Slashdot Mirror
390 Billion Tons of Snow and Ice Melt Each Year As Globe Warms, Study Suggests (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today, highlighting the key findings from a new study published in the journal Nature: Thanks to global warming, our planet's glaciers continue to melt away, losing up to 390 billion tons of ice and snow per year, a new study suggests. The largest losses were glaciers in Alaska, followed by the melting ice fields in southern South America and glaciers in the Arctic. Glaciers could almost disappear in some mountain ranges by the end of the century, including those in the U.S. The world's seas have risen about an inch in the past 50 years just due to glacier melt alone, according to the study. Since 1961, the world has lost 10.6 trillion tons of ice and snow, the study reported. Melted, that's enough to cover the lower 48 U.S. states in about 4 feet of water.
The expensive orioles slugger is now just the worst. Oh and global warming mass hysteria dogs and cats eating each other blah blah blah.
Orbit hugging weight is a good thing. Keeps the planet on track. More coal. Clean burning, safe, and got lots of it. Burn baby burn!
Oh my. This is horrible. More water. Less ice! I'm afraid!
he's still there waiting http://www.waterworldmovie.com
Contrary to what many American believe, the total surface area of world is much larger than the USA. So the 4 ft of water are just distributed a lot more across the many oceans.
You better hope it's warming. If we returned to an ice age so many far leftists would die. So would real people.
You tell'em Bill Joe! Why when sea levels rise and swamp the coasts, all them coastal elites are gonna get flooded - just like in the Bible!! And when their multi-million dollar beach house gets flooded, it'll be declared a disaster area, they'll get some big gubberment checks all paid for by the lower classed - especially all them hard working people in the fly-over states!
And that's the way it should be. Because rich people deserve it!
And as the temperatures rise and destroy fisheries, why the coastal elitist fishermen will have to get gubberment subsidies to help them - all paid for the the US taxpayer.
See, the leftists want to raise taxes because leftists love paying taxes - it's kind of kink with them. But the conservatives have a better plan. The one they've used since President Saint Reagan: borrow and spend.
I tell you this leftist fanaticism with Global Warming and wanting to raise taxes because of this "crisis" is just so lefty. Cleaning up the environment! PFFT!
Why can't they just enjoy the pollution like a good American! And look at this propagranda from this Aye-Rab site! Come on! Everyone knows that Diesel fumes and exhaust makes one a man!
Lefties!! Always bitching and moaning about nonsense. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm go'in to the border in my tricked out F-250 and AR-15 and head off the invasion from the Aye-Rabs and Mexi-canns trying to come here to go on welfare, Medicaid, and to mow our lawns.
"Global Warming" is just the leftist version of "Replacement Theory". Some wacky shit to get the easy influenced riled up and expecting the end of the world any minute. Low IQ.
It flowed through gravity and reached the oceans. What, you thought that the 4 ft of water covering Colorado would just stay there for you to look at?
That doesn't seem very hard. They didn't pour that water on the 48 states. There is more to the world than the US. The surface area of the oceans is around 50 times more than the 48 states. So maybe the oceans have globally risen by a few centimeters.
You *do* know that the surface of the planet does not consist *solely* of the 'lower 48 U.S. states', right?
Hint: The summary even tells you how much the glacier melt has contributed to global sea-level rise.
Those "far leftists" want the Sahara to keep desertifying to protect their coastal cities in Europe and the US. The bankers are heavily tied up in that mistaken investment. Not my problem if you stupidly built a skyscraper in a geologic lowland.
Oceans rise and fall, old cities are abandoned and new ones are built. Humanity survived Meltwater Pulses 1a and b, and it will survive this one too.
But the elites will tax your ass back to the stone age if they believe it will protect their investments for just another few years After all, for them there's no dowmside, so one should expect that behavior among people of power. Accepting it is another story.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
No, it isn't because, as you know, the US isn't under 4 feet of water.
Your comment is hard to follow. The "lower 48" U.S. states comprise about 3 million square kilometers. The surface area of the Earth is a little over 500 million square kilometers. The meltwater from melting glaciers doesn't only go to the lower 48 US states; it equilibrates all around the world.
