greenland becomes arable, you should be able to figure what yo do with the hundreds of millons of people that will be displaced as the countries/cities they live today

Even in the worst case, it would take centuries for the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps to melt. People migrate so much faster than that that nobody would even notice even the most rapid sea level rise.

You know, big cities and fertile lands usually are close to rivers and coasts.

Yes, and there will continue to be rivers, coasts, and fertile deltas, just like there have been for the past 10000 years during the enormous sea level rise we have experienced so far. Those aren't static features in the landscape, they are dynamic and just adapt to whatever the sea level is. (Ditto for coral islands.)

And if that is not enough, think in the lost crops all around the world because the weather will not be as stable, and much more extreme, as it used to be.

The climate hasn't been stable in many millions of years. We're on a roller coaster ride between glaciations and interglacial periods, with frequent spikes and dips. The idea that climate has been stable and is being upset by human activity is the left wing version of young earth creationism; apparently neither creationists nor progressives can cope with the idea that the earth and humanity are constantly changing.

After the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 released in the atmosphere has dramatically increased. CO2 absorbs infrared light radiated by the Earth, hence more heat is retained by the Earth as CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases. There is nothing left wing or right wing about this.

Re:Awesome

[dr2chase]

We don't know this with the certainty that we'd like, certainly not in the case of Greenland. Antarctic, more likely that will take centuries, I'm not sure it's supposed to even melt 100% in the likely futures. In the case of Greenland, there's fossil/isotopic evidence of very rapid sea level rise in the past (multiple meters per century), and the current measurements of melt rate show that it is accelerating. http://boingboing.net/2011/07/21/why-we-need-to-keep.html

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Your flippant attitude seems inappropriate given the magnitude of the disaster potential. Most major cities are coastal. It seems like there's a real risk (maybe not likely, but possible) sea levels will rise enough in a 20 year period to displace a lot of people, and/or require tremendous dikes to be built. That sort of time period would be very noticeable.

Also don't forget that changes in weather patterns can be even more devastating. The average sea level might not rise that much, but what if floods get worse? A temporary change in the water level would cause just as much displacement as a permanent change. We shouldn't be messing with the weather, it's bad enough already!

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Global sea level rise won't be very abrupt. What is abrupt is flooded cities because a single storm (you have several to pick last months, no need to go back to Katrina), or most crops in a region wasted because a heavy rain or hailstorms

That's utter nonsense too. Storms and bad harvests happen all the time. If climate change has any effect at all, it will be to change their frequencies slightly.

Are you sure about "slightly"? I was thinking it was more like "by multiples". Just in my lifetime (30 years) there have been multiple "flood of the century"s in the midwest (where I grew up), and a hurricane in NYC that actually did some damage (where I am now). I don't do climate research for fun, but I've certainly heard in the news that there have been many more problems with crop harvests than historically as well. (Of course us rich Americans don't notice when poor Asian farmers starve, though, due to unusual weather.)

I certainly hope you're right, and climate change is no big deal, but I feel like the evidence doesn't jive with that theory. "Hope is not a strategy".

Re:Awesome

[stenvar]

We don't know this with the certainty that we'd like,

Yes, "we" do.

In the case of Greenland, there's fossil/isotopic evidence of very rapid sea level rise in the past (multiple meters per century),

Yes, there has been a rapid pulse in the past; that was likely due to the release of a basin of water or an ice bridge, not regular melting. There is no structure in existence on earth that can generate anything similar.

Here is a history of sea levels over the past 20000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

and the current measurements of melt rate show that it is accelerating. http://boingboing.net/2011/07/21/why-we-need-to-keep.html

Fitting an exponential curve and then extrapolating doubling times and making dire predictions is sheer idiocy. The only thing that link shows (again) is that Hansen is completely incompetent.

Re:Awesome

[dr2chase]

Perhaps you're comfortable with a higher level of risk, but I notice that you don't say that rapid rise was *certainly* due to a meltwater pulse, merely *likely*. Even if that event was certainly due to a meltwater pulse, that is not in itself proof that a similarly rapid glacial slide cannot occur now, given the unprecedented forcing. I do agree that it has to be a glacial slide -- melting in place would require a truly awesome amount of heat -- it takes far more heat to melt in place than is available merely from global warming (but there is plenty of heat for melting ice once it is in the ocean).

