Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Government Politics

Ice-Free Summers Coming To Arctic 625

Posted by Zonk from the that's-hot dept.
rocketjam writes "CNET reports that researchers from the University of Arizona and other universities have concluded that the Arctic will likely see ice-free summers within a century due to the increasing rate of global warming. The melting will raise ocean levels worldwide, flooding coastal areas where a substantial proportion of the world's population live. The increasing rate of ice melt is already having an impact on people and animals in the Arctic. Currently, researchers cannot foresee any natural forces that will counteract the trend."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ice-Free Summers Coming To Arctic More

Ice-Free Summers Coming To Arctic

Comments Filter:

  • Won't someone please think of the snowmen! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SeanTobin ( 138474 ) * <<byrdhuntr> <at> <hotmail.com>> on Sunday August 28, 2005 @10:47PM (#13424069)
    Well, the melting of the Arctic ice cap would be annoying to several dozen polar bears, and it will have a very strong effect on Greenpeace members. As to its effect on sea levels, that's something a little less strong.

    For something to float, it must displace an equal mass of whatever its floating in. By definition, the north polar ice cap is displacing exactly its own mass in water. If it were to melt, the displaced water would take exactly the same amount of volume as the submerged ice. This would cause the world's ocean levels to rise by the exact amount of zero plus the volume of several dozen annoyed polar bears.

    Now, if the Antarctic ice cap were to melt, we'd be in a world of hurt. The southern ice cap does not float in water, it is on top of land which means that the entire volume of any melted ice is added to the seas.

    As far as its immediate effect, salinity in the local area would be impacted if we say, microwaved it away from space in the span of a month. And although IANAOS (oceanographic scientist), if it were to slowly melt away over a century, the salinity shouldn't be a factor. And if it becomes a factor for some reason, we have time to dump barges of salt.

    Of course, there is always the outside possibility of the lowered salinity disrupting the gulf stream and turning the entire earth into an ideal habitat for the polar bears, who experience a rapid genetic mutation from the additional UV radiation from the depleted ozone layer and hunt mankind to extinction for getting them all wet in the first place.
    • There's plenty of land mass above the arctic circle upon which thousands of feet thick ice shelfs rest.

      Pardon me if I avoid the urge to shove my head into the sand.

    • Re:Won't someone please think of the snowmen! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Osty ( 16825 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:00PM (#13424150)

      The only flaw in your logic is that polar bears don't mind being wet.

    • For something to float, it must displace an equal mass of whatever its floating in. By definition, the north polar ice cap is displacing exactly its own mass in water. If it were to melt, the displaced water would take exactly the same amount of volume as the submerged ice. This would cause the world's ocean levels to rise by the exact amount of zero plus the volume of several dozen annoyed polar bears.

      Got a kick outta your post. However, there is an error in your logic--you're assuming that all of the

    • I think the impact could be greater than a few polar bears.

      I'm not an expert on biology but there a fair amount of other animals/fish/waterplants that probably evolved to thrive in an artic environment.

      I also imagine that amount/area of white ice reflected a fair amount of light/heat from the sun back into space..... especially in the summer when sunlight is shining for months because that part of the planet is more tilted towards the sun.

      Perhaps it won't be a mega-impact, as the ocean's surface will also b
      • I remember a geology professor mentioning once that climate change is a slippery slope in either direction because of the albedo of ice. Whatever small delta in temperature starts a melt (or freeze), it may be outpaced by progressively smaller (or larger) areas of ice reflecting energy away.
    • Yes yes yes, and Kevin Costner will be forced to drink his own urine, as filtered through a Mr. Coffee. And Hollywood will no doubt drop several more "The world is going to end tomorrow!" movie-turds on a helpless public. Yes, we know the dangers of global warming far too well...

    • But not all of the Arctic ice cap is afloat (Score:5, Interesting)

      by erikaaboe ( 89681 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:23PM (#13424276)
      Here a a few stats from a quick Google search or three-

      The total area of Greenland is around 2,175,600 km2 (840,000 sq mi), of which about 84 per cent, or some 1,834,000 km2, is ice cap.

      The average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is over 2000 m.

      The area of the oceans is what, 360,000,000 km2?

      Melt all of Greenland's ice and is that 10 meters?

      Ouch. Er, glug...

