Global Warming - From Inside the Globe 334
Bill Kendrick writes "The National Post reports that a team of American and Canadian researchers has found evidence of real global warming: the temperature of the Earth's crust is increasing at a remarkable rate. What's really interesting is that heat absorbed by rocks slowly permeates into the earth. By boring holes in the ground, they can tell how hot the earth was years ago, in a 'reading tree rings' fashion."
Oh god, not again (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:3, Informative)
To some extent that is true, post hoc ergo propter hoc and all that. But if you look at the article more closely, they mention that, and I quote..
"...The warming is most pronounced in northern latitudes, Dr. Beltrami says. On Ellesmere Island and in Alaska, ground temperatures are four to five degrees higher than they were in 1500. The rise is having a significant effect on permafrost, turning some northern areas that were once perpetually frozen into "several metres of muck," he says...."
Surely, this can't all be entirely due to the slow seething disturbances down below. I think humanity, especially post-Industrial Revolution generations have to take some quarter of the blame. It may of course be, that since the earth isn't entirely spherical and the poles are closer to the centre, they tend to get warmer "faster".
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:5, Informative)
Well, duh, ever hear of the Little Ice Age? Circa 1400 to 1800, give or take a half century. Prior to that (about 1000 to 1300), temperatures were warmer than they are today. In England farmers raised wine grapes, the Norse had dairy farms in Greenland.
Climate change happens. Ten thousand years ago a good part of North America (and Europe) was under a mile of ice. I suppose humans take the blame for melting that?
Get a grip.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:5, Informative)
"Dr. Beltrami and his colleagues from the University of Michigan found that more than half of the land's heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century, and 30% since 1950."
Try to keep an open mind.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh really? That contradicts existing information to-date, and doesn't speak about what has happened in the last 23 years that we have a satellite temperature record for (and that shows no warming whatsoever).
Fact is, there is no proof of human-caused global warming. Not even a correlation. And as mentioned above, the climate warms and gets cooler. It's part of a natural cycle.
Those that believe that humans are causing global warming fit into the same group of people that, hundreds of years ago, thought you'd fall off the edge of the world if you sailed too far and that the sun circled the earth--both very "human-centric" ways of thinking. They had no proof of either, but it was a part of popular culture nonetheless and to suggest the world was round was considered rediculous.
Likewise today, global warming is a part of popular culture. Like before, it elevates the importance of man in the universe (or on the planet, in this case) and gives them a self-important feeling, as if man can cause or prevent the next ice age or global warming. Of course, there's absolutely no proof of this--but to suggest otherwise is often rediculed by popular culture.
Earth changed constantly over billions of years before the global warming club appeared. They definitely need to get a grip on reality and realize that the world--not even the environment--revolves around humans.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that humankind has a definite effect on the environment is an established fact. The only people who don't believe it are the scientifically illiterate, and those who are so invested in ideology that they just can't believe in it.
Earth changed constantly over billions of years before the global warming club appeared. They definitely need to get a grip on reality and realize that the world--not even the environment--revolves around humans.
This makes no sense, yet it appears on every global warming story. Non-human factors can effect global climate, therefore human factors never will be able to. Do you see how silly the argument is? There's a huge difference between "A can affect B" and "A and only A can affect B".
The scientists say there's global warming. The business world says there isn't. Now who should we believe? The scientists, or the people who benefit financially from saying there isn't?
Fine, you say, there's global warming, but it can't be industry (again, because there wasn't industry in the past; it still makes no sense). What exactly do you think happens to all the CO2 and other pollutants we pump into the atmosphere? They just disappear? Well we see one effect already in acid rain (or do you think that's a myth, too?) Again, proof that humanity can indeed cause large-scale adverse climate change.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be The Scientists, (you know, just like The Man, Them, and Big Business)?
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Just spend a few minutes browsing the oism site and the IPCC site and you'll see who knows what. One site is full of scientific studies and rich in information the other is a right wing propaganda site.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Sorry, due to the potential seriousness of the threat, the burden of proof is on you. I'll follow the prepondence of evidence.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Look I make a simple point the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" is a right wing FUD organization (er I mean a thinktank). It is funded by right wing groups and it's purpose is to try and discredit global warming and indeed fight every piece of environmental law that might cost it's sugar daddies some money. That point is pretty much indisputable. Go read their front page.