This is a visualization analogy intended to give the public a quantitative feel for what 10.6 trillion tons of water is. Sort of like expressing data in terms of libraries of congress. It is not anywhere a statement that the melted water did cover the lower 48 U.S. states, and no other part of the world.
Or maybe they mean "lost" like they can't find it, but given the rest of the summary they seem to mean it's melted.
Most native English speakers can understand the different uses of the word "lost". Especially when the very next sentence uses the word "melted". In this case "lost" means lost by melting, the way your ice water loses its ice when it sits on the table. Gone, in the form of ice, but the water comprising the ice is still here.
it's good to get an idea of the ratio
390 billion tons sounds like a lot, until you realize the Antarctic ice sheet weighs 26500000 billion tons, so 0.001% more has melted.
Hmm.
It takes about five seconds to find contradictory studies, such as "NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses," which says "According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
You can draw your own conclusions.
Nope, the warming from the last ice age peaked about 8000 years ago, and turned into (very slow) cooling, until last century when global warming accelerated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Some representative estimates of just the two ice sheets:
- 26,500,000 gigatons in Antarctica
- 2,900,000 gigatons in Greenland
So, conservatively ignoring that TFS includes "snow loss" (wut?) and says most of the ice loss was from glaciers in Alaska: 390 / 29,400,000 = (whips out slide rule) 0.0013%.
But that wouldn't make for nearly as scary of a headline.
That doesn't seem very hard. They didn't pour that water on the 48 states. There is more to the world than the US.
For starters, there are 50 states in the US alone.
Of course it does. If no polar ice and snow melted we would be in the middle of a god damn ice age not to mention a global drought.
What is important is the balance between melting and precipitation. What is the net melt?
Don't forget about the BizX bucks paid for this fake news.
You better hope it's warming. If we returned to an ice age so many far leftists would die. So would real people.
The greatest part of climate science, of course, has been the study of the causes of the ice ages. Even the understanding of the greenhouse effect was started, initially, from atmospheric scientists trying to understand the role that atmospheric gasses play in the cycle of glaciation (a significant role, as it happens).
The understanding of the causes of ice ages, and the glacial advances and retreats within an ice a, is getting pretty good now. We've understood that Milankovich variations are the trigger for decades now, but the models are now good enough that we are beginning to understand the details, including the feedback effects that amplify the relatively small Milankovich variations into hemispheric and global climate patterns.
Ice ages are a bit harder to model than current climate, of course, because we directly measure the inputs to current climate-- we know exactly the amount of energy put out by the sun, for example-- while we have to calculate historical forcing factors from proxy measurements. But nevertheless, the work is being done.
We better put the earth on a diet!
I wonder how the weight redistribution will effect the earth's spin... We'll end up on our side like Neptune, all the water will go the bottom. Then the weather will get real exciting!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's spread out across the entire world, not just the 48 states. It would cover the 48 states in 4 ft only if it were entirely confined to it.
"Enough to" means that it could have (if we collected all the melt water and shipped it to the continental US, contained by dikes), not that it did.
When they say that Bill Gates's fortune is enough to give every American 300$, you didn't receive a paycheck either.
This study is rubbish for $Reasons along with all the other global warming studies which are also rubbish for $Reasons.
The only people who have the courage to say what is really going on are $Industry_Shill who says don't worry because it's all clouds and stuff and climate is always changing and it'll be much nicer when it's warmer anyway which is lucky because it's a totally natural process.
The only reason the sea levels are rising is Libtard tears.
Depending on who you believe, the average sea level is rising somewhere around 2mm per year. Around 1mm per year is attributable to thermal expansion of the oceans. The rest must be melt water from glaciers and snow on land.
So, check my math: The surface area of the oceans is 3.4 * 10^8 square kilometers, or 3.4 * 10^14 square meters. Each millimeter of sea level rise then corresponds to 3.4 * 10^11 cubic meters, which happens to be 340 billion tons of water. Pretty close to their 390 billion tons.
So their figure makes sense. I suppose it's useful as confirmation, but it's hardly anything new or unexpected. But the big numbers impress clueless journalists...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
It a visual analogy meant to create fear. That we're having the discussion about the analogy shows how pointless it is for any other reason.
