Slashdot Mirror
What Caused a 1300-Year Deep Freeze?
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "Things were looking up for Earth about 12,800 years ago. The last Ice Age was coming to an end, mammoths and other large mammals romped around North America, and humans were beginning to settle down and cultivate wild plants. Then, suddenly, the planet plunged into a deep freeze, returning to near-glacial temperatures for more than a millennium before getting warm again. The mammoths disappeared at about the same time, as did a major Native American culture that thrived on hunting them. A persistent band of researchers has blamed this apparent disaster on the impact of a comet or asteroid, but a new study concludes that the real explanation for the chill, at least, may lie strictly with Earth-bound events."
Global Warming
Cope, yes. Cope inexpensively, no. Coping with a significantly warmer climate will be expensive. There's evidence that we could spend some money now to reduce the warming, thereby reducing the total cost. Wouldn't reducing the total cost mean that it makes economic sense to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Why do you think it wills top at a couple of degrees? AS long as we keep spewing more green house gases, more energy will be trapped. Once we completely overwhelm the system,. then the human species, at best, will be living in mud huts eating grubs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If this was a purely technical problem to be solved with no issues gathering the resources to solve it then no. But this is much much more than a technical problem. The big issue is going to be political and finding the will to divert trillions of dollars to adapting to the change in climate while people will need food and new homes. Of course there will be wars to fight because of all this and that isn't cheap either. Are we smart enough to adapt? Absolutely. Do we have the will and foresight to adapt on our own rather than being forced to before billions die? Probably not.
Er.. I mean Climate Disruption.. yeah, that's it.
I just refer to it as "Global Warming (or Name du joure)" now. They've had to change the name so often in their attempts to keep getting reactions from the sheep that I'm loosing track of what it's been called. Maybe if they start getting the dire predictions right..... Like having more droughts, floods, tornadoes or something....
Sort of like communist, liberal, progressive, democrat etc.. (Yes, I know I repeat myself.. ) (grin)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Temperature? Peace of cake! Nasty insect born diseases and drastically reduced supply of food and fresh water? There will be a much less than 6 billion of us left after it all goes down.
Come on, it was because the cavemen where not burning enough of the rainforest to keep the world warm. It was their OWN fault.
Tundra soil is not particularly fertile and the processes that enrich soil can take hundreds if not thousands of years. I suppose if you have enough compost to cover Canada and such.
and that ignores the obvious desertification that would happen across huge swathes of currently productive land.
Then you may want to read this article, for example.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
"The prevailing theory is that the Younger Dryas was caused by significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic "Conveyor", which circulates warm tropical waters northward, in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America. Geological evidence for such an event is thus far lacking. The global climate would then have become locked into the new state until freezing removed the fresh water "lid" from the north Atlantic Ocean. An alternative theory suggests instead that the jet stream shifted northward in response to the changing topographic forcing of the melting North American ice sheet, bringing more rain to the North Atlantic which freshened the ocean surface enough to slow the thermohaline circulation. There is also some evidence that a solar flare may have been responsible for the megafaunal extinction, though it cannot explain the apparent variability in the extinction across all continents." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y...
It's interesting that this comes on the same day that low-information journalists are panicked because "the melt that has started could eventually add 4 to 12 feet to current sea levels."
Apparently they're not aware that this is trivial compared to what nature dishes out. During the Last Glacial Maximum (only ~23,000 years ago), sea level was 400 feet lower than it is today.
Every species that's alive today, including polar bears, managed to survive that massive 400-ft increase in sea level.
In fact, every species that's alive today has managed to survive dozens of glacial advances and glacial retreats -- each one of which caused massive fluctuations in sea level.
The low-information voters and low-information journalists also seem unaware that the natural and normal state of the earth is to not have any polar ice caps whatsoever. The only reason Earth currently has polar ice caps is because the Quaternary glaciation (i.e., the most recent ice age) is not completely over; we are still emerging from it.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
They changed the name because the general public is too stupid to understand that an increase in average global temperature doesn't mean that every area on Earth will experience an increase in temperature. Too many people making foolish statements like "This winter is colder than last year's, how's that for 'global warming'??!"
This headline promises a lot, but delivers nothing. The article just looks briefly at the controversy -- in other words, we still don't know.
This comes from a good Journal, but reading it was a waste of time.
Tundra is not marginal. Tundra will become forest, forest will become fertile farmland.
Desertification is not 'obvious'. Key to global warming is more water vapor feeding back any heat increases. Likely increased average rain with increased temperature.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Well, it's really the rate of sea level rise that's the issue. Adding 4 to 12 feet to current sea levels "eventually" over 10000 years is no problem. Adding 4 to 12 feet to current sea levels "eventually" in the 2100s is a different matter entirely.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Bill O'rockly on Foxosaurus News says that theory is a bunch of brontosaurus droppings.
Table-ized A.I.
If Al Gore-like shamans lived back then, the insufficient fervor of the rival shamans in keeping the fires going all day and night would've been blamed for the freeze.
Anybody failing to keep their fire going would be shamed and punished — unless they paid tribute (to buy global freezing offset credits) to the right shaman, of course.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Short answer - no.
A longer, more speculative answer can be found here.
The impact of warming on food yields is complex. The latest research suggests that food yields will decrease with a warming of 2 degrees Celsius.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I suppose if you have enough compost to cover Canada and such.
Who needs compost when you can just drill/frack more natural gas and turn that into fertilizer?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Old Argument (Younger Dryas): We found iridium (rare on earth but abundant in meteorites), nanodiamonds and magnetic particles covering ancient tools and mammoth remains at sites which we believe are around 12,000 years old. Therefore, we believe a cosmic collision caused the 1,300 year deep-freeze.
New Argument: We performed radiocarbon dating on tools found at the 29 sites described in the Old Argument and found that only 3 of the 29 sites were around 12,000 years old. The tools at other sites were much older or younger. Therefore, the deep-freeze was probably not caused by a cosmic collision.
This was caused by my ex- wife..
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
I suppose if you have enough compost to cover Canada and such.
You can have every politician on the North (and South) American Continents. It would be a pretty good start.
Maybe lawyers as a phase II project.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Tundra is marginal for most crops. Tundra is typically a thin, acidic soil. Given a couple of hundred thousand years, it probably would pick up a bunch of new critters and plants and become more organically active, but most of us are not that patient.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Desertification is not 'obvious'. Key to global warming is more water vapor feeding back any heat increases. Likely increased average rain with increased temperature.
You seem to be making a common mistake when talking about climate change:
You're confusing global "average rain" with local "average rain."
We know, without a doubt, that climate change will shift weather patterns and create deserts.
We're also seeing signs that climate change is shifting weather patterns and greening existing deserts.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that useless land and useful land switch places in a 1:1 ratio.
That still leaves one big problem: what do you do with all the people and infrastructure that are in the new desert?
It's a problem whose only solutions are extremely expensive.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Because I said so.
We had to black out the sky to cut off their access to solar energy. We eventually won and abandoned modern technology, but effects of the blackout on the climate could not be overcome.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
at the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, you did cite an Arizona State study, so I must, out of principle, ignore your entire post altogether.
There's so much misinformation in your post it hurts. It's warmed 0.7 degrees Celsius in the past 134 years. It is currently warmer now than any time in the past 2000 years. In the past 17 years Earth has warmed by about 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade. And there's no sign of cooling or even temperatures leveling off.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
but, damnit, where will my Quarter Pounder come from if they stop making more due to lack of feed?
wait... Quarter Pounders do come from livestock, right?
Tundra soil is not particularly fertile
Nor is current farmland. Crops are grown with fertilizer produced by oil and natural gas. Replacing those will be the problem.
You missed the part where Slashdot delayed his post. Check the date. He originally wrote it in 1836.
John
if only you were the first post, we could have avoided a hundred others and a lot of useless debate!
go quicker next time
Experts have estimated that as much as 2-3%, by weight, of the hambuger patty may be composed of 100% Real Beef!
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
science fail.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
It would probably be much less expensive to remedy a few degrees warmer - thus INCREASING the growing season in North America - than a few degrees COLDER, which might make a whole lot of people very hungry. AND cold. But neither is especially likely.
The warmist view is based almost entirely on computer models which cannot predict the present based on the past. I would be strongly opposed to betting a few trillion dollars worth of economic growth on a computer model's forecast for 20 years hence.
50 years ago, there were no "reputable" scientists who accepted either continental drift OR the out-of-this-world concept (literally!) that an astronomical impact might have caused the mass extinctions of 65 billion years ago. Both are now generally accepted. Earth scientists today are trying to explain the Younger Dryas as anything OTHER than an impact event.
what do you do with all the people and infrastructure that are in the new desert?
Why do the people have to leave? People have been migrating to warmer places for the past century.
It's actually kindof stupid that our cities are on top of some of the most fertile ground.
If Chicago or New York all of a sudden became 10 degrees warmer it would probably boost their
population. The only thing that would have to move north would be the farmers and there is
minimal infrustructure there.
I remember hearing Wally Broecker talk about the ice dam + flooding hypothesis back in the mid-1990s (or possibly earlier).
#DeleteChrome
In general, we should expect less rainfall at lower latitudes and more rainfall at higher latitudes. Canada will get wetter while California gets drier.
It is literally seeping out of the melting permafrost so there should be no shortage. Here is a fun video of someone setting the air on fire after poking a hole in the ice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
It has raised almost 0.2C in the last 17 years - a period you claim that we've seen no warming: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
For the sake of argument, let's assume that useless land and useful land switch places in a 1:1 ratio. That still leaves one big problem: what do you do with all the people and infrastructure that are in the new desert? It's a problem whose only solutions are extremely expensive.
Well if all of the populated areas suddenly become deserts solar suddenly becomes more viable as you don't have the issue with transmission lines over long distances.
Nope. Not even close. Closer to 1C since 1940: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Where on Earth did you get 0.2C since 1940? That's just crazy! We've had almost 0.2C warming during the "pause" of the last 17 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
I'm only posting these comments to clear up misinformation. If people wouldn't post misinformation, there would be no need for me to clear it up, would there?
Don't you see how ironic is it that this whole thread started with someone urging everyone to stop talking about climate change, and that in itself started a whole conversation about climate change? If you don't want to talk about it, just don't bring it up! Just don't look! Just don't look!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Temperature? Peace of cake! Nasty insect born diseases and drastically reduced supply of food and fresh water? There will be a much less than 6 billion of us left after it all goes down.
Meh, so we will have to reevaluate the toxicity of DDT again.
Desertification is not obvious. Reports are that the models show that some areas turn into deserts, and others into jungles. So you might need to switch from wheat to rice or sugar cane. Or you might need to go into date palms.
OTOH, desertification CAN be handled, if you have enough energy. (Check out the California central valley. Used to be a desert.) But you need enough energy to move water around, and possibly to desalinate it. (YARG!!!) Jungles, though, are more difficult to deal with. It's better to adapt to it than to fight it. Mangroves, tropical fruits, rice, sugar cane, etc.
As for tundra soil not being particularly fertile....I have my doubts about that. I think the problem is the weather that causes you to have tundra in the first place, particularly permafrost. Tundra is reported to belch alarming amounts of methane when it gets warm and moist, and to me this sounds like a very fertile soil....though quite plausibly one that's deficient in minerals. But you probably can't just plow it. It probably needs to be aerated as well. And you would need to select the correct crops...I can't really say what they would be. (Jungle soil, however, is QUITE poor, because of the heavy flow of water that washes away all the nutrients.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Good thing most of our food grows on ammonium nitrate and very little else.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
In this graph from NOAA you can see there's been far more than 0.2 degrees warming since 1940. It looks to be about 0.5 degrees Celsius since 1940. In fact, it's warmed 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1970.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Lucky for you there is only 1 country in the world.
But we have already seen the problem in your 1 tiny world. New Orleans is already under water and you were too stupid to move it the first time. You already have cities in stupid places, it will only get worse. What if the climate changes and New York ends up with massive frequent flooding and all those extra people?
DRINK!
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Don't you Foxbots have anything better to say than AAAAALLLLL GOOOOORRRRRE!?
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
The science is working, if the scientific knowledge keeps enabling new revolutionary technologies (genetic engineering, nanotechnology, metamaterials, energy storage technology, quantum computers...) like it has been doing for as long as scientific method has been applies in large scale (radio, electricity, plastics, advanced alloys, computers, telecom, crude genetic engineering, satellites...).
That's a pretty good benchmark really. Just being able to read opinions of all the anti-science people proves science works, because if it didn't, they'd be restricted to climbing on shoebox and shouting.
What if the climate changes and New York ends up with massive frequent flooding and all those extra people?
Sea level rise would be much more catastrophic for NYC than frequent flooding. Much of NYC, especially Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens are below, at, or just a few feet above sea level. Most of the infrastructure (electric, natural gas, telephone/telecom, steam -- yes steam, subways, etc. etc., etc.) is actually underground. During hurricaine Sandy, Significant swaths of NYC were flooded, leaving hundreds of thousands without power, some for weeks. A general sea level rise of even one meter would put much of NYC (as well as the rest of Long Island) underwater. Once that happens, the next big storm will kill thousands and leave much of the city uninhabitable. So much for NYC as the center of the world. The same is true for many other coastal cities -- Miami, Los Angeles, etc. New Orleans is just the beginning.
And forget about Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and on and on and on.
We're looking at population dislocations from coastal/island areas in the hundreds of millions -- if not more than a billion people. This is going to be really bad. And we aren't doing anything worthwhile about it. I just hope I don't live long enough to see it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
It doesn't matter what you call it, the physical effects are real and will have to be dealt with one way or another.
I see what you did there.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Also, melting the polar ice caps is probably not a good idea since Greenland and Antarctica melting would raise sea levels by several feet. 11 million people in Bangladesh will move to India rather than wade around in salt water. Miami will be underwater along with a good amount of Florida. In general, there will be a lot less dry land. Since most of the biggest cities are actually ocean ports, they probably be underwater as well.
One commonly overlooked fact is that most of Antarctica is below sea level. The ice sits atop the continent. Currently, the increased wind speed around the Antarctic is causing warm water to upwell near the continent which is unfreezing the bond between the land and ice. If that truly melts, finding arable land will be the least of our worries.
However, have no fear. Climate change is a myth perpetrated by 95% of climate scientists because they don't like humanity or at least not as much as we have. And even if climate change is not a myth, humans have nothing to do with it. Dumping tons of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere won't harm anything; it has been proven that human dumped CO2 doesn't observe physical laws. This isn't the rising sea level you are looking for.
More to the point, we have no idea what feedback loops will open up or open wider due to changing the global climate's local stability point; the latter is what we think of as the current climate. Methane release due to higher global temperatures is a positive feedback loop.
Processes that enrich soil; adding rock dust from glacial recession, adding organic matter from waste, introducing red worms to this environment; 1 year.
Plenty of rock dust out there, way too much organic material goes to the dump. Wherever man lives, there is plenty of compostable material just going to waste dumps. Make a beginning, the end wont be that far.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Leaving aside Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and on, so what your saying is the all of the real urban pest holes in the United States will finally be cleared out once and for all... and the down side is??
Tundra is not marginal.
Yes it is.
You seem to lack a basic understanding of what it is. Permafrost has been frozen for many thousands of years. The biological processes (re: bacteria) that break down organic materials into nutrients that make for fertile soil are not active and present. They take time to occur and spread and actually create thick deep rich soil, the kind you need for farming.
Tundra will become forest, .
No, it wont.
Or rather, it's not a given, and even if it DID occur, you're talking about a process that will take several centuries on its own. Not exactly something we can just wait for realistically.
forest will become fertile farmland..
Again, no. ...basically nonexistent.
Your understanding of agriculture, soil health, forestry, etc is
In fact, strike "basically". It is nonexistent.
Desertification is not 'obvious'. .
Yes it is. It's happening before our eyes.
Key to global warming is more water vapor feeding back any heat increases. Likely increased average rain with increased temperature.
Ah, the old "more rain = good".
First off, its not more rain period.
Many area will get less rain, as they get pushed to the opposite extreme. Death Valley wont suddenly find itself pushed to wetness. In fact the opposite: Death Valley type conditions and dryness will cover a larger area in similar circumstances (rain shadows more severe, etc).
In other areas, they will get more rain. But more rain isnt automatically good. Too much rain too quickly doesnt soak in, but causes flash floods, erosion, and mudslides, stripping good soil off the surface, and clogging streams and rivers with sediment. This process expands river deltas, which are fertile, but leaves the interior with less arable land.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
From what I've seen a lot of people in Bangladesh already spend much of their time wading around in salt water. If the sea level rises enough, it might actually push them onto dry land.
Of greater concern is that if Florida goes undersea from south of Sea World, you Northerners will be overrun with returning retirees!
I suppose if you have enough compost to cover Canada and such.
You can have every politician on the North (and South) American Continents. It would be a pretty good start.
Maybe lawyers as a phase II project.
This isn't compost, it's toxic waste!
This is not a agenda free site.
Amazing that they don't seem to know that the reason there is a process to estimate terrestrial temperature using tress is because a solar astronomer named A. E. Douglass wanted sun spot data for periods from before modern times when sun spot data was recorded. He worked out that because sun spot activity effected climate, which resulted in larger tree rings for years with high sun spot activity, that he could use old growth trees to determine sunspot activity for earlier periods.
Later in the 1990s climate change supports started using his data, which he had already proved was linked to sunspot activity to support AGW. How did he prove his theory? He used the scientific method. He compared periods of known correlation and then predicted future activity. When his prediction came true he then used what he had learned to map previous sunspots periods. So climate is linked to sun spot activity. You can even see it now. the early 2000s was a low sunspot activity period, and there was no average temperature rise. The 1930s were high sunspot activity periods. The 1930s were warmer than the 1990s'
Climate scientist could learn a lot from A.E. Douglass, since their methods seem to be ignore data that doesn't fit the hypothesis, create models that don't really match predictions, and blame people who then don't believe you.
I've written worse, granted. But the whole article seemed to be dismissing the impact cause, and declaring other causes were not evaluated and seeming to postulate a new understanding. And then, in the end, it really seemed to simply be an article questioning the carbon dating, and pointing to sedimentary record as a preferred method of dating and demonstrating an impact wiped everything out.
Huh...what?
My respect for Slashdot moderators has fallen even further....
There's evidence that we could spend some money now to reduce the warming, thereby reducing the total cost.
Cite?
Is there some study that attempts to quantify the costs of emission controls and weigh them against estimates of the cost of dealing with rising seas and changing weather patterns? I've been looking for that for some time and haven't seen it. I'd be particularly interested to see what portion of the cost of climate change is now inevitable. Granted that such a study would have to be wildly speculative, but careful, intelligent, informed speculation can be useful.
However, I suspect that there is no such research and your claims of evidence are wishful thinking.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
a bigger boat.
Leaving aside Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and on, so what your saying is the all of the real urban pest holes in the United States will finally be cleared out once and for all... and the down side is??
Throughout history, cities have been the engines of commerce, innovation and growth. I'm one of those urban pests (born and raised in a large city), as are fully half of the US population. Are you saying that half the population of the US should be put down as pests?
What I think you're really saying is that you don't like diversity and are somewhat xenophobic. Do you even have a valid passport? Have you ever traveled anywhere? I pity you your small-mindedness.
Also, just for the record, the word "your" is possessive (as in "This is your opinion"). "You're" is a contraction of "you are" (as in "...so what you're saying is..."). It's hard to take your opinion seriously, both because it's hateful and exclusionary, and because you're clearly not as smart as you think you are. That is all.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
They'll just grow it in a vat instead.
The problem is the farmers on the desert side would have to move across a continent. It's not like everybody gets up and moves 2 seats down the row...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
They will be moving in with you next...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Nah, you just move in with him, rent free I'm sure :)
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Leaving aside Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and on, so what your saying is the all of the real urban pest holes in the United States will finally be cleared out once and for all... and the down side is??
Throughout history, cities have been the engines of commerce, innovation and growth. I'm one of those urban pests (born and raised in a large city), as are fully half of the US population. Are you saying that half the population of the US should be put down as pests?
What I think you're really saying is that you don't like diversity and are somewhat xenophobic. Do you even have a valid passport? Have you ever traveled anywhere? I pity you your small-mindedness.
Also, just for the record, the word "your" is possessive (as in "This is your opinion"). "You're" is a contraction of "you are" (as in "...so what you're saying is..."). It's hard to take your opinion seriously, both because it's hateful and exclusionary, and because you're clearly not as smart as you think you are. That is all.
His was a douchebag comment, but I do understand what probably fueled it. And yours was a retaliation, based on a stereotype that you hold.
I live in a small rural community (though I was born in Chicago), and the typical reaction from those who live in the city is "Why the fuck would you want to live there???!!!!", like we're some kind of socially and mentally retarded group of subhumans that don't know what they are missing.
My answer is always the same: truth. I live a mile from work: it takes less than 5 minutes for the "commute". I work with people that commute 40 miles and they can make it (even in poor weather) in very much less than an hour. When I get to work, I not only leave the car unlocked, but the keys are in the ignition. The house is unlocked. Always. In the summer, my kids can pretty much do as they please all day; if they get into trouble, someone will let me know and will most likely have corrected them already.
There is safety and security in rural areas that city dwellers cannot even comprehend. We may be farther from broadway shows and expensive restaurants, but life here is not about those kinds of things. We do not miss them (and many of us have moved here from that environment). We make our own entertainment and experiences, usually involving the outdoors and nature, and our friends and neighbors, rather than living as one in the midst of strangers.
We feed you. If it wasn't for us, you would starve. What do you give us in return? Seriously, we can do without all of the "modern conveniences" and tech that is produced by "the engines of commerce, innovation and growth", and still live and survive. Can you do without the food that is produced in rural America? Where are you going to raise cattle and poultry for meat, durum for bread, and all the diversity of fruits and vegetables that you can currently buy in the store?
You yourself call us small-minded and xenophobic. And then, as normal, give a grammer lesson to the "hick", fueling the stereotype that you hold.
Well done.
I work right on the water, in a location that's indicated on that map to have experienced over 4ft of inundation. Maybe those figures actually represent deviation from normal high tide and not actually inundation. While there was indeed flooding around here it didn't exceed 12" and only affected a few waterfront areas. Go a few hundred feet and there was no flooding at all. The flooding also didn't persist for the duration of the storm, instead receding once the tide went out.
I'm not suggesting that the rising sea level isn't a problem. I'm suggesting that it isn't the urgent issue it keeps being presented as. The rise is so gradual that people will almost certain adapt long before it could turn into a critical problem. As it stands, in a few residential neighborhoods affected by flooding some have moved out and others have taken measures to defend against flooding.
This is the sort of thing we're going to see increasingly around the world, and eventually some of these spots may be completely given up to the sea. However, for the most part it's not going to occur at a frantic pace that would pose a humanitarian nightmare. People will simply adapt or move.
The problem with some aspects of trying to take action now is that it's too soon to even know how we should be responding. It's the typical nonsense I face with management. They're so frantic to get started on a project, to do anything, that we end up wasting an inordinate amount of time and money simply fixing problems caused by rushing. And in many cases the original goals go unfulfilled anyway.
You yourself call us small-minded and xenophobic. And then, as normal, give a grammer lesson to the "hick", fueling the stereotype that you hold. Well done.
Thanks for your thoughts. Just to clarify, I only called that specific AC small-minded and xenophobic. I rather imagined that he is a suburbanite, rather than a rural/exurb dweller. No stereotypes here. As you said, his was a "douchebag comment." My derision was for him alone.
I don't have issues with people who don't live in or don't like cities. I judge people on what they do and what they say, not on where they live. There's a lot to be said for living in rural areas. It's not the sort of life I want, but my preferences apply to me and I don't consider anyone to be "less than" anyone else.
All that said, I'm going to assume (yes, dangerous I know. :) ) that you figured that since I live in a city, that I think anyone who doesn't is an uneducated bumpkin (I think the word you used was "hick"). I know that's not true. The AC I responded to showed his bias and ignorance. I called him on it. That's it. My derision was strictly for him.
Yes, rural areas provide food to urban areas. Thank you. I, for one, appreciate it. I'm not going to argue with you as to the value of cities. History makes a much better argument than I ever could. Feel free to disagree, I won't hold it against you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I work right on the water, in a location that's indicated on that map to have experienced over 4ft of inundation. Maybe those figures actually represent deviation from normal high tide and not actually inundation. While there was indeed flooding around here it didn't exceed 12" and only affected a few waterfront areas. Go a few hundred feet and there was no flooding at all. The flooding also didn't persist for the duration of the storm, instead receding once the tide went out.
I'm not suggesting that the rising sea level isn't a problem. I'm suggesting that it isn't the urgent issue it keeps being presented as. The rise is so gradual that people will almost certain adapt long before it could turn into a critical problem. As it stands, in a few residential neighborhoods affected by flooding some have moved out and others have taken measures to defend against flooding.
This is the sort of thing we're going to see increasingly around the world, and eventually some of these spots may be completely given up to the sea. However, for the most part it's not going to occur at a frantic pace that would pose a humanitarian nightmare. People will simply adapt or move.
The problem with some aspects of trying to take action now is that it's too soon to even know how we should be responding. It's the typical nonsense I face with management. They're so frantic to get started on a project, to do anything, that we end up wasting an inordinate amount of time and money simply fixing problems caused by rushing. And in many cases the original goals go unfulfilled anyway.
Interesting and valid points. Thank you. I don't believe we should rush into "solutions" until we understand the impact of those solutions. However, as you may recall, hundreds of thousands of people below 42nd street in Manhattan (due to the 14th street ConEd power facility failure) were without power for days, some for more than a week. The Battery Tunnel was closed for days, as were several subway lines whose tunnels below the East River were inundated as well.
As for me, I live at least 100 feet above sea level. During the height of Sandy, I looked at my window and there was water on my window sill! Terrifying stuff! I nearly had an MI. More seriously, many people lost many of their possessions and homes were destroyed. Many elderly/disabled people were trapped in their high-floor apartments for extended periods. Unless we take (considered -- as I said, your point is a good one) action, as sea levels rise, these sorts of problems will just get worse.
The science is telling us that anthropogenic impacts are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. We should try to find ways to reduce our impact, IMHO. What is more, even though these issues aren't immediately threatening, that doesn't mean we should just ignore them.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I want to say that I agree with a large quantity of what you have to say. As an urban dweller who wants to move out into the countryside, I even empathize with choosing that destination.
On the other hand, you ask what the city has done for you and I have to point out that the lion's share of your farming equipment is the direct result of factories in those cities. Can you till, plant and harvest without the benefits of tractors and combines anymore? Who is keeping those skills alive so that if the urban centers shut down, the countryside can continue operating as it does without petroleum and replacement parts?
I think there's a symbiosis between the rural and the urban that both resent to some degree.
- No Bounce, No Play -
How did they name turtles?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Table-ized A.I.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3049/
Check out the elevation map. South Louisiana would be in trouble. Central Louisiana would become the new coast. North Louisiana would be just fine.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
"...thick deep rich soil, the kind you need for farming."
That describes the ideal situation, but as the world IS, that ideal exists mainly in riverbottoms and some formerly-glaciated areas, and not much anywhere else. Everywhere else, we use modern farming methods to improve production from soils our ancestors would have regarded with dismay. I'd make an educated guess (being an ag type myself) that probably 3/4ths of present-day cropland was naturally less than good, let alone great, prior to being put under the plow.
Further, the notion that we need to turn the tundra into purely cropland is itself ingenuous. It would be more efficient and more productive to turn it into grassland for seasonal grazing, as there are plenty of grasses that thrive in acid soil, and protein availability is the real boundary on human health (calories alone don't do it). More protein means more healthy people.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If this scenerio actually played out and we didn't erupt into mass chaos, I could
foresee a trading system where the USA traded top soil to canada in exchange for
corn and wheat.
Averting the worst effects of climate change now will cost quantifiable value (N). Putting this cost off until a later date will necessarily cost quantifiable value (N), multiplied...
You're assuming that the cost of changing our emissions profile in the future is the same as the cost of doing it today, plus inflation. This assumes that our technological ability to maintain our standard of living with lower emissions will not change, which is clearly false. In fact what's almost certainly the case is that -- looking only at the cost of changing our emissions profile -- changing slowly and in particular deferring much of the change until the time that it's forced by increasing fossil fuel costs will be much less expensive than forcing the change fast, now.
In fact, I think there's a very reasonable argument that developing technologies will eventually make non carbon-emitting power generation technologies cheaper than fossil fuels. We seem to be headed that way fairly quickly; it's already the case that in many parts of the developed world you can switch to PV power generation and save money vs buying coal-generated electricity. My electric vehicle costs far less to operate than my gasoline-powered vehicle. Assuming that trend continues, the eventual cost of the transition to cleaner technology is zero, because it'll save us money vs using fossil fuels. Pushing that changeover faster than dictated by natural economic effects will add cost, slowing short-term economic growth. The mechanics of compound growth mean that we're unlikely to regain that lost ground.