What I find very amusing is the republican line has changed. For a long time they denied global warming existed at all. I remember a couple of years ago conservative press kept harping about how it was all a lie. Now they have changed their story. They seem to vaccilate between. "Global warming exists but it's not our fault" and "Global warming exists but it's good for you!". I guess when nobody believed their first lie they had to make up new ones.
Hrm. (Score:3, Insightful)
The number of "sciantists" who sign an online petition isn't proof of anything.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, but I don't personally benefit from global warming being true. Actually, I suffer from it. I would LOVE global warming to be a myth; I live in a coastal city, and don't really WANT it to be under water in a few decades.
And I didn't have an opinion one way or the other until I went to college and started taking courses in climatology/metereology. Despite the right-wing FUD, climate is monitored very closely, and there is ample evidence that many climatic factors have anthropogenic sources.
Actualy your wrong. (Score:2)
Yeh, it's possible that global warming isn't happening or isn't caused by humans, but if you look at all the data rather then a few slashdot posts or propaganda from one side or the other, it's pretty clear that the earth is getting warmer, and has been recently, and that there's a resonable chance that we might be causing it.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
But then, neither the Gaians nor the Ostriches are ever interested in actual *scientific investigation*. They're already convinced that what they say is true, just because they say it.
Which gives them quite a bit in common with institutionalized megalomaniacs.
Max
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
I wish you would, because some possible affects of global warming would be:
1. Increased evaporation from the oceans due to increased temperature.
2. Increased clouds due to the evaporation.
3. Increased rainfall over the poles where it would freeze and become ice (since, even at a degree or two warmer, the poles are still below freezing).
4. Increased rainfall over land, perhaps turning deserts into agricultural centers and feeding millions of people in Africa.
but I think it suffices to say that more people could be displaced from their homes than all of the people who have lived and died in the entire history of the world.
Hahah, I'd like you to re-read that statement. It's a logically impossible.
Nevertheless, if you are suggesting that sea level would rise, probably the opposite is true. Increased evaporation over the oceans would fall, in part, over the poles and freeze. Global warming could actually cause a decrease in sea level. The only displacement would be those moving to get closer to the receeding beach.
Now, don't you think it is important to study something that could have this effect? To try to figure out whether or not it's happening, and if so, how quickly, and how far it's likely to go?
I'm in favor of study. That's science and a good thing.
I'm 100% opposed to making anything but minor adjustments to our policies, societies, and ecomomies until such study is finished conclusively.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Hahah, I'd like you to re-read that statement. It's a logically impossible.
Perhaps I should have put parentheses in. "... than all those people who have (lived and died) in the history of the earth". Not all of the people who have lived plus all of the people who have died. And I don't think it takes much of a sea level rise to accomplish this.
As far as changing policy before firm conclusions are reached, I think you would do well to consider the expected return. Say scientists are studying something, and they have some preliminary results saying that if we continue on our current course of action, there's a 50% chance something catastrophic will happen, but they won't be certain until they've done another 20 years of study, by which time said catastrophe might be too late to avert. Do you insist on waiting for the final, conculsive results?
Well, that depends on the cost of changing the course of action. If it's less than half of the cost of the catastrophe, we should probably start making changes now.
I'm not saying that this is the real situation, just that your stance on conclusivity of studies probably isn't as flexible as it ought to be.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Assuming sea level rises. Which it might not. And even if it does, so what? Are we so arrogant as to think that the world will always look exactly as it is? Nothing is forever. Not even Los Angeles.
Say scientists are studying something, and they have some preliminary results saying that if we continue on our current course of action, there's a 50% chance something catastrophic will happen, but they won't be certain until they've done another 20 years of study, by which time said catastrophe might be too late to avert. Do you insist on waiting for the final, conculsive results?
If the results were even 10% conclusive I'd say we ought to take some action. But we're far from even 10% sure that humans are causing any affect whatsoever on global warming.
