Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Marvel At 'Increasingly Non-Natural' Arctic Warmth (msn.com)
mmell writes: Recognizing that this is a dreadfully old story (at least by Slashdot standards), current developments make this once more a current story. Scientists studying the Arctic environment are used to seeing broad variations in average temperature readings, but recent results have been so far beyond the normal range that they are only able to conclude that they are being caused by human activity. The temperature data (which includes a great many days with readings above 0C) is bolstered by measurements showing that the Arctic ice shelf is both thinner and less extensive than has ever been previously recorded. I wonder if the Arctic ice cap will reform in the winter, or if it's possible that its absence will cause irreversible changes to the Earth's ocean currents (and by extension, Earth's climate)? "[A]fter studying the Arctic and its climate for three and a half decades, I have concluded that what has happened over the last year goes beyond even the extreme," wrote Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, in an essay for Earth magazine. According to The Washington Post, the scientists' simulations predict some places in the high Arctic will rise over 50 degrees above normal. One chart, embedded in the report and shared by several meteorologists online, shows a "jaw-dropping and emblematic display of the intensity and duration of the Arctic warmth. It illustrates the difference from normal in the number of 'freezing degree days,' a measure of the accumulated cold since September."
You think slashdot news is somehow cutting edge?
Homo sapiens, R.I.P late 21st century "they denied the truth of their actions to the very end"
Pettit's Ice Volume Death Spiral graphs are somewhat more understandable, but no less depressing.
https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-volume
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Here's your broom. Now push back that ocean.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Long story short. We're all fucked..despite what president Cheeto says.
In geological terms, the Earth normally doesn't have ice caps.
In geologic terms humans don't exist.
And you've done what? So you're going to sling insults at the guy who hasn't been in power for a full month but forgive everything before?
I bet you're one of the same people who are outraged and terrified about a temporary stay in immigration but didn't blink when the US was actually bombing places like Syria and Libya.
But all that aside, Americans are naive in thinking that the scrawling of a presidential pen is going to fix this problem. Your lifestyle probably isn't helping and you likely have no intentions of changing it as long as you can keep laying the blame somewhere else. Clean up your own backyard first.
So once again, even in the face of the clear destruction of our one and only habitat, human greed trumps common sense. THAT is why we're fucked...
How exactly does combating climate change "cripple Western civilization"? I think what you really mean is that it inconveniences you and threatens your greedy opulent lifestyle as a privileged species. How can you possibly live without hamburgers and your Ford F350?
I'm going to sling insults at the orange shithead who is dismantling the EPA, and who will most certainly approve the repeal of the Stream Protection Act soon. Take a look at China to see what happens when you expect capitalists to self-regulate. Once again, the Republicans shit where they eat for the love of money and expect future generations to deal with the fallout.
By slashdot. Winter is usually the off season for these nuts. Not hard to drum up a leftist hysteric whenever they need one.
Hey, is that you Donald?
It's weird to see the cultural difference between comments here and on Ars Technica. Ars seems to have a better educated and less politicised readership. Slashdot mostly doesn't accept climate change, apparently because they don't want to. The amazing power of motivated reasoning all over the comments on these articles. Weirdly, there is a dark matter denialism at work as well - but that one isn't going to fuck the planet up, so who cares.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
But overreacting just kills credibility. Telling everyday people that they have to pay twice as much for electricity and $5/gal or more for gasoline to get to work because CARBON BAD!!! while China India, Brazil and Al Gore game the system to their benefit just pisses people off.
Yep. Also, refusing to build zero emission nuclear plants to replace dirty coal plants, proves that the issue must not be that big of a deal.
Why is it that all climate change responses are about people giving up personal freedom and living under more restrictive laws and any change that really wouldn't be noticed by people is not really fought for...?
We can build the necessary nuclear plants, except the very same people saying "we're all gonna die unless we do something!!" are also out in force to protest against nuclear being one of the answers....