    • you got the facts wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @12:04AM (#13424492)
      For something to float, it must displace an equal mass of whatever its floating in. By definition, the north polar ice cap is displacing exactly its own mass in water

      That's neither "by definition" nor in actual fact; significant parts of the ice in the arctic rest on solid ground. When that ice melts, it will raise the sea level. It won't be anywhere near as dramatic as when the southern polar ice cap melts, but it will have an effect.

    • Re:Won't someone please think of the snowmen! (Score:5, Informative)

      by braindead ( 33893 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @12:08AM (#13424504)
      If the polar ice and the water around it had the same amount of salt, then you would be correct: the ice melting would not impact the ocean level.

      However, when taking the different salinity into account, things change. As you know from Archimedes, the ice is displacing exactly enough water to offset its weight (that is, the displaced water weighs as much as the ice). The thing is, it takes less *saltwater* to do that than it would *freshwater*. So when the freshwater in the ice melts, the levels rise.

      If you don't believe me, check this article [physorg.com], it includes a picture from an experiment.

  • Global Warming (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Sunday August 28, 2005 @10:47PM (#13424071) Homepage Journal
    I can see it now, given the remarkable anti-intellectualism sweeping the nation (and Slashdot recently) we are going to be seeing comments here like "Awww, them dang scientists. What do they know? There is no evidence for global warming just like there is no evidence for evolution. (or is that evulushun?)

    Seriously though, the hurricane bearing down on New Orleans right now should give folks something to think about with respect to global warming. Specifically, the higher the water levels, the more potential damage that could occur from smaller storms. The big ones, like Katrina will deliver even more damage further inland than ever before. So, the evidence is mounting to the point where even the Bush administration is having to acknowledge that global warming is a reality.

    • > . So, the evidence is mounting to the point where even the Bush administration is having to acknowledge that global warming is a reality.

      yes, but they can blame it on asteriods, so we need to build more weapons in space to attack them nasty aliens....

    • Indeed... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Seoulstriker ( 748895 )
      Seriously though, the hurricane bearing down on New Orleans right now should give folks something to think about with respect to global warming.

      Yes, indeed, it causes us to think about what it was like before Global Warming, when there were no hurricanes.

      Global warming is as much a reality as global cooling, which happens quite frequently in the very short term past hundred years. The earth's climate fluctuates quite rapidly from year to year. CO2 levels fluctuate quite rapidly from year to year. I

      • Re:Indeed... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Fjandr ( 66656 )
        Truly, the knowledge that climate fluctuations exist is quite different from arguing that mankind causes them.

        However, man certainly has an effect on them. The only argument that really matters is determining what that effect is, and whether or not it is likely to be catastrophic in nature.

        While it is ignorant to claim that all or even a majority of climate change is as a result of mankind's positive production of greenhouse gases, it is also ignorant to claim that there is no effect.

        Certainly, the possibil

    • Re:Global Warming (Score:5, Informative)

      by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:09PM (#13424201) Homepage Journal
      OK, so all of you knuckleheads that are responding to the parent post by making glib comments about no hurricanes earlier in history...... Read the post! Although I suppose you are corroborating my suspicions of the prevailing wisdom here, please note that the sea levels and flooding due to storm surge and such are what I was talking about. As the overall temperature increases, sea level rises leading to more problems with flooding. I might also say that more than one climatologist has suggested that more and stronger hurricanes might be expected from global warming as well.

    • Re:Global Warming (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cdrguru ( 88047 )
      Global warming, or perhaps more accurately, climate change, is certainly something that we are going to have to contend with. However, how much mankind can affect this is the important question.

      As with just about everything, there are three distinct possibilities:

      1. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere and waste heat emitted by energy use could be providing just enough heat to keep the temperature rising in spite of considerable evidence that it should be getting colder. Much, much colder.
      2. Whatever we're doing -

      • Re:Global Warming (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:49PM (#13424407)
        Finally, the economic change - read as depression - that would come from doing "drastic" things stands a good chance of killing as many people as climate change might.

        That's total bunk. For example, what would happen if by some magical means an enforceable decree came down that said we're eliminating all carbon-based fossil fuels by August 28, 2015?

        What would happen is that you'd see one of the largest economic booms in human history. Anything that forces people to get off of their butts and work ends up having a positive effect on the world's economy, whether it's all-out global war in the 1940s or having to kludge the dates on most business software in the 1990s. This would be no different.

        • Re:Global Warming (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Arker ( 91948 )
          By that logic every broken window is an economic boost, since someone has to be hired to go fix it.