Even so, I might backtrack on that because I'm not sure that we know that a rising sea level would be a bad thing. Just because people have to relocate doesn't mean, 200 years from now, the earth won't be a better place because of that.
There are too many variables. There's no proof that there is ongoing global warming. If there is global warming, there's no proof that humans are a significant cause of it. If there is global warming and we are causing it, there's no proof that it will bring major changes to the earth. If it does bring major changes to the earth, there's no proof that those changes will be bad in anything but the shortest-term.
So... given so much uncertainty, no, I'm not yet ready to take any significant action to address it.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2, Troll)
The Artic (North pole) is NOT frozen all year round, and the time that it is 'defrosted' has been increasing over the last few years which is causing all sorts of problems for polar bears which depend on the ice for their hunting.
Your little tale about all the wonderful changes global warming will bring is a pipe dream. No one knows for sure what will happen if the Earth warms up a few degrees. The main thing is that there will be MORE ENERGY. More energy means bigger storms, more 'extreme weather events'. From what I've read, global warming will make some parts of the world more pleasant, but it will make just as many places much less pleasant:
The weather is too complicated to predict with any great accuracy, so all this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
So, I guess the people alive yesterday aren't part of the people who have ever lived.
Interesting. Just when does history start?
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Where did you get that info - how do they know how many people have been born in ALL of time?
seriously. how?
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Perhaps, but no more so than many of the pipe dreams (or nightmares) offered by some environmentalists.
From what I've read, global warming will make some parts of the world more pleasant, but it will make just as many places much less pleasant
As you said earlier in your post ("No one knows for sure what will happen if the Earth warms up a few degrees."), no-one really knows. So what you've read is just as much speculation as what I posted, but...
USA Midewest will become a dust bowl
I tend to think this is mostly to frighten the United States popultaion. The fact is, the Rocky Mountains that run through the middle of both our countries is what causes rain to fall across the U.S. midwest. Increased temperature (and thus increased ocean evaporation and clouds) will tend to cause more rain the U.S. Midwest, not less.
Unless the Rocky Mountains disappear I don't think there is much of a risk to the U.S. Midwest. Of course, global warming might melt the Rockies...
Northern Europe will actually get cooler (due to a cold artic current not running as deep in the warmer water)
I'm not informed about this point, although I'd be curious to know how much colder they'd expect it to be and what affect that would really have. Northern Europe (if we're talking Scandanavian countries) are already pretty cold.
More frequent large storms
Is that necessarily bad?
If enough ice melts, the oceans will rise
If the ice melts. While I am aware that the North Pole melts each year (my dad once spent a number of months near the North Pole on a scientific trip for the University of Washington and had pictures of the ice breaking up when they abandoned their camp), that is not the case with the South Pole.
The weather is too complicated to predict with any great accuracy, so all this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Agreed, completely. But that goes both ways and everything the environmentalists say needs to be taken with a grain of salt as well. Unfortunately, the media sensationalizes it and governments come up with drastic Protocols based on incomplete research. They've forgotten their grain of salt...
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Regardless of its basis in research, i, myself, wouldn't estimate we're quite at that point. 6 billion is a big number, but i think in all the thousands of years and thousands of civilizations, you could scrounge up 6 billion.
However I would like to know where you got your figure from. I'd be interesting to see some research on said subject. I'm just too tired to do it right now. Remind me in the morning.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate change happens. Ten thousand years ago a good part of North America (and Europe) was under a mile of ice. I suppose humans take the blame for melting that?
Oh, you people are so ridiculous, snatching at whatever random fact that appeals to your self-serving opinion. I remember a Christian Science lecturer once told me that the ice age is what allowed the animals from Noah's ark to walk across the ocean and settle on the various continents. I don't think your argument is that bad, but you're still being willfully ignorant.