Well, if we "lost" 10.6 trillion tons of ice and snow, since 1961, and it did not melt.... and the lower 48 states is not under 4 ft of water.... where did it all go?
My bad. I forgot it on the bus on my way into work a while ago. If anyone finds it please let me know so, I can put it back. TIA.
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/corruption-of-the-us-temperature-record/
1000 years ago Vikings were happily raising wheat, barley and cattle on Greenland. Then it got too cold. It is still too cold.
800 years ago Northern Europe was happily growing GRAPES for wine. Then it got too cold. It is still too cold.
To melt that much ice takes 333 kJ/kg * 390,000,000,000,000 kg = 129,870,000,000,000,000 kJ / (3,600,000,000,000 kJ/TWh) = 36075 TWh. For comparison, the world energy consumption was 109136 TWh in 2015.
Why aren't we using it indoors?
300 trillions of water molecules are thrown in the air when I sneeze. "390 billion tons of ice and snow", what's that compared to the oceans weight? What's that compared to 50 years ago? Big numbers are impressive, but need to be relative, to be credible.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
That this post was voted 'interesting' is a sad indictment on our public education system (and slashdot posters in general.)
Was it the only way they could get access to the lettuce? Is CA trying to shut the door on the deal now?
Nope, the warming from the last ice age peaked about 8000 years ago, and turned into (very slow) cooling, until last century when global warming accelerated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Did you link the wrong page? That only goes a thousand years back, not eight thousand..
Notice how they always use vague terminology?
Check out the brains on this one!
"Old man yells at systemd"
The ocean doesn't care what your political affiliation is. Right wing homeowners will be affected too.
Your empathy for your fellow citizens is overwhelming.
US has the hottest winter days in its history.
Did you link the wrong page? That only goes a thousand years back, not eight thousand..
Correct. I wanted to show the sudden recent change (i.e. the "hockey stick"), and the 1000 year graph shows that more clearly.
There's no way that "coming out of an ice age" can cause a sudden increase in warming, like that graph shows.
AKA BS Headline by a lazy reporter.
Where the hell do you people get that the shit? Did it ever occur to you people that maybe it's people on your side that's feeding you bullshit to keep you in line and supporting them?
'There's a sucker born every minute' - P.T. Barnum.
Indeed.
Or maybe one in terms of foot ball fields.
I did some quick math and came up with... .1 inch
or 0.25 mm
Which? 1 inch is 25 mm, not 0.25. I think you converted centimeters to inches by dividing by 10, instead of multiplying
...Sounds like AGW alarmists can't come up with consistent numbers...
ROFL!! You post numbers that are inconsistant by a factor of a hundred and then tell me it's the "alarmists" that can't come up with consistent numbers?
If this weren't so funny, I'd point out that this is only one of several factors.
It's hard to tell whether you're serious, or just a moron.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ok, then we can afford to let melt another 100 trillion tons of ice and snow ...
the environmentalists all living on the coastal areas and investing in real estate there
Which purported environmentalists are you referring to? If you mean Al Gore, the only environmentalist that right-wing ranters ever seem to care about, yes, he owns a house in a costal Californa community... one that's 180 feet above sea level.
and also all the politicians and hollywood ilk who have been buying up real estate in these 'doomed' places
Have you ever heard the phrase "the Hollywood Hills"?
Hollywood is not in any trouble from rising sea levels. Its average elevation is 350 feet above sea level... but the pricey homes, of course, are up in the hills overlooking Hollywood. Even if all the ice in the all the ice caps melts, in about 500 years or so, they won't be underwater.
Everyone knows the hockey stick is bogus manipulation of data
Nope, the hockey stick graph has been confirmed by several studies. You can find plenty of references in the wikipedia page above. And if you dismiss all of the data, then what are you going to use to show that "we are still coming out of an ice age" as GP tried to claim?
Everyone knows the hockey stick is bogus manipulation of data.
Everyone is wrong
To quantify it, the USA makes up a bit less than 2% of the surface.
