Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming 5 Million Years Ago In Antarctic Drastically Raised Sea Levels
An anonymous reader writes "As temperatures rise, scientists continue to worry about the effects of melting Antarctic ice, which threatens to raise sea levels and swamp coastal communities. This event, though, isn't unprecedented. Researchers have uncovered evidence that reveals global warming five million years ago may have caused parts of Antarctica's ice sheets to melt, causing sea levels to rise by about 20 meters."
Well.. An observed 20M rise in sea level back then certainly was NOT because fossil fuels got burned. Which leads to the question, What DID cause it? Which leads us to the question, so how do we know what's happening now? Theories abound, but there is little proof of much of what gets asserted as true in the press. Just tells us we need to keep looking at the issue because we apparently don't fully understand it yet.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
People are finally starting to get over the 'climate may be changing' thing, a process which has long been delayed by the heavily politicized 'why' question. It's more accurate to think of it in terms of climate changing due to a number of factors, some of which humans are responsible for, than to entirely assign blame one way or another. For one thing, it's not remotely accurate to say that climate change is something humans are totally responsible for; to do so is to ignore natural cyclical fluctuations of that climate.
Of course, causation aside, it remains a fact that the climate is changing. 'How much' remains a useful question. So does 'how can we affect the rate of change'. That's always been the root of the political problem, of course. Half-measures like alternative energy and emissions reduction are essentially a token gesture, of little real effect; slowing the train down a little doesn't change its direction. Ultimately, since human population continues to increase, human energy consumption will do the same... and trying to stop or even slow that means trying to reduce population or increase poverty, which is grim as hell. There's certainly a little wiggle room there... but the problem is so vast that a really serious solution would look like 'replace all coal plants everywhere with nuclear'. Yes, nuclear; wind and solar just won't cut it, you need a serious power source to solve serious problems, unless you're trying a 'solve the problem by killing a bunch of people and impoverishing the rest' solution.
Even so, there's another side to the 'rate of change' issue. Even if we developed a magical solution that completely eliminated all human contribution to global warming starting tomorrow, the fact remains that there are still natural factors out there that are changing the climate in ways incompatible with our needs as a species. That's a long-term problem, but one that will eventually need solving. Ultimately, it'll mean stuff like geoengineering. Even if the seas are 'scheduled' to rise 20 metres, it's certainly possible to hold back the tide... but it'll take a hell of a lot of work to make that happen.