Scientists believe that a number of factors contribute to large scale climate change:
1. The gradual warming of the sun.
2. The gradual cooling of the earth's core.
3. Large volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts, which pollute the atmosphere with dust.
4. The reflective nature of the polar ice.
5. The population cycles of plants and animals, which change the composition of the atmosphere.
6. The thinning of the ozone layer.
7. The bulldozing of the rainforest.
8. Commercial farming.
9. Atmospheric pollution.
10. Human power consumption.
So the fact that the first 5 elements have caused periodic climate change over the course of Earth's existance does not prove that the industrial revolution is not causing global warming. Furthermore, we have evidence that the effects of mankind are causing climate change to occur much faster than they were previously. On top of this, we have scientific models (based on chemistry and physics) which can accurately predict the warming trend. (We have the examples of the planets Mars and Venus, which provide further test vectors.)
This doesn't mean that there won't be little blips in the data. In fact, a volcanic eruption in the mid 90s caused a 2-3 year disruption in the warming trend (source: the Smithsonian Institute). In the past, large scale climate changes have caused the extinction of large numbers of species. So far, the temperature has always returned back to comfortable levels.
However, the danger of global warming is that several of these factors exist in an unstable equilibrium. As the Earth gets warmer, the polar ice melts. This causes the Earth to reflect less of the sun's energy and more of the ice melts. This results in a 'snowball' effect (to use an inappropriate term). Perhaps in the past, this runaway warming has been quenched by a catastrophic effect like a giant volcanic eruption. Therefore, the equilibrium would be unstable, but chaotic enough to always return to the balance point. There is no guarantee than man-made climate change will have the same effect. Some of the natural factors (e.g. the plant-animal arms race) have a buffering effect, which tends to restore the equilibrium. Man-made factors will get worse as the population increases; they may bias the controlling equations and cause the equilibrium to never be restored.
-a
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:3)
Can you provide a link? Last I checked we didn't even have a model that successfully modeled the increase at the beginning of the 20th century. And no model that takes into account the affect of solar variations and the affects of (ahem) clouds.
If modeling is really as good as you've suggested, I've apparently missed something and I'd very much like to see that model and educate myself.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Ocean currents. In particular, what turns them on and turns them off.
Does anyone have a model that explains the climatic changes that occurred when the Isthmus of Panama closed the gap between North and South America?
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, but a model has to work in all cases to be valid. As you can see they were pretty excited because in this one particular case they got it right. I.e., they were surprised because most of the time their models don't work.
The question is whether that model worked for climate change before and after that 2-year period that it supposedly got it right.
If I flip a coin enough times I'll eventually predict global climate change, too.
In any case, whether or not, they can model the Earth as a whole, I don't see how anyone can deny that they have the ability to model the effects of each factor individually, and those models should lead you to the same conclusions.
That's not true, either. They might be able to approximate affects of some factors, but until they can approximate everything that plays a factor then it is truly impossible to say how much a given factor will affect the whole.
I'm not saying they should stop trying to model. Just that right now the models don't tell us anything and they need to keep working on it.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
There's always the Nuclear Winter theory.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
While you are certainly welcome to your opinion, your post contributed nothing to the debate and only suggests that the opposing view should not have their say.
But thanks for playing.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Why not? Do you have some specific evidence to support your conjecture?
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Blame?! This isn't about blame! This is about credit! About how man can now affect the entire world with his technology. How we should be fearful of our own power. Wake up people! We aren't that good. Sure we're great at finding new ways to kill one another, but there isn't a damn thing we can do to permanently destroy planet Earth. Even if we set off every nuclear weapon on this planet, all you'd end up with is a lot of dead people. The earth would recover just fine thank you. Might be a little chilly for awhile, but all the radiation would be absorbed by abundant elements such as, oh I dunno, WATER!
So, enough of the "blame" bit. There is no "blame". The earth does its thing and we do ours. Oh, and try to watch less Captain Planet. Please?
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, a study was recently done which not only shows strong indications that global warming is in fact occuring (due to the influence of humans, take it with a grain of salt I suppose), but focuses on the potential short-term consequences of this trend.
The study, aired on the Disconvery Channel recently (someone *please* help me with a link, Google is failing me), was based on climate research done in Greenland (I believe). It started off with focusing on ice extracts which show the cooling and warming trends our planet has experienced since our last ice age. The odd result is that our planet may be headed for another major "chill", probably resulting from excess greenhouse gas emissions.