Oh and as for Gore and Leo and all the other celebs lecturing us on how much more control over our lives is needed to save the planet , they continue to fly around the world on charter jets. It is literally the worst thing you can do, carbon footprint wise. We should ban charter flights because of they uselessness and wastefulness. Fly commercial Al and Leo!! Or do you just not care about the environment..?
"Take a look at China to see what happens when you expect capitalists to self-regulate"
Or take a look at what many parts of the USA was like 40+ years ago. China has done it all on a larger scale but they haven't done anything new wrt pollution.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
On the other hand, were Greenland's ice sheet to totally melt, we get roughly 24 ft of sea level rise. So if only 10 % of it melts, we get 2.4 ft rise. There goes Miami and most of southern Florida, Louisiana is...reduced. Virginia can kiss Norfolk goodbye. And if that rise also causes a shift in ocean currents, we can expect more effects.
So please, let's gamble with the future. What do we have to lose, eh?
Ars is a sickening bastion of groupthink, though.
You must be new here, coward. (So go away. We have enough cowards already. More than enough, in fact. We're drowning in them. And they don't believe in climate change because it's scary.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Once the humans are gone.
The article is talking about summer ice cap, and you're showing a graph of the winter. Current low record for extend of arctic summer ice is about 3.5 million km, from september 2013. Granted, 2013 wasn't ice-free, but that was an early estimate from one overexcited scientist. We're getting close, though, but the exact year depends on a lot on the particular weather.
You are not taking into account any changes between then and now, but even worse, you have no data on the depth of the ice, only on the area. The square kilometers says nothing about the volume, this however, does: https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/q...
Just because one model (and your BBC article was about ONE model which contradicted other model) didn't accurately predict when all the ice will be gone, doesn't mean that you should throw all models in the bin. Right now, most models say that the ice will be mostly gone somewhere between 2040 - 2100.
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I find it interesting how Conservatives have started to use the term "Politically Correct" to mean "thing I disagree with." Here it means, "scientific." He disagrees with the scientific opinion on the matter, but since it's something he opposes politically, then it is - to him - the "politically correct" opinion that humans cause global warming.
Better a "coward" than an attention-whoring idiot with an embarrassing username.
In order for my username to be embarrassing, I would have to be embarrassed by other people's cultural ignorance.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So you're assuming that everything the EPA is good? You don't mind having an agency write their own laws? Make their own regulations? You should be horrified by that even if you're a strong supporter of the EPA.
Would you want customs agents making their own regulations? How about police departments? Hell no.
The laws and regulations ought to come from Congress.
Oh - "but Congressmen don't have the time and energy to work on such laws". That's why a lot of the "responsibility" given to the Federal Government should be in the states. Examples include HUD, Education, etc...
Then let the Federal Government focus on Federal problems - you know, little, inconsequential things, such as pollution, war, immigration, international treaties, selecting court justices.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Which part of that means it's perfectly OK to dump billions of tons of CO2 into the air now?
No sig today...
Yes, it may be shrinking a little, but the sampling period is extremely short, compared to our planet's age. This can or cannot be caused by humans
This is very true. However, in this case we are certain that it is, in fact, being caused by human activity. The Keeling curve leaves very little room for interpretation.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Melting of Arctic sea ice is already causing an increase in precipitation in the region:
https://www.dartmouth.edu/pres...
One tenth of an inch a year, I'm just not feeling your sense of urgency here
Yeah, let's wait until it's urgent, and then find out we're too late to change anything.
We're not going to run out of fossil fuels. There's enough known reserves to keep us going for several more centuries. Advancements in nuclear tech and other areas will see fossil fuels become obsolete long before we run the risk of running out.