An exponential fit is aggressive, I agree, but do you have a proof of impossibility that does not rely on bluster?

Re:Awesome

[Reziac]

Exactly my own observation re the 'progressive left'. Only difference seems to be that they've created their own religion, while the right inherited theirs.

Re:Awesome

[Troed]

So, [...] Alexandria were all in different places few hundred years ago?

With a slightly longer definition of "a few" - indeed.

"how had the city sunk? Working with Goddio, geologist Jean-Daniel Stanley of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History examined dozens of drilled cores of sediment from the harbor depths. He determined that the edge of the ancient city had slid into the sea over the course of centuries because of a deadly combination of earthquakes, a tsunami and slow subsidence.

On August 21, in A.D. 365, the sea suddenly drained out of the harbor, ships keeled over, fish flopped in the sand. Townspeople wandered into the weirdly emptied space. Then, a massive tsunami surged into the city, flinging water and ships over the tops of Alexandria’s houses, according to a contemporaneous description by Ammianus Marcellinus based on eyewitness accounts. That disaster, which may have killed 50,000 people in Alexandria alone, ushered in a two-century period of seismic activity and rising sea levels that radically altered the Egyptian coastline."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Raising-Alexandria.html?c=y&page=3

Re:Awesome

[Troed]

The climate changes naturally but not like now

"The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many rapid climate transitions, most of them on time scales of centuries to decades or even less. The most detailed information is available for the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change around 11,500 years ago, which seems to have occurred over a few decades. The speed of this change is probably representative of similar but less well-studied climate transitions during the last few hundred thousand years. These include sudden cold events (Heinrich events/stadials), warm events (Interstadials) and the beginning and ending of long warm phases, such as the Eemian interglacial. Detailed analysis of terrestrial and marine records of climate change will, however, be necessary before we can say confidently on what timescale these events occurred; they almost certainly did not take longer than a few centuries."

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

You might mistakenly refer to limits of proxy resolution as proof of non-rapid natural climate change.

Re:Awesome

[stenvar]

Even if that event was certainly due to a meltwater pulse, that is not in itself proof that a similarly rapid glacial slide cannot occur now,

There is also no evidence that the Archangel Gabriel won't descend from the clouds tomorrow and smite all the unbelievers. So what?

An exponential fit is aggressive,

It's not "aggressive", it's physically and statistically unjustified and unsupported. It is unscientific FUD.

but do you have a proof of impossibility that does not rely on bluster?

I don't have to provide "proof of impossibility". When people make fits to data to make predictions, they need to provide the evidence that their fits are justified. Hansen hasn't done that, so the only thing his statements prove is his deficiencies as a scientist.

And if you use "proof of impossibility" as your standard, then prove that it's impossible that we rapidly descend into another glaciation event. Heck, that has happened about a hundred times before.

Re:Awesome

[dr2chase]

Note that there is no evidence in the fossil record of the Archangel Gabriel descending, and there is also no evidence of an ice age ever occurring with CO2 at current levels, never mind the levels we are projected to achieve later this century. It's much easier to assert the impossibility of those events.

There *IS* fossil evidence of rapid sea level rise, and we don't have a solid explanation for exactly how that happened -- meltwater, for example, requires an extraordinary amount of in-place melting (takes a tremendous amount of heat), and we have the additional fun of punching up CO2 at an unprecedented rate, so we cannot take past events as an upper bound on what we might observe.

There is the additional risk-unpleasantness of the arctic icecap melt completely outrunning theoretical predictions, and the obvious linkage between Greenland and the arctic ice cap. I'd be much more comfortable rejecting Hansen's claims as lacking a proper theoretical explanation if the proper theoretical explanation had not already been proven far too conservative in that region of the world. That's a huge problem.

And again, I'm not saying that Hansen is right -- I am saying that we don't have a comfortable level of certainty that he's wrong. I'm not normally a fan of exponential curve fits either. Unfortunately, he's a climate scientist, and I'm not (and as far as I know, you aren't either).