Here's how it works. The overall climate is strongly influenced by belts of airstreams which circulate in a somewhat slanted fashion around the globe. These belts serve as barriers between arctic-level cold systems and what we consider warm or temparate climates. The belts are held in place due to the differing densities of air (due to humidity factors). If you alter the density of the belt by either adding or removing enough humidity, the belt breaks down completely. This disrupts the system as a whole, with the probable outcome being that a large portion of the northern hemisphere is plunged back into ice age conditions.
It all stems from the introduction of too much fresh water into the system, something which can occur from glacial melting trends. As the water evaporates and begins to mix into the belt system, the potential for disruption occurs.
I view this largely as a system of checks and balances enforced in the natural environment. If the earth begins to warm excessively, the belt system breaks down and we're back to colder conditions. Even small changes in climate can have disastrous effects on critical industries such as agriculture, and the changes we're talking about aren't small at all.
Now, I'm not a "tree hugging environmentalist" by any stretch of the imagination. I *do* try to pay attention to new research as it surfaces, however, and weigh the individual factors associated with such. All in all, this is really just my 0.02 USD anyhow.
Once again, can someone find me a link to the research I've talked about here? The special (2 hours, I believe) aired only a few days ago. Thanks.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
The study, aired on the Disconvery Channel recently (someone *please* help me with a link, Google is failing me)...
I'm not a "tree hugging environmentalist" by any stretch of the imagination. I *do* try to pay attention to new research as it surfaces...
again, can someone find me a link to the research I've talked about here? The special (2 hours, I believe) aired only a few days ago. Thanks
Not to argue one way or the other... I just want to say that television like The Discovery Channel, TLC, etc. are probably the worst sources of "research" you can probably use because they aren't interested in science, they're interested in ratings.
Mind you, I'm not a climatologist, I'm coming from an entirely different field (anthropology) but a lot of what these channels show is absolute crap from the scientific perspective. They often show the most controversial, least accepted perspective being promoted by one or several people on the fringe and sell it as "the latest view" rather than as "the least-respected but maybe most sensational view" which is what they often really represent.
Of course, this isn't always the case... But be sure you're actually seeing "the latest research" in the peer-reviewed sense before you characterize it as such.
What's on Tonight (Score:2)
The X-Creatures
"Bigfoot and Yeti", Episode #3. Reports of Sasquatch sightings may lead scientists to a new breed of ape
Not sure just how "peer reviewed" this is ....
Doesn't say why... (Score:2)
Not to mention, the earth is much cooler than it was in the good old age of dinosaurs anyway. If you're REALLY a tree hugger, you want the earth warmer and the ice caps melted.
Turning much dry land into shallow ocean and swamp would be a good thing for earth life in total.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Does it really matter what causes it? I think most of us would agree that a warming Earth is undesirable just now, and to think that humans can affect the planet requires no leap of faith.
Shouldn't we be doing what we can to cool things down? If it so happens that we're not already warming the earth, wouldn't this still be a good time to start cooling it, before the Antarctic ice starts to flow into the sea?
I know that some people say that managing the greenhouse effect would hurt the economy too much. I don't buy it. Investment would go down in some areas, but it would go up in others, and I suspect that overall it would be a wash. But I think that more extreme weather events would lower the general quality of life around the world, and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't take steps to prevent that, whatever the cause.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
I disagree. I don't presume to know whether a warmer earth would be good or bad. That some people think they know so much as to really be able to have a clue on that shows more of their arrogance than their knowledge.
Fact is, a warmer earth would probably create more rain (due to increased evaporation over the oceans). The increase rain would probably end up falling, to some extent, on land. Perhaps it would green-up the desert south-west of the United States. Perhaps there would be more agriculture in what is now the Sahara desert in Africa. Perhaps there'd be more food and less starvation.
To assume that things would be worse in a warmer earth does require a leap of faith.
and to think that humans can affect the planet requires no leap of faith.
Actually, it does. Given the historical temperature variations of the earth over the last few centuries, millenium, or millions of year, it requires a leap of faith to actually think what is currently happening is anything more than a blip on the environmental cycle of the world.