My tribe opposes this information, therefore it is wrong.
For starters, there are 50 states in the US alone.
Obama said there were 57. So that should spread out the water even more, so it would be less than 4 ft deep, right?
From the summary: Since 1961, the world has lost 10.6 trillion tons of ice and snow, the study reported. Melted, that's enough to cover the lower 48 U.S. states in about 4 feet of water.
Well, if we "lost" 10.6 trillion tons of ice and snow, since 1961, and it did not melt.... and the lower 48 states is not under 4 ft of water.... where did it all go?
Area of the USA lower48 is 3.1 million square miles while the area of the oceans is 140 million square miles so 4ft of water over the USA would be only an extra inch added to sea level
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Actually, it's to keep Lake Mead from draining so low: https://www.governing.com/topi...
Which, of course, punishes the farmers the most. But, they were the ones that want to grow things in a desert.
First, data useless without comparison data.
Second, even the original study itself is almost ridiculously vague - https://www.nature.com/article... : "...glaciers contributed 27 ± 22 millimetres to global mean sea-level rise from 1961 to 2016..." 27 plus/minus 22? LOL the errorbar is nearly the size of the datum. What does that say about the data?
Third, I'd say it's at least somewhat relevant to check historical data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png ) which shows that we are currently at a sea-level low that is HISTORIC - our sea levels haven't been this low for 200+ MILLION YEARS. The 'average' sea level for earth is easily 100m higher than today. If the curve is at all predictive, it shows that sea levels were low 230ish MYa and again 550ish MYa, both low points were followed by relatively sudden increase in sea level. So what's happening now ... is predictable.
Essentially, humanity evolved at low tide, now we're bitching that the tide's coming in and is giong to knock over our sandcastles.
But then I guess that makes me a 'denier'?
-Styopa
Actually, "enough to cover" means exactly talking about the equivalent surface area.
Some native English speakers are fucking stupid.
Because a few hundred years is going to provide reliable trend information about a hundred thousand year trend
Why not ? When the sun goes down at night, it only takes hours for noticeable cooling to happen. It's a fallacy to think we need to wait hundred thousand years for the Earth to respond to changes in inputs. The reason that ice ages take thousands of years is because they are triggered by equally slow changes in orbital characteristics. CO2 changes happened in the last century, and the atmospheric warming responds right away (although equilibrium will take a bit longer due to longer time constant of ocean heat)
You are like the guy who sells all his shit because the stock market goes down on Monday.
If somebody claims that nothing special happened because "the stock market has been going down since the last ice age", and we can show that it actually has been going up this whole time, but suddenly crashed on Monday, then his claim is invalid, and we know something new must have happened.
For starters, the 'lower 48 states' are still 48 states.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
P.T. Barnum didn't even say that quote, which casts doubt on just how reliable the OP is in providing information.
Always ... shoot a few elites, then shoot a few more. Put down their Quisling gub'mnt sock-puppets and media hoes , ravage their women and burn their mansions, banks & harbors. Now we have a global warming worth talking about. From a virtuous cultural cleaning and Luddite scrubbing-of-bling the productive yeomanry will recover in 5 years.
No way ... and you know because ... you are a Trotsky-slut warmist hoe, Rawlsian to the pestilent unproductive core and a viperous liar. You blo-job the Bantu, money-mongers and gaffot laxers because they like you are parasites on the productive yeomanry. There now ... that's worth a few degrees.
That was the reason last time. Be pious and stop f*cking you pets!
Gee Einstein, you should to work for the Trump administration. They don't believe in science either.
Maybe people should just stick to car analogies.
global warming is no more leftist than Team Trump building gas chambers for Muslims.
...it will warm up and turn deserts into farmland and open up arctic shipping lanes making cargo shipping much more efficient. Who are you to decide the world's climate? People in desert regions would like to grow crops too.
Can you explain about the bizx bucks
Seriously
I'm interested in this issue
However, it is not hard to tell that you are a total douche.
I've been reading Slashdot since the early aughts and it's been pretty disheartening to witness the quality of the comments section degrade as it has. Any time there's an article about climate change or a handful of other topics it becomes an absolute cesspool.