Re:Awesome

[stenvar]

and there is also no evidence of an ice age ever occurring with CO2 at current levels, never mind the levels we are projected to achieve later this century

Good. If we're lucky, we can finally get out of the current ice age. 7 million years is long enough.

There *IS* fossil evidence of rapid sea level rise, and we don't have a solid explanation for exactly how that happened -- meltwater, for example, requires an extraordinary amount of in-place melting (takes a tremendous amount of heat),

That was when large parts of the northern hemisphere were covered in ice. And what happened is that the water had to melt first over a long time, and then get released quickly as some barrier disappeared. There really is no other physically possible explanation. No such meltwater lake exists, nor even topographic features that could produce one given the current ice cover.

and we have the additional fun of punching up CO2 at an unprecedented rate, so we cannot take past events as an upper bound on what we might observe.

We can take basic physics as an upper bound.

And again, I'm not saying that Hansen is right -- I am saying that we don't have a comfortable level of certainty that he's wrong.

Of course we have a comfortable level of certainty. Nobody, not Hansen, not anybody else, has been able to come up with a plausible scenario for rapid sea level rise. Worrying about this is no more rational than worrying about the Archangel Gabriel smiting humanity for its sins (and psychologically, I think climate change is the left wing equivalent of "God is punishing us for our sins").

I'm not normally a fan of exponential curve fits either. Unfortunately, he's a climate scientist, and I'm not

Being a "climate scientist" doesn't mean he is qualified to perform statistical analyses or fit curves. That's one of the problems with a lot of climatologists: they know stuff about climate history and maybe some physics, but they are way out of their depth on making actual predictions, risk analyses, or policy recommendations. In different words, when it comes to these issues, Hansen is effectively a layman.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite honestly, the only time I've ever heard mention of the climate being "stable" is when right wing pundits speak. This isn't the only issue that gets this treatment either. Conservatives love making things up to get outraged about, and then assigning the blame to whichever scapegoat is most convenient.

Re:Awesome

[stenvar]

Nice straw man you've put up there to cut down, too bad no real scientists say that

I wasn't talking about scientists, I was talking about left-wing politicians, voters, and activists.

And it's not at all a "straw man": that's what sustainability means.

The climate changes naturally but not like now, which is all the time I'm going to waste arguing with a closed mind.

The "natural change" would be for another deep glaciation to start very soon. Man-made melting of the polar ice caps is in every way preferable.

a rapid man-made climate change won't leave nature or people time to adapt.

Another statement people like you fabricate out of thin air. If you look at population development and migration from 1900 to 2000, any possible changes from climate change pale in comparison, starting with the fact that the world population quadrupled. And did the doom and gloom people have predicted since Malthus happen? No, of course not. Life expectancy, wealth, health, nutrition, and education have greatly improved globally.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then you are politically blind on the left. Conservatives and "progressives" both fear change, both fear the future and both lack trust in humanity. "Sustainability" is the same kind of luddite idiocy as that practiced by conservatives.

When wasn't it?

[Troed]

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

- Washington Post, 1922

( based on this original: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf )

Re:When wasn't it?

[Reziac]

We have always been at war with global warming.

every years a winner

[rjejr]

You pick the year, they pick the theory. This year next year every years a winner. So basically they dont know and need more funding to narrow it down. Maybe next go round it will be odd numbered years, 2025, 2035, 2045.

Re:A test problem from my applied probability clas

[geoffrobinson]

And how far back did your past data go?

Dumb

[whizbang77045]

How quickly can you say BS?

Re:A test problem from my applied probability clas

[Anonymous Coward]

The past three universes. Then their records got a little fuzzy.

The Greenland Riviera

[gelfling]

Is the next real estate bubble.

Do you deniers EVER read anything you cite?

[Anonymous Coward]

"This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates"

"Too late"??????? WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK WHAT????

And did you read this bit? "and will probably be complete by those dates"?

No?

Re:Satellite data on ice mass [Re:Let's ignore th.

[srone]

What about the volcanoes on the Gakkel Ridge. All the warm water held in the Arctic basin should be contributing to some or even most of the loss of Ice.

I have seen data showing the slow increase in Antarctic Ice versus the slow loss in Arctic Ice.