Shouldn't we be doing what we can to cool things down?
Why? I'd rather have a slightly warmer earth with more rain and, presumably, more plants (due to a combination of increased rain and, according to the environmetnalists, increased CO2), than a North America covered with ice as has been the case in past ice ages.
We're already cooler than the historical average temeprature of the earth.
Heck, I'd rather we increase our global temperature to the average rather than cool things down into another ice age.
If it so happens that we're not already warming the earth, wouldn't this still be a good time to start cooling it, before the Antarctic ice starts to flow into the sea?
News flash: It's *COLD* in Antartica. So cold that, even if you increase the temperature a degree, it's still below freezing. Which means the ice doesn't melt.
Sure, there are pieces of ice falling off of ice shelves. So what? That's just part of the whole cycle. It doens't mean that it's due to global warming or that humans are causing it.
FWIW, it is actually entirely possible that increased global temperature would cause there to be more ice in Antartica, not less. Since there'd be more evaporation over the oceans, more rain would fall and proceed to freeze on Antartica.
I know that some people say that managing the greenhouse effect would hurt the economy too much. I don't buy it. Investment would go down in some areas, but it would go up in others
It would go down in sections of the economy that produce something and increase spending in areas that have no purpose other than to achieve those goals.
I.e.: It takes money from producing industry and gives it to environmentalists that produce nothing but regulations. Good idea.
But I think that more extreme weather events would lower the general quality of life around the world, and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't take steps to prevent that, whatever the cause.
See above. There's no reason to think that global warming would be bad for the earth. If there were twice as many hurricanes and tornadoes and twice as many deaths caused by them in the United States, but the Sahara desert turned into the most productive agricultural area of the world and was able to feed millions of people in Africa, do you really think that would be a bad thing?
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Fact is, a warmer earth would probably create more rain (due to increased evaporation over the oceans). The increase rain would probably end up falling, to some extent, on land. Perhaps it would green-up the desert south-west of the United States. Perhaps there would be more agriculture in what is now the Sahara desert in Africa. Perhaps there'd be more food and less starvation.
You're right; it's possible. It doesn't match any climate model which I've ever seen, but it's certainly true that when it comes to the climate nobody really knows. It seems like kind of a risky bet to me, but that's just me.
Actually, it does. Given the historical temperature variations of the earth over the last few centuries, millenium, or millions of year, it requires a leap of faith to actually think what is currently happening is anything more than a blip on the environmental cycle of the world.
Did you read I wrote? I even italicized the word ``can.'' I didn't say that humans necessarily are affecting the weather. Do you really believe that humans can not affect the global weather? It's a long term effort, obviously, but it seems clearly feasible to me.
News flash: It's *COLD* in Antartica. So cold that, even if you increase the temperature a degree, it's still below freezing. Which means the ice doesn't melt.
Thanks for the reminder. Ice does, of course, flow, even in Antarctica. I was referring to the possibility that as the pack ice melts, the ice on land could start sliding into the sea, leading to a gradual increase in the sea level.
It would go down in sections of the economy that produce something and increase spending in areas that have no purpose other than to achieve those goals.
I.e.: It takes money from producing industry and gives it to environmentalists that produce nothing but regulations. Good idea.
It's interesting that you think that environmentalists would make money from efforts to lower the global temperature. I'd be interested to hear how you think that could happen.
Changing the environment changes money flows, but it doesn't eliminate them. Using more solar energy means that money flows to the people who manufacture solar panels. Making household items more energy efficient leads to a lot more investment in several areas. It's easy to understand how specific industry segments would be hurt by climate change efforts, but it does not follow at all that the economy as a whole would be hurt.
Connect the dots (Score:2)
I will grant that we don't know how the earth will respond to being warmed. But to me, the danger of a situation is a combination of how bad the outcome could be, and how likely that outcome is. The outcome in this situation could be very bad. How likely is that outcome? Very. [nsidc.org]
Well, it dosn't hurt to be safe, does it? (Score:2)
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Precautionary Principle (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets look at the best and worse cases:
* Best case is that global warming is either not happening, or part of a self-limiting natural process and not any sort of problem. In this case, if we keep doing what we are doing (keep increasing emissions), we may be fine, and if we attempt to reduce our emissions, we go through some temporary hardship as we can't do all the things we are currently doing, but in the long run we are quite good at working around constraints.