Not quite. The reference is to theater, which is something people had in the days before Netflix.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're entitled to that opinion. And, if so many people can suffer denialism, how do you or I know that we aren't also suffering from some sort of political bias? I mean it is funny isn't it, that it is always the other people who are the stupid deluded ones. I am, for example, reading a book at the moment that goes into the massive scientific cockup that was nutritional science over the last fifty years. The book got a review in the BMJ to the effect that, admitting indeed that, we all thought science was this clear headed thing and actually, there can be screw ups that ruin an entire field for decades and decades. If you want a fact, people are fallible and whole fields of enquiry can fail spectacularly whilst lots of intelligent smart and skilled people in the field confidently cock it up. That is just a fact of life, that it sometimes happens. So rather than just blast other views as denialists, why not be a little less certain? For me, once a field starts calling others "denialists" then it has become closed minded and loses the self-correcting nature that is supposed to be the reason why we trust science in the first place. It *might* have got the answer right, but once you start blasting others as denialists, we can no longer know whether it can be trusted, because the self-correciton has been replaced with dogma. As I say, we KNOW, empirically, from experience, that whole fields can and do screw up. I will still go to the doctor when I get ill, but I won't blindly trust anything he or she says about nutrition.
I always find this funny that so many studies say "The Arctic is warming and there should be no more ice cap by 2050". I remember some US scientists said there would be no ice in the Arctic by 2013, and look at this graph. The arctic ice cap is currently a little over 13 million square km.
Yes, it may be shrinking a little, but the sampling period is extremely short, compared to our planet's age. This can or cannot be caused by humans. But hey, anyway humans won't survive Earth, which is scheduled to disappear anyway in the next 5 billion years... Unless we disseminate elsewhere in our universe, we're doomed.
How can you link to a text that says "could be ice-free in summers" and claim it says "there would be no ice (full stop). The ice cap is not "shrinking a little", it's shrinking massively. "Currently" it's the middle of winter, when the sea ice is always expanding to nearly the same level (basically, it covers the arctic until it runs out of ocean). In the arctic ocean, the summer minimum is the most important measurement. That said, the arctic ice has been at or near record low for the entire winter, and for good measure in this year antarctic sea ice also is unusually low. The newly formed first-year ice is so thin that it melts very quickly in the summer, probably giving us another record low, and leading to more heating, as the sunlight is absorbed by the water, not reflected by the ice.
You have a point about the 5 billion years, but most of us have a somewhat shorter perspective - and even those with the long perspective may want to give us enough time to escape this doomed planet before things get really ugly.
Stephan
Not necessarily... past mechanisms that locked in carbon (like lignin) are no longer effective because the biome figured out how to make enzymes that break down lignin. So, fewer peat bogs to sequester it away. The anaerobes were victims of their own success in their oxygen waste products that eventually lead to their demise. So, it is perfectly feasible that CO2 levels could ramp up again and wipe out complex life until some microbes start making something they can't break down yet with it. Maybe we'll get lucky and multicellularity will be a big hit again.
I remember some US scientists said there would be no ice in the Arctic by 2013,
Sure, some scientists said that, the TV/media decided it was a good story, and that's the part that you heard.
All climate scientists are therefore dumbasses, right?
PS: The press was probably paid to make a big deal over that story. The climate change denial you're hearing is a well funded organization. Not a conspiracy either, one with actual names, published details of bank transfers, etc.
https://encrypted.google.com/s...
No sig today...
Pretty low on commas too - they're all in your post.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's not "this weather is climate", it's "this weather could not possibly have happened without climate change".
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It's not about the answers, it's about the process.
When all of the scientists agree, either science has been destroyed or reality has asserted itself.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Ars is a sickening bastion of groupthink, though.
I agree. I can't read the comments there anymore. If people disagree with the article, they get lambasted by The Ars Borg. That's becoming the "increasingly non-natural" norm in society.
The problem is that the delay while we debate this issues is costly. The cost for new infrastructure is cheaper the sooner you start. The potential risk is to the tune of trillions of dollars, a major fraction of GDP, and extremely disruptive to business was and society. The threat of this problem, just fiscally, warrants attention at least equivalent to the other big US economic issues, eg military and social service spending.