          Simplistic, and fallacious.

      • more excuses and misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @12:18AM (#13424548)
        Finally, the economic change - read as depression - that would come from doing "drastic" things stands a good chance of killing as many people as climate change might.

        There is not an iota of evidence that reducing carbon emissions would lead to a depression. Quite to the contrary: it is quite clear that an aggressive move to energy efficient technologies would create new jobs and growth, and would lower operating costs. Scrapping the energy inefficient technologies of today and building new power plants and factories is probably the best thing that could happen to the US economy.

        The only people who stand to lose are the people who have large investments in current, inefficient technologies.

        First off, we just don't understand what is happening or why.

        I'm sorry you haven't been paying attention, but we do understand what is happening and why it's happening.

        Unfortunately, if we are in a position where human-added CO2 is the root cause of all of this, we cannot afford the luxury of these kinds of measures. Sure, they might have some effect and that might help. But if we're the cause of climate change, far, far more drastic measures need to be taken right now.

        As comparison with other Western nations alone shows, the US could easily cut its CO2 emissions in half without any decrease in its standard of living; quite to the contrary: a serious program to do that would increase the standard of living and create jobs.

        Furthermore, if you think you can't "afford" that level of change, what do you think loss of what is probably going to be 50% of the currently inhabited area of the US is going to do to quality of life? Because that's what's going to happen if the trend continues.

        Secondly, the third-world countries would bitterly oppose anything that cuts them off from the developed world or limits their exploitation of fossil fuel energy.

        They sure do, because the message we are sending right now is that we want to limit them while continuing our wasteful energy use, since our negotiating position is to use our current, wasteful usage as the basis for future budgets. I suspect developing nations would easily agree to a uniform global per-capita energy and fossil fuel budget.

        • Re:more excuses and misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @04:07AM (#13425501)
          The only people who stand to lose are the people who have large investments in current, inefficient technologies.

          That'd be most transportation, utility, and manufacturing companies. And the effect of "losing" is that the cost of production of their goods goes up during the changeover to cleaner production methods. That means that everyone is paying more - a lot more - for the same goods they bought last year, without a corresponding increase in wages. Sales decrease, so profits decrease, so people lose jobs.

          All that "extra money" goes into producing equipment that doesn't add anything to the growth of the economy, unless the new methods of production also happen to be more efficient cost-wise (which they aren't, and I think that's the failing in your logic - "cleaner" and "more efficient" don't overlap given technology today, while you were assuming they do).

          If, as you say, "an aggressive move to energy efficient technologies would create new jobs and growth, and would lower operating costs," then why aren't developing nations jumping at the opportunity to create this new growth? The reason the US didn't sign Kyoto is because developing nations were made exempt from the conditions of the treaty. They were made exempt because they were viewed as being less able to afford such changes. That flies in the face of your statement that changing technologies is a boon to a nation's economy.

          They sure do, because the message we are sending right now is that we want to limit them while continuing our wasteful energy use, since our negotiating position is to use our current, wasteful usage as the basis for future budgets. I suspect developing nations would easily agree to a uniform global per-capita energy and fossil fuel budget.

          Of course they would, because it uses a faulty metric that's in their benefit. A better measure of what's being done with one's energy consumption isn't per-capita, it's per-dollar-GDP. With that measure, the US is far more efficient than (for example) China and India, whose ability to claim decent per-capita energy consumption is entirely due to the tremendous difference between their urban middle and upper classes and their gigantic rural farming lower class.

          Furthermore, if you think you can't "afford" that level of change, what do you think loss of what is probably going to be 50% of the currently inhabited area of the US is going to do to quality of life? Because that's what's going to happen if the trend continues.

          The US eastern seaboard isn't just going to roll off into the ocean all in one day, any more than the US is going to switch to nuclear power all in one day. What's more, it's unlikely that, if coastal flooding is going to occur, the US can do anything to stop it. A possible solution is to slowly begin encouraging people to move their homes and businesses inland (we have a lot of space), while building a newer energy infrastructure (nuclear power) as we make that move. The key here is slowly. As long as things are done gradually, the new jobs created by such a program won't be completely swamped by the jobs lost from suddenly shutting off the old infrastructure.

        • Let Me Educate You (Why Kyoto Sucks and The US OK) (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Doug Dante ( 22218 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @10:13AM (#13427017)
          "There is not an iota of evidence that reducing carbon emissions would lead to a depression."