I tend to be a skeptic on all end of the world scenarios, until an asteroid or comet are heading in our direction.

And when there is, will you STFU?

[Anonymous Coward]

No?

I didn't think so.

Sigh...

U not read so good, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You: Erm the accuracy of predicting a single coin toss is THE SAME as 1000 coin tosses.

In response to: the results of 50 or 100 or 1000 coin tosses in ensemble.

U niid skooling.

Not the end of the world [Re:Satellite data on...]

[Geoffrey.landis]

What about the volcanoes on the Gakkel Ridge.

The comment I was replying to stated that the decrease in arctic ice thickness "has reversed." That statement is not correct, and I posted a link to the data.

Now you, apparently, are trying to come up with a hypothesis to explain this, other than the trivial hypothesis that since temperatures are increasing, ice is melting.

Fine. Do some back of the envelope calculations, and if you still think that's a viable hypothesis, well, uh, maybe you should get somebody else to check your calculations. Then, if you still think it's plausible, go get your ice model peer reviewed.

...
I tend to be a skeptic on all end of the world scenarios, until an asteroid or comet are heading in our direction.

This majorly pisses me off. I point out data showing that Arctic ice is thinning, and people jump immediately to "he's screaming about the end of the world"! That's a false dichotomy: either carbon dioxide has no effect on climate and everything's fine, or it's the end of the world, no other alternatives.

The planet is warming. This is very well documented. "End of the world"?? Why does everything have to be "it's the end of the world"? It's not the end of the world.

Name the target

[SuperKendall]

No, frakking isn't going to help much of anything except give us a few years before fossil fuel costs really go through the roof.

The U.S. alone has hundreds of years of natural gas reserves.

Natural gas replaces coal power plants, which emit tons (literally) of CO2.

Nuclear power is another subject. IF we could do it correctly

What "if" is there? Even if you run the most leaakingist explodingist mutation causing nuclear reactor ever fired, you still are emitting zero CO2 compared to whatever else was providing energy that the nuclear plant now provides. Is CO2 caused global warming a crisis or not? If you really thought it was you be willing to accept ANY amount of localized pollution in exchange for not having a climate too hot to support life. So we can pretty obvious understand from you and other people's take on this that CO2 is actually of zero concern whatsoever.

Kyoto was a bad political joke and had little to do with slowing global warming.

Yes it did fail, that is not my point. My point was that it had a TARGET of CO2 levels to meet that was supposed to address the problem. The U.S. has met the target, supposedly set by real scientists. If those targets are not good enough, then what IS a target the U.S. should meet and where is THAT target from? Is the target zero? I get the sense the only answer you and other hopelessly unrealistic warming cultists will accept is zero, with the same percentage of scientific backing behind it.

However, the real problem is the several billion people trying to work their way up from dismal poverty

To the environmentalist, it always comes down to somehow mandating a certain portion of the populace must be kept in squalor "for the good of the Earth". Or I guess we could just hitler them (oh no I DIDN'T)!

Disgusting.

But it will get dealt with. It's just going to be ugly, protracted and scary.

It sure will be scary having greater yields in agriculture across the planet! I shiver! Or I would if it were cold anymore, which it isn't what with winter everywhere being a thing of the past (as they were saying about the UK some years ago). Going to pack a bathing suit and visit Europe next January. Or should it be ten Januaries from now? Or 100? Or 1000? I'm a little fuzzy about that exact rate of warming again...

Re:Name the target

[mrchaotica]

What "if" is there? Even if you run the most leaakingist explodingist mutation causing nuclear reactor ever fired, you still are emitting zero CO2 compared to whatever else was providing energy that the nuclear plant now provides. Is CO2 caused global warming a crisis or not? If you really thought it was you be willing to accept ANY amount of localized pollution in exchange for not having a climate too hot to support life. So we can pretty obvious understand from you and other people's take on this that CO2 is actually of zero concern whatsoever.

Excuse me, but some of us here, such as myself, are sufficiently scientific (and pragmatic, and realistic) enough to realize both that fossil fuels are bad and that nuclear is a good solution at the same time!