It's also deteriorate US leadership in the world and doubling down on dead industries (fossils are dying for increasingly non agw reasons, eg coal is not competitive, EVs will diminish oil demand) in a world that is moving on. Economies like China are going to control the Industries of tomorrow, control that the US obviously takes for granted today
We are giving away if not out right destroying future prosperity and leadership. Add to this new policy of provoking allies, trade protectionism, ceding trade relationships, and threatening military invention, defying courts on immigration. What is the play here, to be come the isolated asshole no one likes?
Brazil has a population density of 22 people per square mile. To put that figure in context, the US has a density of 84, China of 142 and India of 386.
It is easy for Brazil to lead the way on renewables because, per capita, they have way more resources than others.
That isn't to say they shouldn't, but they cannot be a realistic example for all countries to follow.
Historically, the artic, has, Been ice free. If you look at the history of the Vikings, you will notice an odd naming of Greenland.
Greenland wasn't named Greenland because it was green, it was named Greenland much for the same reason the US is full of small towns named "Greenville", "Mt Pleasant", "Pleasantville", "Spring Valley". It would have been hard getting a colony going if they called it "Frozen Piece of Shitland". By giving it a pleasant sounding name they hoped to attract people to come move there, as, for rather obvious reasons, most Danes were reluctant to move there.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Yeah, Ironically, the worry is global warming will make Europe colder (it is at the same latitude as Canada but is saved the brutal cold because of warming ocean currents).
If the ice melts, especially if it melts quickly, the relative lower salinity that results in the Northern Atlantic could screw up the ocean currents. That warm water that makes Europe warmer than say, Mongolia and Siberia no longer warms Europe. Europe freezes over like much of Canada.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Historically, the artic, has, Been ice free.
Nice try, Mr. Shatner.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
The Ars "Blocklist" is pretty pathetic compared to Slashdot's Frenemies, which is really well implemented.
So you're assuming that everything the EPA is good?
It sounds like you're arguing that if something isn't perfect then it isn't worth having. I think that mindset of no nuance stems from the puritanical influence. Sex outside of marriage? Yeah you're going to hell. Genocide? Also going to hell.
In reality, nothing is perfect and so perfect is the enemy of good. If you strive for perfection and discard anything falling short, then you will never get anything.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Occam's Razor says the simplest answer tends to be correct, when your trying to model systems with multiple nonlinear dependant varibles; the simplest answer is any output is chaotic crap, no matter how good your code is.
OK, tell you what, I'll model a chaotic simulation and you bet against me being right.
The weather is chaotic and so unpredictable.
Bet you $1000 that it doesn't snow on August 1 in London.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yeah, destruction. What, you think we're improving the planet?
We almost killed the ozone layer, we've driven countless species to extinction, we're destroying the rainforests, the oceans have literally 50% of the fish they did since the 1970's, we pollute the air, we pollute the water, we pollute the soil, we're heating the planet and fucking up countless ecosystems, etc.. etc..
You don't think that's destruction of our habitat?
Sorry, I didn't intend it as a flame. If you need a big truck, ok, but there's tons of people who buy giant trucks just for fashion. Those are the people I was talking about -- the people who could easily live without one.
> This can or cannot be caused by humans.
And cancer can and can not be caused by smoking. So go ahead and smoke. Please. Lots, and rapidly. Thanks.
Greenland has been losing about 270 gigatons of ice per year lately, but the pace is likely to accelerate as the warming continues.
List of countries and territories by population density
Brazil: 24.31 people per sq km and 62.97 people / sq mile
USA: 33 people per sq km and 85.46 people / sq mile
It seems that you got Brazilian population per square KILOMETER while using the MILE values for other countries...
It makes sense as Brazil is only a bit smaller than the USA and has about 2/3 of its population.
You have a cute idea that raising sea levels will just mean property values of higher land goes up.