          See late 1970s stag-flation in the United States.

          Wikipedia will help you understand:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation [wikipedia.org]

          Oil, like food and land, is a critical component of today's economy.

          It's less critical than it was (as measured by carbon intensity), but it's still important.

          http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/trends.html [doe.gov]

          That's not to say that we can't do more to reduce carbon emissions, but with temperatures falling in some places, there is still some wiggle room vis-a-vis global warming and human causation:

          http://michiganimc.org/usermedia/image/2/large/Cli mateGraphAnnArborSourceStateOfFearByMichealChricht on.jpg [michiganimc.org]

          But, given that many in the international community want more action from the United States on this issue, and in general there is distaste everywhere for dumping tons of waste into the atmosphere, there is some room for hope, including the North Eastern United States pact on emissions:

          http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/nyregion/25air.h tml [nytimes.com]

          As well as a similar plan for the Pacific costal states of California, Oregon, and Washington also in the works.

          http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116 &subsecID=900039&contentID=252175 [ppionline.org]

          In general, there is a self righteous feeling amongst non-Americans (especially from pro Kyoto treaty Europeans), but keep in mind please that very few European nations are even meeting their Kyoto targets:

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12 374,1098635,00.html [guardian.co.uk]

          Those nations that are meeting the targets are in deep recessions (including Russia):

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3702640.stm [bbc.co.uk]

          Kyoto is a 'first step', but many nations supporting that first step aren't actually taking it, making it "a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." [Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5]

          The real key is reducing our economic carbon intensity (generating more money with fewer carbon emissions). We in the United States are already doing that quite well.

          Can we move faster? Yes. And we will, if by hook and crook, including regional emissions limitations, higher international oil prices, and a general shift in our economy away from manufacturing and oil consumption.

          But arrogant attitudes about 'excuses and misinformation' miss the real point.

    • No Problem, really. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 )
      GWB will simply cut more high-end taxes, make the high-end deathtax cut(but with subsequent increase on the middle class increase) permanent, and pay 50B to Halliburton to rebuild the dikes in New Orleans, and then to drain it. Problem solved.

    • Re:Global Warming (Score:5, Funny)

      by TekPolitik ( 147802 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:41PM (#13424369) Journal
      or is that evulushun

      No, that's "evil-you-shun". It's obvious really. Evil-you-shun is the work of the devil and was actually devised by al-Quaeda to steer God-fearing Southern Baptist Americans away from their faith. Have you looked at pictures of Charles Darwin and Osama bin-Laden? The beard is a dead giveaway. Plus, have you ever seen them in the same place twice? Think about it.

      And of course when faced with evil-you-shun, then as a God-fearing American (and let's face it, if you're not God-fearing you have no business being an American), you'd darned well better shun it.

    • Re:Global Warming (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jim_Callahan ( 831353 )
      Yeah, I know. Damn that global warming, life was much better in the south before we had hurricanes...



      ... I wonder if the sarcasm will sink in, or will i recieve an inappropriate mod like parent? I'm thinking 'informative', how about you guys?
    • Well, IF we lose the ice caps, which is entirely plausible, and IF the gulf stream doesn't turn off producing an ice age, then you could see the sea level rise by quite a bit. They were saying one foot over the next century, but some wit here on Slashdot pointed out that the mass of ice on Greenland alone would increase the surface level by 42 feet or so. I don't know if I buy THAT, but let's have some fun with it anyway.

      I live in upstate New York, at 210 feet above sea level (God, I love the Catskills!). B

  • Walk Like A Penguin... (Score:4, Funny)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @10:49PM (#13424080)
    As the escaped penguins in Madagascar said when reaching the wind-blown South Pole, "This sucks!"
  • I guess I can stop packing my bags.

  • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Wait for it.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MrDyrden ( 833392 )
    Queue up the crazy Republicans claiming global warming doesnt exist in 3.... 2.... 1....

    • Re:Wait for it.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by toddbu ( 748790 )
      I haven't met too many people who doubt that there is some warming happening. The debate is the cause and the severity. It's not unreasonable to ask those hard questions before dedicating resources to fix it. After all, wouldn't you prefer that we apply our limited resources in the best possible fashion?

    • Re:Wait for it.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by BigDogCH ( 760290 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:48PM (#13424403) Journal
      Global warming doesn't exist. There is a lot of evidence that proves it doesn't.