* Worst case is that global warming is going to be a catastrophe, and we are playing a large part in causing it. In this case, keeping with our current course is a disaster, and we need to do what we can to try and reduce the level of the problem, or at least delay it to try and find some more options.
Looking at these, continuing our present course is a very large gamble with the whole ecosystem at stake, and attempting to reduce our impact on the problem might cause some real short-term hardship (particularly economic), but might also save us in the long term.
Given this, it seems clear to me that while we seek more knowledge and understanding about what is going on, we should play it safe, and try to clean up our act until it becomes clear whether what we are doing is a problem.
One version of the Precautionary Principle (http://www.biotech-info.net/rachels_586.html) states:
1. People have a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm. ("If you have a reasonable suspicion that something bad might be going to happen, you have an obligation to try to stop it.")
2. The burden of proof of harmlessness of a new technology, process, activity, or chemical lies with the proponents, not with the general public.
3. Before using a new technology, process, or chemical, or starting a new activity, people have an obligation to examine "a full range of alternatives" including the alternative of doing nothing.
4. Decisions applying the precautionary principle must be "open, informed, and democratic" and "must include affected parties."
I think this (particularly parts 1 and 4) applies to our situation - we have a reasonable suspicion (even if no 'proof' yet) that what we are doing may be harmful.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't know that. In fact, we know that in the last 23 years, for which there is a global satellite temperature record, there has been no noted warming whatsoever.
We're pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere - which is a closed system .
And the plants thank us for it and give us more oxygen in return.
Now, it's perfectly logical to draw a correlation between the two.
Well, assuming there was global warming (which there hasn't been at least in the last 23 years), the best you could do is try to draw a correlation.
Mind you, a correllation is not proof, not by a longshot.
There might be a correlation between the amount of farting going on due to there being more people on the earth, but you'd be hard pressed to conclude that the increased farting is causing global warming--even though a strong correlation may exist.
#1: we continue to pump billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment - If there is a correlation, we're killing our planet. If there is no correlation, nothing bad happens.
Again, bad assumption.
You assume that a rise in global temperatures is bad. We have no proof of that. It may cause more rainfall in Africa and allow that continent to actually feed itself. That'd be a good thing. Those that automatically believe that global warming would be bad are certainly over-estimating their own ability to know what is good and bad for this planet.
Also, BTW, there is no proof whatsoever to suggest that a rise in temperature will cause sea level to rise. In fact, there is plenty of information to suggestion the opposite--that an increase in temperature will cause more evaporation from the oceans, causing more clouds to rain upon Antartica, causing more ice to form and reducing the sea level somewhat.
#2: we stop pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment - if there is a correlation, nothing bad happens. If there is no correlation, nothing bad happens.
Nothing bad, except millions of unemployed people worldwide, increased poverty because poor countries aren't able to become industrialized, more unhealthy people in the world because people in industrialized countries will be thrown out of work and unable to get medical attention for themselves and, at the same time, rich countries will be harder pressed to export "free" health aid to third world countries.
If you don't care about the wellbeing of people, sure, nothing bad happens.
So from a risk management point of view, it would be pretty stupid to continue to pollute the planet. There is no reward if you're right, but we're all dead if you're wrong.
While I'm not pro-pollution, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of making drastic cuts to address an unproven theory at the cost of the health and wellbeing of millions--possibly billions--of people worldwide.
To suggest that "we're all dead if you're wrong" is extremist propaganda. If there was ever proof of what you're saying, believe me, countries and individuals would both be willing to make sacrifices. But neither countries nor persons, in general, are going to make that sacrifice to solve an unproven problem.
But by the time we WILL have reference, we'll all be dead if we are the cause. Therefore the only logical course of action is to stop.
Again, that's extremist environmentalist propaganda. Don't buy it without thinking.
The human race will change its ways before it kills itself. But it will only change its way if there is convincing evidence that there is not just a correlation between one, but a direct relationship. That evidence does not currently exist.