That is not what will happen. History shows us that people dispossessed of land (by, say, flooding) don't just roll over and disappear. They don't turn up on your street, decide it's too pricey and meekly head off somewhere else where they won't be a bother.
They are refugees. They need somewhere to live. If they can't buy property, they will squat. They will set up a tent in your front garden, and to hell with your property rights. If you have a problem with that they will fight you. To the death if so necessary. They have nothing to lose. They must live somewhere.
So your luxury property in warmer climes is much more likely either to become a densely packed slum, or a fortified encampment surrounded by dispossessed hoards. It won't matter who was there first, we will all be losers in the upheaval.
It's not about the answers, it's about the process.
And the most important part of the process is not assuming the answer ahead of time.
Because you can follow the money. Our nutritional science was cocked up by those with money. There's not a "fat" industry, but there is a sugar industry. Sugar is literally the product. In the field of climate change, who is the one with nearly all of the money: the folks who deny climate change exists or the scientists who claim it does exist?
There's another thing going on with climate change that you don't see in nutrition. Sugar is making us fat. Take a 400 lb person. That's like the sugar industry coming in and saying "How do we know that scale works? Scales work with gravity and aren't an accurate representation of total real mass. How do we know this person's bone density and size isn't higher than normal?" Those who deny climate change is a legitimate phenomenon that is happening constantly assail obvious fact such as measurements. Climate scientists are becoming worried that the Trump Administration will shut off the stream of temperature data et al coming from the EPA and NOAA for these scientists to use. Why? If science is to be self-correcting and it turns out this whole climate change thing is overblown, it will be shown with data. It will never be shown without data.
People who have been hammering this point home for nearly 30 years are sick of it. Because to deny these data and to deny these trends, it takes willful ignorance, most likely due to financial incentive. And there is plenty of evidence for that. There is 99% certainty that a person who denies climate change is financially incentivized to do so.
Global warming is one of many results of man-made climate change. Both terms have been used interchangeably by the media since the mid 1970's and they are not the same thing. Man-made climate change is very real and is a proven fact. Not just because Al Gore created a documentary about 10 years ago. But, because thousands of climate scientists worldwide have come to the same conclusion. The only "hoax" is that so many conservative politicians, oil companies and conservative talk show hosts have tried to counter real science and unfortunately many people believe them and politicize it (which gets in the way of real scientific research).
So please, let's gamble with the future. What do we have to lose, eh?
Well of course anyone with money and power to protect are going to do that, they only care about what happens while they're alive, not what happens hundreds of years from now, they figure that's someone else's problem, why should they care? Then there's the religious types who are absolutely certain that the World Is Coming To An End Real Soon Now anyway, so again, why should they care? It's all part of 'gods plan' or somesuch nonsense, this Earth and this Existence is all supposed to be temporary so far as they're concerned. What's left are the rank-and-file citizens of countries all over the world, who have neither the time nor the education to understand what's going on; they're all too busy just trying to live their lives and have no time to worry about things that will happen hundreds of years from now, not with bills to pay, kids to raise, etc. So it's a hard sell to them.
The objection is that it oversteps its role; that it's acting as an unaccountable agency and therefore it needs to be reigned in.
Based on your claim, I had a look around. As far as I can see, just about all of it is whining that the EPA rules will cost big companies money. Well, yes, that is true. It is much cheaper to operate if you can offload the true cost of operation onto other people.
Reigning in the EPA is not the same as eliminating the EPA or not wanting clean air and water.
I disagree. It's generally action from people who want to keep the profits private, but nationalise the costs.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Are you a an expert climatologist? or a geophysicist? or a oceanographer? Are you an expert in ANY field that covers climate change?
No?
Well... there are about 30,000+ scientists out there who wholeheartedly agree that global warming/man-made climate change is real.
I'll take their side instead of some random know-it-all on the internet who thinks he knows better than the scientific community.