Incidentally, I even realize that hydrogen and corn-based ethanol are dumb for fueling vehicles with, but I quite like biodiesel.

Oh yeah, and to really blow your mind: I support the first and second amendments! (Betcha didn't think that was possible, did you?!)

Re:Too late... Not yet but soon

[Anonymous Coward]

The time to act on global climate change is now. We shouldn't worry about whether it is man made or not, but instead we should worry about how we can get to the point to where we can change the climate in a ten year time period. Since we can't agree whether CO2 is the problem we have to agee in a diplomatic fashion how to stage it so that action can start at a moments notice. I would suggest that we develop climate altering technology to the point that we are ready for full deployment. In order to do that we need to develop, test deploy, do full end to end cost studies, and prepair the infrastructure necessary to roll out climate altering solutions in a time frame that will allow us to rapidly turn the climate around. Investing in short term solutions like pumping the atmosphere full of volcanic gasses, and long term solutions such as air carbon capture require lots of planning, and testing. We can pay for it with the trillions made from recycling the worlds plastic and the rest of the MSW that we generate and clean up the environment at the same time. That is a no brainer we can all agree on. See my articles on the subject atrawcell.com under the top menu.

Re:A test problem from my applied probability clas

[Anonymous Coward]

How?
The maximum odd is 1.
So unless the universe is less than 1 in age this isn't even remotely possible.

Re:Too late... Not yet but soon

[Pharmboy]

Spam....

Rejected

[Anonymous Coward]

In a rider to the a bill to fund the Postal Service, a little know rider was attached.

Having passed, although the Federal Government is still under yet another continuing resolution,
the rider bared any Federal scientist using travel funds to attend national or international conferences.

What is in play is Authoritarianism. Scientists employed by the USA Federal Government are 'worker
bees' and nothing more. As such, 'finding of fact' whether bogus or legitimate can only be issued by
the President of the United States of America. So, the Arctic sea ice 'WILL' disappear by 2030 [roundabout]
and this pronouncement is by the President of the United States of America through his organ of choice,
this being the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Given the track record of NOAA
which by the way was instituted by President Richard M. Nixon, is quite lacking in any significant detail as
to give confidence of the Presidential Proclamation of the demise of the Arctic sea ice for all eternity thereafter
at a sufficiently telegenic berth on the shore of the island of Spitsbergen.

Counter attacks on Authoritarianism governments are most productive relative to Fascist governments.

Sig Hail Sig Hail Sig Hail

And yet, where is Spring?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm seeing a lot of stories about unseasonably cold weather all over the world.

The idea of Global Warming seems rather thin at the moment.

I'm guessing that the centralist planners who want to implement population control measures through BS excuses and fairytales about human controlled environment (for good or bad) just picked the wrong horse in the race. Shoulda said 'glaciation' instead of warming.

It's all crap, and it's not in under our control, and that knowledge is what the elites fear. They know on the gut level that if the 99% thinks the kings and emperors can't pray fast enough to the gods of the sky that we tend to chop their heads off.

Mob rules, and that's why they're all about the population control measures and misdirection. The mob is damned scary when it gets roused and there aren't enough bullets in Texas to stop us all if we stampede.

Oh no, not that!

[amightywind]

The Arctic might actually be put to productive use. I will not give up my pickup truck!

Continuation of an 18,000-year-old trend

[knorthern knight]

http://exhibits.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/LP_extinction.html shows a couple of maps of glacial retreat. The past few years are merely the logical continuation of a ice cover retreat that's been going on for the past 18,000 years. Yes, there have been a few speed bumps along the road (e.g. Younger Dryas and Little Ice Age) but the macro trend has been decreasing ice cover for the past 18,000 years.

And 18,000 years ago, the planet's total human population was approx a million people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Antiquity_and_Middle_Ages They weren't running around in CO2-spewing SUV's. So we must agree that the retreat of the icecaps for most of the past 18,000 years was not caused by human civilization. Why is it suddenly humanity's fault today?

Re:Do what? It's already done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the state of the U.S. and for that matter the world's economy. Sucks doesn't it? Misery all around, right?

And it took this kind of downturn to get us to the Kyoto levels which you claim are a joke.