Thanks for reminding all of us that a significant part of the population (represented by you in this case) is fundamentally stupid and disconnected from reality.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It appears that up in the arctic, that Alaska is losing the most, followed by western Canada, and then it just keep flowing around, with eastern Russia losing the least. So, where is Alaska getting all that warming from? It can not be the lower 48 since in the upper northern hemisphere, it will move north east. When will the far left acknowledge where the large CO2 amounts are coming from and change them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actual facts? Don't you know most people cannot deal with them dues to inadequate mental facilities or even recognize them?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You're only showing that so-called "science" has become a religion that includes scare-tactic headlines as a part of its belief
You have no idea about global warming do you.
Let's guess, you want to blame China, right?
If you've got it relative to psychokinetic energy I can do the conversion myself.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Oceans rise and fall, old cities are abandoned and new ones are built. Humanity survived Meltwater Pulses 1a and b, and it will survive this one too.
I don't think there is any doubt that humanity will survive global warming but that is an incredibly low bar to set. Humanity also survives earthquakes, air disasters etc. but that does not mean that we don't try to reduce and/or protect ourselves from them. Improving the safety of planes costs money and increases ticket prices but, overall, is far better than having planes fall out of the sky and people die.
Global warming is the same. We will survive but there are likely to be significant famines, droughts, floods and huge migrations caused by it if we do not act to reduce the effects. Even ignoring the humanitarian aspect of this, purely economically we are going to be better off developing new technology to reduce and mitigate the effects than we are just dealing with the full impact of a significant temperature increase.
However, you would not be able to lie to yourself about what AGW is or what people are trying to tell you when your head is shoved up your arse, which you clearly do not want to happen. So how about testing the flat earthers' claims about the nonexistence of gravity? Have a mate hold a magnet and you jump off a tall building. The magnet should hold you up against the magical forces of gravity.
Random asshole on slashdot's post indicates
Perhaps, but that's better than being an ignoramus
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This sounds like a parody except I know you're a fuckwit and actually believe this shit.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Sooo, is this your leftist fantasy of what people on the right believe?
And by demonizing and alienating the "other half" you expect to win some sort of moral victory... prove yourself intellectually superior? Prove you're more capable of critical thinking. Some of my conservative friends who are scientists and technologies would disagree with you.
The irony in your assumption-laden post is you're postulating that "righties" hate rich people, but isn't that the stance of the left? (Of course, unless said rich people agree with your politics.)
For someone who wants to nitpick other people's writing you should learn the difference between Would and Could.
For an analogy: A hot babe could have sex with you, but she would not.
If it's being reported there it is highly suspect, as it WILL be highly slanted towards democrats.
Here's how you can prove it: Find ANY article that has a conservative point of view that isn't labelled "opinion."
I'll wait.
- Alex
A lot of lefties themselves are rich
Look at all the several feet in sea level rise (nope), look at all the new flooding (nope), look at all the people drowning (nope). What? There's no change. How can that be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTjZmmRX0Ug
How about we shoot this ice to the orbit? The temperature there is well below zero. And should the wind blow from another direction we could bring that ice back.
I meaningless number for people who don't have a purpose to live.
Get a life loser. Can you do anything other than crying a river of piss?
" They did NOT claim that it could cover a flat surface area equivalent to CONUS, they claimed CONUS."
It was written "enough to cover" - i.e. if somebody poured it over CONUS, then yes, it would cover it, given high enough border walls.
But fortunately it was spread all over, especially in those depressions in the landmass called OCEANS.
If English is not your first language, think of the phrase "I have enough money to buy a Porsche". This doesn't imply that I already did.
You mean the models are good now? If so do we have one that predicts the actual future? I mean real one not the future of the model that were left out of the available data so that we have something to try things out. I thought we are nowhere near good models. We have some and we understand some of the stuff. By 'we' I mean rather small group of people. The rest has views and religion to tell them what happens (sea level going up or otherwise). In other words: do we have a model that in 2017 predicted roughly 2018? I mean on the average and not in my village. Do we?