      1. It was colder than average at my house for 2 days last week.

      2. The planet is supposed to get warmer and colder, it is natural. Just look at the tropical fossils and dinosaur bones in Canada. The temperature changes are natural.

      3. Man has only been on this planet for 10,000 years, it says so in the bible. This means the scientific data uncovered about earths climate is wrong. It was probably planted by the devil.

      4. It has been cloudy for 2 weeks, how can it be warming with no sun?

      5. Doesn't ice expand when it freezes, so melting would lower the sea level right?

      6. I have a paintball gun, powered by C02. That stuff is cold! How could it warm the planet?

      7. We can't be sure the planet is getting warmer simply because the measurements say it is. Don't cloud the issue with facts.

      8. If there is soo much C02 around, then why are my garden plants dead? The extra C02 should make them grow fast. I only got 4 cuekes this year.

      9. How can the planet be getting so much warmer when more and more of the world now has air conditioning?

      10. If the planet was getting that much warmer, we would see a consistant rise in the stock price of anti-perspirant companies. Us overweight americans are using less deodorant than ever!

  • HA! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Lucractius ( 649116 )
    I predict that with the increasing trend of global climate change ( note, not global warming which is a stupid idea that only works in theory ) the arctic will freeze solid!

    Warm surface currents will be disrupted by increased higher lattitude heating and this will cause lower warm water circulation to the Arctic and during winter when no solar radiation is possible to provide other warming. The pole will be colder than ever.

    In other news... MIT launched a course in advanced FUD studies for their bui

  • Maybe yes, maybe no (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    www.climateark.org/articles/1999/sunsmayp.htm

    The above link is one of the many sites that have for a long time been casting doubt on global warming. It appears that sunspots may have the strongest effect on the planet's climate.

    Didn't we just have a bet between two groups of scientists about the climate being cooler in twenty years. I remember that in the seventies we were worried about global cooling.
    • I have heard the same info from a someone at the Marshall Space Flight Center. This is a good comment and deserves a little recognition.

    • MOD Parent DOWN, Please (Score:4, Informative)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:33PM (#13424328) Journal
      Even in the article title it says "Sunspots may play role in global warming". How the h*$$ did you get that this article is casting doubt on global warming? It flat out states that global warming is occurring, but with possible influence from the sun. But nowhere does it say that global is not occurring.

      What is sick is not that you were modded up, but that somebody on fox is reporting exactly what you are saying.

    • Sunspots. Suppose solar output changes (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @02:39AM (#13425188) Journal
      Crank up the sun a notch or two. Take temperature readings.

      Will you see higher daytime temperature, higher nighttime temperatures, or both but with daytime predominating?

      Common sense tells you the same thing that math would tell you. The sun warms us up in the daytime.

      Now try a different thought experiment. Imagine that someone's changed your atmosphere so that it insulates better against heat radiating into space. Will you see daytime temperatures go up more, or nighttime temperatures go up more?

      That's right -- you'd see more change in nighttime temperatures.

      Guess what we're seeing in contemporary measurements?

  • Greenland is the problem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As others have pointed out the ocean levels won't rise from the Artic ice cap melting but the greenland glaciers melting will raise it by several feet. Glacierial ice is the big risk. Just the fact any of it is melting should a massive wake up call. Obviously the scary one woulf be the Anartic glaciers melting but that seems unlikely anytime soon. I beileve that would raise levels a 150 to 200 feet. More than enough to make Florida disappear entirely.

  • the real problem ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by TheSmokingMan666 ( 659521 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @10:59PM (#13424141)
    I think the real problem is when the weather swings the other way and we're all huddled round the nearest space heater and claiming the global cooling researchers are full of it.

  • How about? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaedalusLogic ( 449896 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:00PM (#13424144)
    Solar activity cycles? I heard a scientist from NASA say that we are on the high end of a cycle of solar output. In 100 years it is just as likely that we'll be on the low end of solar output.

    I heard, (hearsay evidence, so check it out for yourself.) that their are paintings made in Holland from a few hundred years ago that show people ice skating on a river that doesn't freeze over now. That river was also never depicted as having frozen over before those paintings were made.

    There are many variables that effect our environment. While we make an impact, and we should strive to lessen our impact... One scientists study... or a group of scientists work... should be taken with a grain of salt.