So just think how bad the economy needs to get before we reach your mythical levels of reduction that ARE designed to slow global warming.

Nice, eh?

Arctic Ice Camp: Camp Barneo

[Anonymous Coward]

The Russians have a temporary Ice Camp near the North Pole for the month of April. The first base camp started in 2002.

There's no better place to study the Arctic than being in the Arctic itself.

  Camp Barneo

I cry BullSh*t...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like in the 70's when they were screaming about the impending Ice Age and how ICE was going to be clogging all of the Northern Port Cities - now it's Global Warming... Anything to get idiots who cannot read a thermometer to pay more money for things and get people willing to jack up the price of energy. They've been trying to do that for the past 40 years... Now they just say it's all Global Warming - temps nose-dive, it's Global Warming, temps climb, it's Global Warming...

How about we mark it up to Stupidity of large numbers of People and call it good... They can fret and worry, I'll pass...

Re:I cry BullSh*t...

[Spy Handler]

Britain was supposed to be completely snow and ice free by 2010 due to global warming, according to climate scientologists. I am not making this up.

Ask any chap in England how the winter was this year.

Re:I cry BullSh*t...

[hkmwbz]

And the peer-reviewed scientific papers claiming a completely snow and ice free Britain are where?

Just install some icemakers

[bryan1945]

Or a big refrigerator.

It' not the climate

[Anonymous Coward]

Fools call it climate. Shucks folks, even your weatherman cannot get it right consistantly. And their models are for your local weather. But in NASA's wisdom, in the name of the gd of cst savings, they threw away all the working models, that were working to predict the weather, at 90% or better accuracy and have gone to models with a lot worse accuracy. Look at the weather bureaus rate of accuracy now, at one week, to seasonal. wrong models. That affects/effects all of your lives. From planting crops, to harvesting to your daily commute. To me, thats sabatoge. Thats a crime. But just like the bankers, ...
So we justify anothers death in the name of another dollar saved...
And they call themselfs christian...

Melting ice does not change sea levels

[sparkydevil]

Put an icecube in a glass of water. As it melts the water level will not change because the ice cube displaces the same volume of water as the amount that melts. In In the same way, sea levels will not rise even if all the ice on the sea melts. Check this video for an example. Nothing to see here, move along and thank you science!

Re:Melting ice does not change sea levels

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank-you.

I find this sort of ridiculous fear, (rising sea levels!) to be the sort of thing which has no place on Slashdot where one would think that basic childhood kitchen experiments should have been prerequisites for all those posting here.

But then, Slashdot is full of fools who have forgotten their childhoods and have embraced their media programming without a second thought.

If any dingbat in a suit and an air of 'authority' tells us something, then it must be true, by golly!

Legions of kids bamboozled by the corrupted school system into abandoning their critical thinking skills and individualism. Pathetic.

Re:Melting ice does not change sea levels

[riverat1]

The issue of Arctic sea ice melting is not one of sea level rise. SLR happens as the oceans warm up and as the glacial ice, particularly on Greenland and Antarctica melts which is all ongoing. The difference that sea ice melting makes is that the interaction between the atmosphere and open water is much different than between the atmosphere and an ice surface. Heat transfer and evaporation are much greater with open water and that's bound to change weather and climate with effects as far south as the subtropics.

Re:Melting ice does not change sea levels

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome! Now go find a youtube video showing the Greenland ice sheet surviving despite the Arctic Ocean being ice-free, and you may have a point!

Re:Melting ice does not change sea levels

[Stuarticus]

Put an ice cube in a shallow saucer of water and let it melt and the level goes up! If the ice in the water around Greenland melts what do you think is going to happen (and is happening) to the ice on Greenland? Maybe you should learn more science.

Same old Same Old

[MooseMiester]

Whenever you read a DIRE prediction about anything, you need to translate this immediately to:

Budget battle underway, cut in funding is imminent, must create panic now.

This has been going on ever since Governments started handing out your money to people who's ideas weren't good enough to survive in the free market.