Everyone knows the hockey stick is bogus manipulation of data
Nope, the hockey stick graph has been confirmed by several studies. You can find plenty of references in the wikipedia page above. And if you dismiss all of the data, then what are you going to use to show that "we are still coming out of an ice age" as GP tried to claim?
Try looking at the actual findings in the actual studies though. The distinctive Hockey Stick shape in Michael Mann's original graph came about by showing 2 disparate datasets on the same graph, the reconstructed temperatures for the last couple thousand years, and then the instrumental record appended on the end. The immediate deviation from the trend for the past millenia doesn't just correspond to the start of the industrial era, it corresponds to a change in datasets. You don't get a more obvious red flag than that.
Now, absolutely, followup studies have been done since, and they have largely confirmed the flat/static trend from Mann's original work. They've also recreated the hockey stick at the end the same way by introducing the instrumental record.
Fine, you'll then say if that is all as sketchy and iffy as it sounds, you'd expect the proxy reconstructions to have troubles recreating recent warming, right? Here's an updated study by the same Michael Mann of fame for the first hockey stick graph. If you just read the overall conclusions, Mann mostly says that with new data and new methods they largely validate their previous work. However, if you look close the article also notes:
However, in the case of the early calibration/late validation CPS reconstruction with the full screened network (Fig. 2
A ), we observed evidence for a systematic bias in the underestimation of recent warming. This bias increases for earlier centuries where the reconstruction is based on increasingly sparse networks of proxy data. In this case, the observed warming rises above the error
bounds of the estimates during the 1980s decade, consistent with the known ‘‘divergence problem’’ (e.g., ref. 37), wherein the tempera-
ture sensitivity of some temperature-sensitive tree-ring data appears to have declined in the most recent decades. Interestingly, although the elimination of all tree-ring data from the proxy dataset yields a substantially smaller divergence bias, it does not eliminate
the problem altogether (Fig. 2B). This latter finding suggests that the divergence problem is not limited purely to tree-ring data, but
instead may extend to other proxy records. Interestingly, the problem is greatly diminished (although not absent—particularly in
the older networks where a decline is observed after 1980) with the EIV method,
If you then look down to Fig. 3, you'll notice that the EIV reconstruction doesn't just do a better job tracking recent warming, it also is by far the warmest reconstruction, with historic peaks exceeding anything but the big red instrumental record tacked on again.
So to summarize, your declaration that "the hockey stick graph has been confirmed by several studies" is true in the sense that they've recreated the historic trend many times. However, even the original author(Mann) as linked above notes that the methodology for recreating a fairly flat/cool historic reconstruction, also fails to reconstruct current warming. So much so as to fall outside the "error bars", and even mentions that this is the "known divergence problem", meaning it is well known that without attaching the instrumental record on the end, you don't get your nice hockey stick graph.
Where does 390Gt number come from? The study being reported on says 335 ± 144 Gt / year.
How are you measuring this? With a ruler and a cup?
I say there is 450 Billion tons being deposited every year.
Prove me wrong.
Look at the poor red voting states and tell me there aren't right wingers who are anti-rich.
There's a reason the terms "fancy pants"and "city slicker" exist.
Hell the right south is among the worst in American education and looked down on me for a "rich person's education". I once was denounced in Mississippi simply for using "big words".
Either way it's just as ridiculous as SJW lefties fighting for bullshit superficial causes.
Both the hard leaning left and right deserve to be burned in the same pyre.
What we need is a dissolution of partisans and create policy based on true pragmatism.
It's hard being a moderate in these crazy times. climate denialists should be exposed for what they are: pushers of disinformation campaigns funded by big energy companies.
the taboo subject of carbon dioxide got coal and fossil fuels riled up to the point it's hard to find a climate denialist without energy money lining their pockets......
Point to a handful of discredited or manipulated climate science journals and disregard the other 12,000+ that all agree climate change has observational data to back it. classic "generalization" fallacy of argument.
Who would have thought this world would demonize the very community saying "hey guys if you wanna avoid some problems we should start thinking about solutions".
There shouldnt be anything wrong with the safer than sorry approach.
Feed money to the right TV pundits and politicians with absolutely no scientific background and the ignorant masses will chew on every false morsel.