Actually, there's another assumption implicit in your statement, which is that we even have to change our emissions profile! Specifically, you're assuming that it's impossible to achieve a new equilibrium which includes high levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I think geologic history indicates that this is clearly false. The earth has found many equilibria over it's long history. It's not an unstable system. If it were it would have run away in one direction or another, never to return. In fact through ice ages and warm periods the overall temperature of the earth has actually remained within a fairly narrow range.
I suspect that the cost of reducing our emissions is less than the cost of dealing with climate change (actually, I suspect that we're already going to have to deal with a lot of it, but we can probably reduce the future impact), but simplistic arguments like yours don't help.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
And some government funding baked in. I just can't wait to eat the gene splicing an/or GMO stuff, mmm, mm, good.
He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.
... On the other hand, you ask what the city has done for you and I have to point out that the lion's share of your farming equipment is the direct result of factories in those cities. Can you till, plant and harvest without the benefits of tractors and combines anymore? Who is keeping those skills alive so that if the urban centers shut down, the countryside can continue operating as it does without petroleum and replacement parts? ...
Are the factories actually in the city? I think the buildings that you see are empty and abandoned.
There are factories here, that are working quite well. The workers are from here, not there. The knowledge is here.
If you still have active factories you are lucky... but it may not last.
See you soon, I'll save a place...
Are you saying that half the population of the US should be put down as pests?
Yes, he is.
What I think you're really saying is that you don't like diversity and are somewhat xenophobic. Do you even have a valid passport? Have you ever traveled anywhere? I pity you your small-mindedness
.
He didn't mention that he'd be putting down any one group, just urban pests. He could be quite multicultural in his culling.
Wait, you left out the term "Joe Six-Pack". Without that reference, I'm completely lost.
Are you saying that half the population of the US should be put down as pests?
Yes, he is.
I see. So I guess that means I'm dealing with a sociopath who has delusions of grandeur, eh? Lovely.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
http://remineralize.org/
"Better soil, better food, better planet.... We see a future of thriving farms and gardens producing healthy, nutrient-dense food in great abundance. We see exuberant forests returned to a state of grandeur not seen in centuries, silently sequestering the carbon dioxide that so threatens our planet today. We see a stable climate and a cleaner, healthier environment. We see all of this being possible through the simple and effective process of soil remineralization."
Indoor agriculture is also becoming more feasible with LED lighting -- and perhaps someday soon hot or cold fusion power. Example (but from a vendor of related technology, so no-doubt biased): ... Despommier says a stacked hydroponic operation might yield about 64 heads of lettuce per square foot annually, compared to about three heads at a traditional outside farm. ... Cityscape CEO Mike Yohay predicts that by eliminating transportation costs and fertilizer, a 10,000-square-foot greenhouse could produce $500,000 in profit and 20 to 30 tons of food a year for local supermarkets and corporate cafeterias."
http://www.terraspheresystems....
"One such indoor farm opened in September in Vancouver, growing lettuce and spinach inside an 8,000-square-foot warehouse using a hydroponic system that replaces dirt and weather with peat moss plugs and circulated water. High-efficiency LED lighting hits plants grown on stacked shelves.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Your first argument removes the external pressure of environmental damage, while your second argument removes human involvement altogether.
But you can't actually counter the arguments, or you would have. So instead you attack their political impact (which you mischaracterize). Nice.
I don't think there is any question as to whether Earth itself will survive; it's our own well-being which is in question.
I don't think there's any question that humanity will survive just fine, either. All that is in question is which choice will have the lowest economic impact on us, and therefore best allow us to continue improving our standard of living (globally, not just in the wealthy countries).
You should probably avoid describing the positions of others as "simplistic" when your own statements entirely misrepresent the alternative point of view.
I didn't make any representations about the alternative point of view.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Don't forget the phosphate - the end of which element's cheap supply is looming on the horizon.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
We really should never throw real shit away for just that reason. I mean how much phosphates are in sewage? Its a bit IIRC.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
You do realise solar power comes from the sun right? not from the desert.
You do realize that clouds and rain will hamper solar panel power output and that deserts have very little rain or clouds, right?
I'm glad you brought up the rate of sea level rise. Here's a NOAA dataset that begins in 1855, when humans had had hardly any impact on atmospheric CO2 levels.
The slope of the line then was 2.77 mm/year, and the slope of the line in 2010 was unchanged, 2.77 mm/year. The only thing that's anthropogenic is the fear mongering.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I'm sure that everyone will be fairly compensated for their lost property holdings, especially the poor
Aren't you quite the fearmonger? The poor don't own oceanfront property. The Occupy Wall Street crowd ought to love global warming, because it will greatly reduce inequality: the oceanfront properties owned by the 1% will become worthless, and the more mundane properties owned by the 99% will gain value.
I'm not holding my breath, though. Al Gore himself bought oceanfront property in recent years, which shows pretty conclusively that he doesn't believe his own predictions.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
There are vast tracts of land in Canada, Alaska and Siberia where you can't grow food because it's too cold (and few people want to live there). Global warming will result in a net increase in food resources and desirable real estate.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Fascinating overview of lands that have been submerged by non-anthropogenic global warming!
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
We're rushing into the problem without understanding what we're doing, so there's a certain symmetry in rushing into a solution without understanding it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Look at the NOAA dataset that begins in 1855, when humans had had hardly any impact on atmospheric CO2 levels.
The slope of the line then was 2.77 mm/year, and the slope of the line in 2010 was unchanged, 2.77 mm/year. I predict the trend will continue: 100 yrs from now it will still be 2.77 mm/yr (or 0.9 feet per century), regardless of CO2 levels. That's not a significant threat to the major cities.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Look at the NOAA dataset that begins in 1855, when humans had had hardly any impact on atmospheric CO2 levels.
The slope of the line then was 2.77 mm/year, and the slope of the line in 2010 was unchanged, 2.77 mm/year. I predict the trend will continue: 100 yrs from now it will still be 2.77 mm/yr (or 0.9 feet per century), regardless of CO2 levels. That's not going to cause a significant number of people to move..
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Look at this data that correlates well with the cycles of glacial advances and retreats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Do you imagine that humankind somehow has the ability to put a stop to that cycle?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Let's see how well sunspot activity correlates to climate: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/b...
Pretty good prior to 1980 or so, but wildly divergent since (temps up while sunspots down). I wonder why?
The slope of the line then was 2.77 mm/year, and the slope of the line in 2010 was unchanged, 2.77 mm/year. I predict the trend will continue: 100 yrs
Irrelevant on so many levels.
Firstly, and fundamentally, the question here is not what will happen. The question is whether the sea levels "During the Last Glacial Maximum" put into perspective the "worrisome outcomes" a 4-12 ft rise in sea level would have, such that anyone reporting on a probable 4-12ft sea level rise within the next millennium without mentioning sea levels during the last glacial maximum might reasonably be suspected of being ignorant thereof.
Secondly, even if we were concerned with actual outcomes predicted by the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet you are dealing with the wrong time period. The relevant period is most likely 200-500 and possibly up to 1000 years.
Thirdly your "analysis" has entirely failed to incorporate the very subject, namely the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet and the predicted 4-12ft rise in sea levels this is estimated to cause. A 12ft sea-level rise will not inundate any city?! Really?
Finally your extrapolation, even without taking into consideration the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet, flies in the face of accepted science (for which see Layzej's responses). OK that's not, (having ignored your fundamental lack of relevance), strictly an irrelevance, it's just ...
Sigh ... the very reason I framed my original comment an ironic snipe, was to avoid engagement with impertinent nitwits ....
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
I want to say that I agree with a large quantity of what you have to say. As an urban dweller who wants to move out into the countryside, I even empathize with choosing that destination.
On the other hand, you ask what the city has done for you and I have to point out that the lion's share of your farming equipment is the direct result of factories in those cities.
Actually, the majority of agricultural manufacturing is in much smaller communities. Even John Deere (one of the largest) is headquartered in Moline, Il, and even if you count the entire metro area of Moline it's under 400,000. Moline itself is under 50k. Most agricultural manufacturing is done in the rural areas, because that's where it's needed. There's a Steiger plant in Fargo, ND, for instance.
Can you till, plant and harvest without the benefits of tractors and combines anymore?
Actually, yes. Not enough to keep the world fed as we do now, but we'll do fine locally.
Who is keeping those skills alive so that if the urban centers shut down, the countryside can continue operating as it does without petroleum and replacement parts?
You do realize that farmers are the largest DIY group in the world, right? And most of those companies were started by farmers? Typically things are fixed, not replaced, and if a replacement is needed most are very good at manufacturing parts on their own or making something else work in place of it. These aren't cars or computers. And petroleum? Also from the rural areas. It's shipped all over the place to be refined, but those are normally not in urban areas either (the NIMBY effect)... In fact there is already one being built in the Bakken and another is being discussed pretty seriously. So, we already have the petroleum.
I am not trying to argue, but just remember that the rural areas can get along a lot better without the urban areas, than vice versa. Urban areas have their place: for instance, high-end science and research is done in universities in the urban areas, medical science is much more available in cities, and seriously, there are many more cultural options available. And that's cool. It just seems that most of the time those of us who have chosen to live in the rural areas are looked down upon from "city folk". And that gets pretty annoying.
Thanks for the clarification... Sounds like I may have read the situation incorrectly and reacted harshly. I apologize for that.
Thanks for the clarification... Sounds like I may have read the situation incorrectly and reacted harshly. I apologize for that.
No worries. It's often difficult to pick up on nuance in a text-based environment like this. I believe we all have something to contribute. Enjoy your day.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
During the last 23,000 years, sea level rose 400 feet. I won't cast aspersions by calling you a marketer, but how can you, with a straight face, call that a "nice flat line"?!
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Variable, but it's a good quantity. Spreading shit on the fields may offend some idiot's sensibilities, but that doesn't make it an inherently bad idea. We've known how (and approximately why) to do it for millennia.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"