I predict that in the next ten years, people will continue to shout their ideology at each other while claiming to understand science, physics, and math better than the other guy. People will believe damn near anything if it's dire enough, worrisome enough, and has the end of life as we know it associated with it. Double this effect if some amorphous entity is setup as the straw man to be hated and despised, particularly if the believer can be convinced that these entities have it better than they do. The more emotion, the more proven the "science". The simple fact that GREED is one of the most powerful of all human forces next to LOVE is lost on many people. A FEW people here get this, and they are to be commended. I'd wager they are older than your average "The World is going to End unless" folks.

Re:Satellite data on ice mass [Re:Let's ignore th.

[riverat1]

I think if you analyze the amount of heat energy volcanoes emit compared to the amount of heat energy required to effect the changes we've observed you would find volcanic heat is totally inadequate to explain the melting.

Neil Young predicted this back in the '70s

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change gonna come at last
Now your icebergs are meltin' fast

Don't worry, the warming stopped 15 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. The warming that we've seen for a few decades has stopped and we will be back to our normal "ice age" self sooner than you think. CO2 is not the control. EVERY SINGLE prediction made by the warming camp has been shown to be WRONG. Their models are garbage. Expensive garbage but still GIGO.

More propaganda

[glitch23]

Yay, more info to make the liberals and eco-crazies tell the rest of us how we must live in order to save the planet at the expense of our bank account and/or our comfort. We are more worried about the so-called issues the polar bears are experiencing than we are about the million babies aborted each year, which is REAL, not propaganda. Anyone who believes this is actionable info has their priorities messed up.

Good Riddance to the sea ice.

[Kodack]

Who's bright idea was it that it's a 'good thing' our planet is frozen solid almost perpetually above and below certain lattitutdes? During the time of the dinosaurs there were no polar ice caps and the world was much hotter than even global warming predicts we could get. Was the planet one big smouldering desert that killed off tons of species? Nope. It had a higher biodiversity than we have ever seen in mankinds entire history. Storms were no worse than they are today, more of the available land was habitable, and life THRIVED.

Ask me if I'm afraid of global warming, go ahead, ask me.

No.

If the Arctic starts to become ice free in the summer months it will allow for unprecedented access to the ocean, open up shorter, cheaper, more environmentally friendly trade routes for ocean vessels, not to mention exploration of the ocean and it's depths.

Now if we could only thaw out Antarctica too then we would really be moving along. Yeah we might lose a little coastline around the planet but the rise would be gradual and we would adapt. Remember Jamestown, North America's first settlement? Underwater right now. The fact is that coastlines already change even within a few generations, why be worried about loosing some more? The earth isn't going to flood, it's not going to e a 'water world'. Were the dinosaurs underwater? Nope.

Antarctica is an entire continent that is virtually inaccessible and unexplored. Underneath millions of years of snow and ice is an entire land waiting to come free of a million year deep freeze complete with new mountains, lakes, not to mention habitable land. Who knows what we will discover locked beneath the ice there. It makes me excited.

So don't worry, learn to enjoy not having thousands of people and millions of dollars in lost wages and damage every year from severe winter weather, and uh yeah. We get to go swimming in December, a reward for returning the earth to it's natural state of not being frozen solid year round.

A "fact" you just made up.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, your assertion is completely made up.

Re:A "fact" you just made up.

[Spy Handler]

From the very mouth of CRU, the holy gatekeepers of the Church of Climate Scientology. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Year 2000: According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

Year 2013: No mention is made of the weather in England, with the presence of heavy snow and ice completely ignored. However, "ALL ARCTIC ICE WILL DISAPPEAR VERY SOON"

Re:A "fact" you just made up.

[hkmwbz]

Your article doesn't mention 2010 at all, much less any actual peer-reviewed research saying anything like that. Funnily enough, the very same article also quotes Viner as saying, "heavy snow will return occasionally" and that "Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time."

So what happened to your claim? "Heavy snow will return occasionally" doesn't really match your "completely snow and ice free" claim, now does it?

Worse yet (for you), a BBC article from January 2010 states: "Heavy snow and icy roads are causing chaos across most of the UK." Compare tha to the "will probably cause chaos" quote above.

I guess it's safe to say that your bluff has been called. Not only did the article you used as a source not say anything about anything being completely snow and ice free, but it actually referred to heavy snow!