  • Bush (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jozer99 ( 693146 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:00PM (#13424145)
    Bush, acting without the approval of his cabinet or advisors, pledged 100,000 GE air condititioners to recool the region. Go ahead, mod me -1. I dare you!
  • The bad news: It's another alarmist article on Slashdot.

    The good news: This one isn't on Google. [slashdot.org]

    In all seriousness, I hope that this doesn't happen. I'm kind of fond of the climates we've got now.

  • Rising sea-levels? (Score:3)

    by Eightyford ( 893696 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:01PM (#13424152) Homepage
    Someone has already explained that the arctic icecaps will have little effect on sea-levels because floating ice displaces exactly it's volume of water. But I have heard (and correct me if I'm wrong here) that the rising temperatures could have a huge effect on sea levels, because as the water heats it expands a little. Multiply that by a gajillion times and you'll see venice sinking quicker than a lead zeppelin!
    • Humidity is measured as "relative humidity". That is because warmer air can hold more water in it. If the global temperature were to rise, the amount of water in the air (think clouds) will go up. Is this more or less than the expansion of the water in the oceans?

      So there is a chance that the oceans could stay level or even go down as the global temperature rises.

  • Old News Up North (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Quirk ( 36086 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:01PM (#13424153) Homepage Journal
    In Canada we've had various reports suggesting the coming of ice free summers in the Artic. Inuit have reported seein grasshoppers in the sub Artic, previously grasshoppers have never been seen in the far north.

    The most conspicuous signs are the recent claim by the U.S. that the North West Passage constitutes international waters, followed by Canada and Russia both claiming sovereignty over their respective northern lands to the North Pole. The U.S. commercial interests would be well served by having open shipping across the north during the summer months. This summer the Canadian Navy sailed into Hudson Bay to fly the flag.

    Personally I think the Canadian north in summer is adequately protected from intrusion by mosquitos and black flies in numbers not even a google plex could account for, and they're really big too.

  • lol, where's the FUD-fallacy touters? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Vthornheart ( 745224 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:02PM (#13424163)
    Hmm, I was certain that there'd be a healthy (er, unhealthy) amount of people ignorantly crying "FUD!" by now... they remind me of Eddie Izzard's comedy routine about how Britain ignored the rest of Europe... "No, no, no I can't! (sticks fingers in ears) la la la la la la la la!"

  • Investiment Opportunities (Score:4, Insightful)

    by truckaxle ( 883149 ) * on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:04PM (#13424170) Homepage
    Global warming is here. There are those who will attempt to disagree but the evidence is growing [nature.com].

    So the question is how to strategically pick investments that will pay off with the trend. Sounds greedy and selfish but the tragedy of the commons [dieoff.org] will not be denied. So ideas

    • Short ski resort stocks in fringe areas.
    • Short insurance companies since hurricanes [noaa.gov] will tend to be more prevasive
    • Short northern europe in general since the gulf stream will cool the area

    • Buy energy stocks as more energy will be required to cool and heat with more temperature extremes
    • Buy Wind, Wave, Solar, Nuclear energy stocks as the public will eventually demand more emphasis on non-green house gas sources.
    Any other ideas?





    Firefox users get Hot Sauce [sammcgees.com] at a discount.

  • Que the global warming rants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:05PM (#13424180) Journal
    People are going to say that it's possible that global warming isn't a result of us humans and that it's a natural cycle of the planet. You're right, it might be a natural cycle of the planet, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Nature has killed off 90% of the ecosystem in the past (Permian to Triassic period). That aint exactly a good thing people.

    And even though there's the possiblity (I won't go into how likely it is) that it's natural, shouldn't we do our best to counteract it's effects as much as possible? Even if it is natural? Because if it isn't, we might have a really big problem on our hands.

    Or we can play the blame game, and argue whether it's man's fault or nature's fault, and possibly not pass on a liveable planet to our future children.

    • exactly (Score:3, Interesting)

      by circletimessquare ( 444983 )
      the whole "it's natural" versus "it's manmade" discussion is pedantic and boring

      we can seed the oceans with iron and suck out carbon dioxide

      and we can belch out enough burning whatever and push in carbon dioxide

      the point: stop talking about blame, start talking about controlling the thermostat

      if hurricane katrina in new orleans right now isn't argument that people should control the environment for the sake of:
      1. the economy
      2. the population
      3. the environment
      4. the ecosystem
      i don't know what the heck is

      the

    • Re:Que the global warming rants (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RexRhino ( 769423 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @01:23AM (#13424856)
      The catch is what you mean by "shouldn't we do our best to counteract it's effects as much as possible?".

      When people say "shouldn't we do something to stop it?", they really mean "shouldn't we give the government vast new expanded powers to regulate society, because only the government authority is efficient and trustworthy enough to solve the problem of pollution". The concept of massive government regulation and central-planning are implicit in what you are saying, because absolutly no-one of any political persuation wants to stop people from voluntarily acting to stop global warming.

      If someone doesn't support the Patriot Act, or G. W. Bush's "War on Terror", that doesn't mean they are a terrorist or support terrorism. It means that: A) They don't think the Patriot Act or the G. W. Bush's "War on Terror" is an effective policy in combating terrorism and/or B) They feel the solution to the problem is worse than the problem itself (i.e. bombing cities, government servialence without a warrent, etc., are actually worse than the terrorist acts they are meant to stop).

      When G. W. Bush and right-wing totalitarians stir up sensationalism and fear of an "impending terrorist nuclear attack", they are provoking an emotional response in order to get people to agree to expanded government powers they would normaly be skeptical about. And to squeltch any sort of debate about what we should do about a very real terrorist threat... When people say "shouldn't we do out best to stop terrorism as best as possible" , there is a hidden assumption that there is only one succesful way to combat terrorism, and that anyone who doesn't support it supports terrorism.

      And the same thing is true about the left-wing totalitarians. It is clear that global warming is going to be a problem, and by sensationalistic fear-mongering about "impending ecological disaster", they can try to get people out of fear and desperation to agree to expanded government regulation and control of the economy. Instead of having a serious debate about what we should do to reverse global warming... central-planning and top-down government control is presented as the "only solution", and anyone who disagrees with those policies is an "eco-terrorist".

      If the so-called enviornmentalists really want to do something about global-warming, they are going to have to stop using global-warming and the enviornment as a pretense for promoting their political, economic, and social agenda. No sane person on the planet wants to wait around for the enviornment to be destroyed. But when the only solution presented to us is totalitarianism (or at least what we percieve to be totalitarianism), you are naturally going to have the resistance and skepticism you see from many people on slashdot. We can read the assumptions in your statements, and those make us very worried.

      • Re:Que the global warming rants (Score:4, Insightful)

        by shani ( 1674 ) <shane@time-travellers.org> on Monday August 29, 2005 @09:09AM (#13426576) Homepage
        When people say "shouldn't we do something to stop it?", they really mean "shouldn't we give the government vast new expanded powers to regulate society, because only the government authority is efficient and trustworthy enough to solve the problem of pollution". The concept of massive government regulation and central-planning are implicit in what you are saying, because absolutly no-one of any political persuation wants to stop people from voluntarily acting to stop global warming.

        Government does, and should, have a role in regulating markets. For instance, the government is responsible for labeling laws, and establishing standards measurements, and (more recently) in mandating industry use best common practices for accounting.

        Even the most pro-HMV, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-public education Republican would not argue against this. The question is rather what the best role of the government is in the market.

        One obvious way to influence the market is to apply the CAFE standards to all cars bought and sold, rather than exclude pickup trucks and SUV's. And in fact, the Bush administration has just last week proposed something like this, although of course in a very slight way designed not to upset major campaign donors at major car-building corporations.

        The government can also shift spending away from projects that will encourage greenhouse emission, such as building new highways, to things like providing real alternatives to the car. This does not necessarily mean spending more money, but rather to spend it differently.

        A third (and probably most important) way that the government can help is to fund basic (and applied) research to help minimise the demand for CO2-emitting fuel sources. Most likely this will mean research into nuclear power - cleaner, cheaper fission plants in the medium-term, and fusion plants in the long term. Government-funded research is necessary for technologies that have no hope to be profitable in a decade or two. Companies need to make money!
      • What you say is partly true and partly ridiculous. Parent poster does not make any specific appeal to government. Individuals can certainly do their part without government nosing in to reduce, reuse, and recycle (although the latter of which probably implies some amount of government and industrial cooperation). Taken from a purely free market point of view, natural economic forces should push consumers to do the right thing, correct? In my opinion these natural costs have in many cases been "extern
      • When people say "shouldn't we do something to stop it?", they really mean "shouldn't we give the government vast new expanded powers to regulate society, because only the government authority is efficient and trustworthy enough to solve the problem of pollution". The concept of massive government regulation and central-planning are implicit in what you are saying, because absolutly no-one of any political persuation wants to stop people from voluntarily acting to stop global warming.

        Why must it be solved

    • Re:Que the global warming rants (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gulthek ( 12570 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @01:40PM (#13428767) Homepage Journal
      Are you suggesting that we, on a human scale, could do something to affect ecosystem change on a planetary level? Ha!

      The planet will always be liveable, but it may not be liveable for us.

      In fact, all macroscopic life is something of an evolutionary quirk. This planet (and probably any life supporting planet) truly belongs, and will always belong, to the microscopic. Nothing's meeker than bacteria.

      Did you know that the fact that Earth has ice at _both_ polar ice caps is an anomoly in its history?

      Did you know that Antarctica apparently supported green forests as recently as three million years ago (after the continent was over the south pole)?

      Did you know that we live in a remarkably stable period in Earth's climactic history. From ice core samplings we have readings that show _incredibly_ fast fluctation in temperature and we have no idea _what_ could possibly affect the planetary temperature so quickly?

      There's a lot we know, but tons more that we don't and it's arrogant to believe that we affect the planet on anything more than a small scale.

      Sure the small scale is huge to us and has great implications for our (and that of other macroscopic life) continued health and survival. But the planet is fine.
  • I have read that Mars is also going througn a period of glabal warming right now. If that is the case the only thing that affects both mars and the earth is the Sun. So more than likely that this is a issue with the sun putting out more energy now than it has in the recent past and this too will probally right itself with the sun cooling down in the next couple of hundred years.

  • When I saw the title "Ice-free summers coming to the Arctic", the first thing that came to my mind was...

    • Sugar-free gum
    • "I can't believe it is not butter"
    • decaf
    • ...
    • Ice-free Arctic (summers at least)

    The next century is taking this trend a bit too far, don't you think :-)

  • Sell your arctic shares now! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by toddhunter ( 659837 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:21PM (#13424258)
    Scientists can say that global warming is happening. Fair enough, they probably know their stuff.
    What they can't say is *why* it is happening, and what if anything we can or should do about it. Who is to say in trying to reduce the effect we won't speed it up or make it worse?
    Which isn't to say that we shouldn't study or try to understand it, but headings like this one don't help. What we need is properly funded research and a good sit down and think about it without trying to raise money and further careers through fud .

  • Orwell's question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jet_silver ( 27654 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:46PM (#13424394)
    George Orwell mentioned in a column (http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O /OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19441103.html [newcastle.edu.au]) that melons grew freely in England between 1600 and 1650, and asks whether the climate could have changed that much in three hundred years since they wouldn't do that in 1944.

    We might be returning to the way things were, instead of having an Unprecedented Catastrophe.

  • Don't you mean Intelligent Thermal Control? (Score:3, Funny)

    by guidryp ( 702488 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @12:04AM (#13424494)
    Clearly this process is currently beyond ability to predict, so this is an adjustment, not a warming.

    Furthermore, this process is too complex to be naturally occuring, so some intelligent hand must be guiding the temperature changes.

    I really think they should be teaching Intelligent Thermal Control as an alternate theory is school science classes.

  • Prehistoric change in sea level (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Conanymous Award ( 597667 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @04:03AM (#13425494)
    Something I don't understand about the people arguing that sea levels won't rise when the temperatures of the earth's atmosphere rises, is that they are completely ignoring historical evidence. We have a bullet-proof geological record that shows the sea level going back and forth all through the history of our planet, and that the water has been up high when the atmosphere has been warm, down when it has been cold. Is it the continental ice? Volume changes of the water because of changes in temperature? Salinity? We can't be 100% sure, but there sure aren't many other possibilities to explain the changes.

    Melting icebergs may not be the major factor, but continental ice sure as hell must be.

  • is jumping natural? (Score:3, Funny)

    by djdead ( 135363 ) <seth@ w e n c hel.com> on Monday August 29, 2005 @07:21AM (#13426093)
    What about world jump day? [worldjumpday.org] all that is neeeded is for 600,000,000 people to jump at the same time in july of next and we can fix global warming. check it out and sign up!

  • Buy that Nunavet beachfront now (Score:3, Funny)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Monday August 29, 2005 @09:52AM (#13426856)
    Could be the "Cancun" of 2020 at the rate things are changing!

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close