I don't know where you live but it's not winter in Antarctica:
Well, good that you mention that. We were, however, talking about the arctic, where it is the middle of winter right now. In the antarctic, the situation is differently - every southern summer essentially all of the sea ice melts, and the winter maximum is the important indicator to track. This is because we have the arctic ocean, mostly surrounded by land (which limits sea ice growth in winter, as the ice mostly runs out of sea to grow on), and the antarctic continent (which stops sea ice melting in summer, as the sea runs out of ice to melt).
Stephan
I love how Slashdot champions every feat of engineering and scientific discovery, until it relates to climate.
The cognitive dissonance is deafening.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
I think the greenhouse effect is a lot more straightforward - and well understood - than the effects of various foods on health. Even the 'massive scientific cockup' in the area of nutritional science validates the scientific method - in that if new evidence proves it wrong, that new evidence is accepted and added to the body of knowledge.
Nothing about the dynamics of climate change has been disproven. Yes, we don't know how fast it's happening and what the exact results will be, but to deny that it's happening is nonsense. There is such a thing as denialism. The most clear-cut cases are the ones where deep-pocketed interests have a stake in the denial - like the tobacco/lung cancer example. Certainly, corporate money pouring into unsuccessful attempts to counter scientific research would be a red flag, no?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Ars is a sickening bastion of groupthink, though.
I agree. I can't read the comments there anymore. If people disagree with the article, they get lambasted by The Ars Borg. That's becoming the "increasingly non-natural" norm in society.
I'm actually tired of the "group think" which deny's the fact of man-made climate change. It is real. It is a scientifically proven fact. That is the real reason you get lambasted for disagreeing. Your disagreement is a denial of facts.
No, that's HUNDREDS of thousands
Interesting you should talk about people moving. Migration from farming areas to cities seems to be the largest factor in the Syrian Civil War. The farm communities moved to the cities because of drought. There are many that link the severity of the droughts to climate change. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-syria-climate-refugees/
I assume that when you say "we don't exactly have a shortage of land..." you assume that people who have to move will move to empty areas.
Trump, on the other hand, disdains the Republican-antithetic "Flip Flopper" epithet and is willing to change his mind, given sufficient incentive.
It's a little difficult to believe that, given Trump's extreme reluctance to ever, ever admit that he was wrong or made a mistake. He is always willing to pin blame on someone else for his decisions, and when it suits him he will flat-out lie, even about things that are easily fact-checked.
I wasn't necessarily saying that there will be a civil war. I was indicating that mass migration (for whatever reasons) could have unforeseen circumstances and then using the example of the (probable) climate related droughts causing migration of rural syrians into the cities.
Also, if I'm following the thread correctly, the argument is being made that coastal, urban areas that may be threaten by sea-level would be moving to more rural, in land areas. I don't have no idea what that would cause.
You are arguing against scientific fact. Let's examine your thesis. It seems they are political in nature, stemming from a desire not to be told what to do. If I can restate it, you seem to be suggesting that the physical properties of carbon dioxide depending on which plane certain celebrities travel on.
We've been studying climate change for about 200 years now, mostly in the context of trying to explain ice ages. The CO2-mediated theory of climate change was first described in 1896, and despite a scientific consensus against it which persisted until the mid-1950s, today it is the dominant scientific understanding. There have been a number of key observations, but the fundamental science was the work of Tyndall in 1859 on the heat properties of gases.
Your Al-Gore-Airplane theory of climate change seems like it will be easily testable. I'll leave the experimental design to you. While we're at it, we should probably test the rest of the things you mentioned, to see if they also affect the optical properties of CO2. It sounds like Tyndall may be in serious need of revision. This will likely throw out almost all of our knowledge of extraterrestrial atmospheres too; you're not going to make NASA happy. Although it does provoke the question, if Al Gore affects carbon dioxide on this planet, does he also affect other worlds equally or is it more like an inverse square effect?