Happens every year.
I've been reading slashdot since 98. I can assure you that the apparent IQ of both posters and moderators has sharply nose-dived. This is not limited to specific categories of articles but has also impacted the types of stories posted on slashdot.
You might notice scientific articles or articles requiring some basic modicum of knowledge in their field frequently get low comment counts and complaints along the lines of; "summary ASSUMES I graduated from elementary grade school! HOW DARE THE EDITORS USE THEIR BIG HIGH SCHOOL WORDS!!"
I can't attribute this to anything other than the continued march of the eternal September. Slashdot IQ now approximates Reddit IQ; regression toward the mean. Using computers and software used to be harder than using modern Linux. They were expensive and the only people using them were on the fringe and many of them college and university students. This lead the mean IQ to sit around +1 sigma or higher.
Now I can expect that with my mention of "IQ" someone will immediately argue that IQ is not a valid measure of g and doesn't actually reflect anything of any value about a person. That ignores the fact that minimum IQ is highly correlated with historical college and university graduates and therefore accurately reflected education in an somewhat indirect way.
The current average IQ of the site is likely to be approximately 98; the United States mean IQ.
I apologize for my sentences and paragraphs and any words I've used that are difficult for the reader. I'm sorry.
CAPTCHA: manure
firstly
Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.
You're a bit thick so again, CO2 remains in the atmosphere a long time
This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years.
So it isn't just last years CO2 emissions that are warming Canada.
This is a much more appropriate timescale
If we extend our timeline back to 1750 and total up how much CO2 each country has emitted to date, we calculate each nation’s ‘cumulative emissions’.
If we fast-forward to the accumulated totals we see today, the US and Europe dominate in terms of cumulative emissions. China’s rapid growth in emissions over the last few decades now makes it the world’s second largest cumulative emitter, although it still comes in at less than 50% of the US total.
So in fact America is responsible for over twice as much CO2 as China.
But wait it gets better.
The key drawback of measuring the total national emissions is that it takes no account of the nation's population size. China is currently the world’s largest emitter, but since it also has the largest population, all being equal we would expect this to be the case. To make a fair comparison of contributions, we have to therefore compare emissions in terms of CO2 emitted per person.
Let's just say, per person American's have been, and still are extremely bad.
Let's look here starting in 1950 to match the timescale in the summary and report. You can slide it yourself to see that the US is bright red on the map for every year and China barely breaks into the oranges. America's CO2 per person is over double China's even now. And don't forget you started at 16 tonnes when China was at less than 1.
And all of that says nothing about how laughably inaccurate your 'climate modelling' is. Blaming China because of the wind patterns LOL. This is just you not even using the correct data.
You are a complete joke on this topic WindBourne.
Millions reply on glacier melt for their water supply, if they melt away completely and don't replenish prepare for an exodus from those countries to yours if your water supply is okay - do a search for "countries that reply on glacier melt for water"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
27-22 is still positive and 27+22 is even bigger. so it's causing it but we dont know exactly how much.
Oh well if you cant measure it closely enough I'm just gunna deny it like the denier I am.
The largest losses were glaciers in Alaska, followed by the melting ice fields in southern South America
How does your 'which way the wind blows' 'climate model' explain southern South America coming in second?
What is the intended purpose of an article like this?
390 BILLION!!!! TONS!!!!! of snow is mellllllllllllting!
Who the fuck cares? Tell me how much MORE or LESS snow is melting in any given year. Of course the total number is going to be staggeringly huge, this is a fucking PLANET, not your back yard.
But the staggeringly huge number is being used for a purpose. It would appear to be designed to get us hysterical... but what is the end game?
Many people react negatively to hysteria inducing claims but many ignorant people assume they are motivating people to help them in their cause. Is this a counter-productive article or is it just sowing hysteria to cloud the reality of what is happening to the climate?
Articles like this are just plain shit... even if they do manage to generate page views somehow. This is the extent of my participation in what will be a shitshow in the comments section. Numerous otherwise intelligent people will act utterly stupid and display their blindness for everyone but themselves to see while others will argue for nuclear power and ... fuck it.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen