Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Ten-Year Mission To Study All the Ways the Arctic Is Doomed
Lasrick writes: NASA is kicking off the Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment, a decade-long effort to figure out just how bad things in northern US and Canada really are. The large-scale study will combine on-the-ground field studies as well as data from remote sensors—such as satellites and two season of 'intensive airborne surveys'—to improve how scientists analyze and model the effects of climate change on the region.
DOOMED!!!!!
Congress will cut the funding specifically for this effort as soon as they can.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Thus it has always been such that if you can't think of anything smart or funny, you troll.
Change != DOOM!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
y'know?
Collecting data is the most fundamental part of science. I hope they get lots of good data.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It will be just fine, warmer but just fine. Honestly all you people have zero clue as to reality. the temperature on the earth can increase 500 degrees and the planet will be perfectly ok. Look at Venus, the planet it's self is still in it's orbit, and doing great. No chance of deorbiting and crashing into the sun, no chance of being flung into deep space. as a planet it is doing well.
Earth will do just fine and probably better after all the pesky people have been boiled off.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The headline on the story is rather hyperbolic. There certainly will be massive changes in the Arctic in the future as the sea ice, land ice and permafrost continue to melt and sea level continues to rise. Ecosystems will collapse and it will take tens of thousands of years to replace them. It will certainly be costly as human activities are disrupted But the Arctic will still be there just very different than it is now.
How much warmer does it need to get, before it becomes interesting to buy land there?
I would expect we already have core samples from the tundra and sea bottoms which cover the last 250,000 years.
That means we have over two complete cycles of the 110,000 year natural glaciation periods.
Given core samples we already have, I want to know whether the core samples show we have even warmer centuries coming, or not?
Headline screams bad science.
http://www.gocomics.com/nonseq...
Just look at this. From nat. geo.
https://instagram.com/p/7TUcCqoVb-/
Fucking sad.
Or you can copy and paste something from the article. Since no one reads the article, it will make you sound smart and knowledgable.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Then if it's a temporary warming, we should use the opportunity to build the rail to Russia and other things that are easier in the warmer clime, and when the cold comes back, it's not a big deal. The trains run year-round in cold places, but it's harder to build in the cold than the warm. Digging down to the permafrost when it's melting is harder, but when it's growing back, it's easier, less drilling into the frozen ground, which is some of the hardest drilling on the planet.
Learn to love Alaska
It's a mess, irreversible and responsible for it is and can be made accountible for it: <void>
Consequences will be endured by future generations.
Since we are all going to heaven anyway, no problem, just fuck everybody else who comes after, they can't get us.
What needs to be done should be crystal clear, but with the holy trinity of the T-family, this is going to be very difficult.
TPP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
TTIP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
TISA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They own the rights to the Arctic. Let them deal with it.
Have gnu, will travel.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...
And even if they could help, they could not talk about it
https://news.vice.com/article/...
we're doomed
WaPo article on craters in Siberia - apparently they're from methane gas evaporation, which is spectacularly bad news, because methane has more greenhouse effect than CO2. There's a lot of methane stored in frozen arctic tundra, and if warming temperatures make more of it escape, that's going to warm things up faster and make more of it escape.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I know I probably should give a shit, but I really don't for the same reason I smoked cigarettes when I was younger. This "existential crisis" touches on an evolved emphasis on short term risk, and de-emphasis on long term risk. Also a blind spot in the scope of our evolutionary pressure points: "genetic lineage/tribe" = care about the long term(after my death). Everyone else? Tragedy of the commons.
Why? I think because of competition for mates/prisoner's dilemma. We care about people who we are related to, and we care about our strategic alliances in order to strengthen our ability to wage war against divided opponents. The loss of people who our outside our strategic alliances has always been our gain. It's just tribalism and the "linear classifier" used to distinguish between "us" and "them" is very, very, very, effective by necessity.
Some clever and ruthless people(who are ambitious) exploit this fact to elevate their own status(competition for mates makes this the so-called "highest purpose") but at the end of the day you can't motivate people to change their short term economic priorities for the sake of long term "rising tide raises all ships" goals because the people who fall for this sort of rhetoric are generally known as "suckers" to be taken advantage of. Appealing to these lofty ideals will always repel people because they have almost all fallen for this ruse enough times to be wary of it as a common tactic exploited by charlatans.
How do you unify an alliance to assist with democratically engineering the incentives to make these studies relevant to people who can change things for the better? It is a question of managing massive complexity and the current tools of today seem to have a blind-spot for economic externalities in general, not just global warming. Stoking these fires is almost universally believed to be the transparent efforts of "big government" bad people, and the very opinion that people have of "big government bad people" is shaped by these policies impacts on individuals ability to exploit economic externalities for their own personal advantages.
People who are skeptical of the motivations of those who would rally them to a common purpose, and rightfully suspect their trust would be misplaced when labor-crushing/bunker-fuel-oil burning free trade agreements are being drafted by the same power structures that claim to be concerned about their interests.
Driving down the price of commodities and energy so they can be more cost-effectively exploited by India/China to displace American/1st-World employees seems like a suckers proposition bet if I've ever seen one.
Slashdot's inflammatory titles are a strategy to encourage impulsive and thoughtless behavior. I am against this, and in protest, I refuse to read or respond to these articles in any other way. This is my official boycott, expect to see this elsewhere until you get the message.
What replaces permafrost is bog and that bog is impossible to put a rail line over period. Millions of square hectares of bog is what we will see as the permafrost melts. A rise in sea levels and near the arctic ocean a decrease in land mass. The delta of the Mackenzie River will be swamped so will the deltas of many Russian rivers that flow into the low artic. The amount of slow seepage to the ocean from the melting permafrost is incredible. As the glacier cover over Greenland calves to the sea the effect will increase.
You think the last problem with flooding in New York and New Joisy was bad, just wait you ain't seen nothing yet. But that is ok you can just move up to Canada and take advantage of the new land created eh! What a bunch of freaking morons.
By documenting what is happening from space and what happens in the upper atmosphere and working in combination with data that is land based at least Nasa is helping to accurately document what is happening and the rate at which we can expect the coast lines to change in the near future! Perhaps all you idiots in the states should do is just elect another moron like Jeb or better still Ronald Frump, you can bet either one will put Nasa in its place and make America great again by teaching everyone to stick their head into the Canadian oil sands and kiss their ass goodbye. DRILL BABY DRILL, frac the shit out of the planet who cares if New York sinks.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
In the 1820s, Stephenson built the world's very first passenger railroad across a bog. If it wasn't impossible in 1820, its not impossible now...
The delta of the Mackenzie River will be swamped so will the deltas of many Russian rivers that flow into the low artic.
How is that relevant to building railroads, or Alaska? Sounds like you are upset with Canadians and take it out on anyone who mentions Alaska too. Tundra isn't hard to build over. In WWII, the US military built roads over tundra without issue when the US was being invaded by Japan. The Glenn Highway (Alaska Highway 1) was built in its present location during WWII, as the Japanese bombed and occupied US territory in Alaska. Roads through tundra aren't hard. Railways take more digging, though. But same basic principles apply. Been done many times before. The reason Canada doesn't do it is because they are too cheap to build usable roads. Just drive on the rivers after the freeze. Expensive doesn't mean "hard".
Learn to love Alaska
I have worked the oil fields up north and can tell you that come May you are shut down for the summer and the shut down times are getting longer and longer and the ice road season is getting shorter. The interior of British Columbia has lost the pine forest because of climate change and that change is moving further and further north every year. This year the wild fire season showed what we are in for. But unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are morons that ignore what is really happening to the environment until something actually happens to them.
People who do not have a freaking clue are making statements about what is going on. The climate change that is happening is undeniable and if it accelerates because of methane coming out of the tundra then the results are going to be changes that will effect the worlds food supply. Drought in the American south west and the winter food production in California and elsewhere is already causing drastic increases in food costs.
The answer that Ronald Frump and others are putting forward is more of the same bullshit that caused these problems in the first place. Unless we get our act together there is going to be food shortages and unrest in the next 10 years. We cannot afford not to act the other choice is very disturbing and will lead to social chaos that we will not be able to cope with regardless of who has the guns!
People who think that climate change is suddenly going to open up the north are absolute fools and need to be ostracized and exposed for the Charlestons they really are! Especially the ones that think that a new North West passage is going to lead to financial gain and an increase in world trade. As we lose the oceans fisheries and people begin to starve then come back and talk to me. Our greed and stupidity has caused these things, more greed and stupidity will not fix them but most definitely eventually will lead to lower population levels!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Do you have any evidence that James Hansen was chased out of NASA. I believe he retired on his own terms. After all he is 74 years old (72 when he retired I think). As director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies he had a lot of administrative duties that he was probably getting tired of.
I don't remember scientists making either of those predictions. Perhaps you could back your assertion up with references to peer reviewed papers.
I got a laugh out of that. Are they some kind of dancers? I think the word you're looking for is "charlatans".
What about rides to the space station?
Climate changelings rejoice!
Why has the President re-tasked the nation?
Climate changelings rejoice!
The military thinks climate is bigger than war?
Climate changelings rejoice!
The Pope is on board as never before?
Climate changelings rejoice!
Celebrity endorsement roll in hard and fast?
Climate changelings rejoice!
While concern about climate always polls dead last?
Climate changelings rejoice!
Solar and wind failures win subsidy and extension?
Climate changelings rejoice!
But nuclear power must go without mention.
Climate changelings rejoice!
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
The better question is how long does it take for the changes to settle down enough to make it interesting to buy land there?
Then perhaps you could cite some references where Al Gore actually said that.
The project should be aimed at understanding the Arctic and how it changes. It should not only look for possible problems, but also how the Arctic will adapt and cope with it. By setting the vulnerabilities as a topic this research is defined to be one-sided.
You act as if we shouldn't want to send all major US population centers who are displaced by climate change to live in the new Canadian bog. Personally, sending New York, Atlantic City, most of Florida and LA up there would be by far a net positive.
What a maroon.
NASA is much more interested in protecting its investment in near-sea-level infrastructure in Florida than in what might happen to Seward's Folly. No one else is doing these studies, not with the reliability NASA needs.
Florida was chosen as its primary launch site because there is a lot of empty ocean downrange. So how much will be the cost of the Cape Canaveral sea wall, and will it be more cost effective to put that money in a space plane that can launch safely from Area 51 and forget about the vertical launch engines? NASA has to do some of its planning decades out, and whether the sea will rise 20 inches or 20 feet by 2060 has a significant impact on its plans.
Any benefit to Alaskans and their hopes for a railroad bridge over the Bering Strait is secondary.
Will
Seriously, digging in melted permafrost is like digging in wet paper mache; that's why they drive big stuff in on ice roads; try going to the beach and digging below the water table.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
See this is part of the movement. When it comes to nuanced hard data, Environmentalists cite Science...but when it comes to INTERPRETATION of that data they have no problem using every hyperbolic, apocalyptic prediction in every news article they can get their hands on. If these "predictions" don't come to pass it isn't a problem because they can just ask for "peer-reviewed papers" making these predictions. I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Global Freezing predictions of the 70's? Anyway, failed climate predictions from prominent news and political sources abound if you care to look. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
At 63 years old I well remember the stories that came out about the potential for an ice age in the 1970s. I read them with interest at the time. But I'm also aware that a relatively recent review of the published literature from 1965 to 1979 found that papers about warming from CO2 outnumbered the papers about cooling by around 7 to 1. The "Global Freezing predictions" were never part of the mainstream of climate science.
How many of those WUWT "failed predictions" have you dug into to check the validity of the claims? Or do you just uncritically accept them as most over there do?
By "over there" do you mean in America or people with my views on the subject? Because it seems presumptuous to think I deny climate change just because I recognize there have been so many awful, failed predictions. I don't reject the science of climate change but I definitely reject the politics of it, and all of the doomsday scenarios come with a political agenda attached to them!
BTW, I checked in to exactly ONE WUWT claim, arbitrarily picking the last one. Feel free to Google the quote below. Seems pretty unlikely that they would poison such a grand list with a couple of easily falsifiable claims, doesn't it? That's exactly what an Environmentalist would latch on to in order to discredit the rest of them.
"Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
Frozen mud is harder than solid rock. So driving a pile through permafrost to rest on the ice layer below is easier, faster, and cheaper than any other known construction method. The problem is when the permafrost is receding, then the pile will be driven down by gravity a little more every summer, until it's too low to work. But if the permafrost level is rising, then the bottom of the pile will be anchored by ice forever. That was the construction nuance I was pointing out for the idiot who said there's no difference whether it was warming or cooling. I wasn't commenting on whether it was, whether I want it to be, but that if it were actually cooling now, we should be building all we can.
Learn to love Alaska
I went and read that list of 107 "failed predictions". Most of them are from the 2000s so it's way to early to call them failed. Let's see what conditions look like in the 2030's to 2050's to before we judge them. A number of them are from non-scientists who I will generously say misinterpreted what scientists have said. Even the ones that you could say failed contain words like "may" so I interpret them more as a worst case scenario.
"Most" are from the 2000s only because those are the easiest to find and falsify (i.e. in the internet age)! You specifically asked for a failed prediction from Al Gore, of which there are many, and easy to find! Makes me believe that perhaps you are choosing not to see a certain perspective. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
"Over there" refers to the WUWT website.
I read through all 107 of the listed prediction failures and as I said in my other reply to you most of them are way too recent to call them failures yet. The one you quote could be called a legitimate failure. I tried to Google the quote to find the original source for information but it's so old there was nothing online. I would like to find out who the scientists are that said that and the context in which they said it.
Since the predictions from the 2000s are mostly talking about conditions in the 2030 to 2050 time range it's way too premature to call them failed.
To try to prove man made global warming, which isn't possible. The earth warms & cools, the problem for these anti-people morons is they don't think LONG TERM. There was glacier melting back before the "industrial age", but since they've only been keeping records for around 100 years, they soon forget the EARTH is millions of years old. Oh that's right, as long as they can fudge the numbers to match their agenda, who cares. "July 2015 was the warmest every recorded". Yeah, something like 0.01 degrees different. What a joke! But, with the uneducated drones, being indoctrinated in schools today, no wonder their is such a mass hissy fit over it.
multi decade cycle my ass: http://haveland.com/share/arct...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.