</sarcasm>Hi. You're a person, I'm a person. We have this planet thing that we live on and it's really neat. Unfortunately we have only got just the one, so we do have to share it. Even more unfortunately, we have a bit of a pollution problem. Unlike every other pollution problem we have had, this one is global and really hard to clean up. Humanity, as a whole, will need to get together and clean it up. Humanity as a whole hasn't done anything quite like that before, and not everyone can be counted on to act correctly all the time. There may even be some sort of tradeoffs involved, where (e.g.) we pollute a little to make solar panels, which then gives us a non-carbon-producing method of power generation. If your criterion for taking action is universal adherence (or universal penury?) then you must be considered to be deliberately choosing inaction regardless of the consequences.
I believe that all humans care about our planet. Earth is our home, after all. I believe that you do care about the world and the people in it, and I speculate that this is actually a strong reason for your denial: if it were true, it would compel action. I'm sorry to say that the science is unequivocal. We've tried like hell to prove this theory wrong, and for a long while we thought we had, but this is actually the way the world works, and the issue of who gets to ride which airplane has absolutely no bearing on that. I'm sorry if you think that the political consequences of this science won't work out well for you. I suspect that things will actually end up better than both of us fear. But arguing with global warming is like arguing with the tide. At some level I imagine that you know this, and that you know you're making a bad argument. I don't want you to stop fighting whatever political fight you think needs to be made, but I would suggest you not dispute climate science -- unless it is with rigorous measurements. Making ad hominem and tu quoque arguments against nonscientists is also not particularly clever.
Why is it that all climate change responses are about people giving up personal freedom and living under more restrictive laws and any change that really wouldn't be noticed by people is not really fought for...?
Confirmation bias. Also, it's not necessary to fight for things that don't affect people's lives.You also do not have a personal right to pollute, and on that basis I would suggest not taking up any supposed issues of freedom. Your personal philosophy may rank some freedom as more important that society's freedom not to be polluted, but you're not going to be able to convince anyone of
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I am a scientist who has done some work on climate change issues. I usually completely ignore Slashdot stories about climate because I know that the whole comment thread will be people repeating the same arguments to each other about whether or not climate change exists, or is anthropogenic, or is a bad thing, or whatever. What value is there in repeating these stale talking points to each other over and over again? How many of the deniers are just trolls who don't care one way or another, but enjoy baiting others with long-debunked claims and other alternative facts?
At any rate, that may be one reason you see so many deniers here. Many of us who are persuaded by the evidence are already so far past the Slashdot-level conversation, there's practically no point in participating.
Oh sorry - you're right. Because these graphs have totally different scales and orientations they look nothing like each other.
But wait a minute... if we look at just the data that both graphs cover (temperature, the last 20000 years, highlighted with a black box):
https://ibb.co/co1ABF
And then line up the scales so they are the same on both graphs (X=-5C to +5C, Y=0 to -20000 years) we can see that the data does actually match up pretty well, considering I did this with paint:
https://ibb.co/hX9K5a
Consistent science FTW! Thanks for playing.
Of course, it's the last 100 years that are the most interesting - the heating is happening at an _unprecedented_ rate. The ~2 degree increase of the last century would have taken millennia to occur naturally - as shown by the very graphs you supplied as evidence!
Don't misuse actual data. It doesn't work, because the data shows AWG is happening.
The hockey stick has not been discredited. It has been replicated numerous times, by numerous people and organisations.
https://www.theatlantic.com/te...
> Climate deniers threw all their might at disproving the famous climate change graph. Here's why they failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
> Arguments over the reconstructions have been taken up by fossil fuel industry funded lobbying groups attempting to cast doubt on climate science.
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
> In fact, later studies support the key conclusion: the world is warmer now than it has been for at least 1000 years
The graphs we /were/ talking about go back much further - XKCD's 20,000 years, and your favourite the Vostok core, 400,000. And they all show the same data.
Good luck with your research.
*PLONK*