Re:Oh god, no that you could ever t again (Score:2)
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Well, assuming there was global warming (which there hasn't been at least in the last 23 years), the best you could do is try to draw a correlation.
Mind you, a correllation is not proof, not by a longshot.
Absolutely not. I personally favour the Global Co-incidence [satirewire.com] theory.
And I'm sure all right-thinking armchair scientists would agree with me
Michael
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:3, Informative)
Well, since you're apparently too lazy to use Google, I found this one from NASA [nasa.gov] for you.
In it you'll see that they mentioned the greatest affect on temperature changes seem to have been El Niño.
Anyway, read, learn, enjoy.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
Since you're too lazy to get the full story I also used google, check this [nature.com]. Or don't you trust Nature. And this [nap.edu] followup.
This myth has persisted for so long its amazing. The satellite data did not take into account the orbital decay of the sensor platforms.
Re:Oh god, not again (Score:2)
He's not thinking for himself. He's echoing the standard propaganda spewed by environmentalists; there's certainly no evidence he is thinking for himself and there's actually some doubt as to whether he's thinking logically.
The very fact that he believes there'd be "nothing bad" about making major cuts in CO2 without considering the affect on the wellbeing and health of humans (as a direct result of a worsening economy) shows that, at best, he is making logical conclusions based on half the information.
Expansion due to rising temps? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Expansion due to rising temps? (Score:2)
I doubt that a small change in temperature would have any significant effect on seismic activity. The real drivers for that are much deeper than this study is examining. It's pretty warm down there to begin with.
Re:Expansion due to rising temps? (Score:2)
Re:Expansion due to rising temps? (Score:2)
And I suppose "global" warming should be more appropriately called "atmospheric" warming.
Yes, and No-- age determination is iffy (Score:5, Insightful)
Bear in mind that, in science, there are two cases. "We use the standard assumption to derive this result" and "we find interesting results which show the standard assumption isn't correct." And yes, these two conflict.
Age determinations in particular are subject to this. One person's 'canonical age determination' is subject to revision once the inaccuracies of said canonical method become more numerous than not.
With core sample age determination, we're still in a period when the potential factors that make such a reading inaccurate, are often large enough to throw a wide error bar around the number (read as "enough to make the result suspect").
(Not picking on geo here, all observational science runs into this-- until you can do an experiment with controls, it's hard to figure. Astronomy is really whacked with this sort of thing.)
Re:Yes, and No-- age determination is iffy (Score:2)
Re:Yes, and No-- age determination is iffy (Score:2)
I'm not saying this is true for this particular case, nor that repeating measurements in general does not help reduce error ranges, just that it's not the *only* source of error that needs to be considered.
Re:Yes, and No-- age determination is iffy (Score:2)
The standard assumptions on radioactive decay? (Score:4, Interesting)
Dr. Beltrami says his method is better than not similar to measuring temperatures from tree rings. Here's a link to a talk he gave on this subject, [geophysics.stfx.ca] or in html courtesy of google. [google.com]
Unless I'm seriously mistaken, they date these samples from the abundance of radioisotopes.
So, the standard assumptions are-
1) The element in question is not being appreciably exchanged between the rock and it's environment.
2) The natural abundance of the element was the same in 1000 AD as in 1944 AD.
3) The exponential rate of decay of the isotope in question is constant.
These all seem like pretty safe assumptions to me - except, perhaps, for the 1st one. There are rocks (granite, say) for which little challenge has been raised to the first assumption.
What strikes me as strange is his model of how heat permeates the ground - which sounds strange to me, as a physical chemist. How did these upper layers of crust which are being "permeated" with surface heat get Cold in the first place? Their heat would have had to dissipate to something even colder beneath them, which in turn would have had to have cooled somehow, on down to the core which is clearly not cold. From his paper, I can't figure out what exactly it is that has been measured - the temperature of rocks buried X years ago and have been being buried deeper ever since? The temperature of rocks that would have reached thermal equilibrium with the surface of 500 years ago, based on some assumption about the rate of heat exchange through the intervening rock?
I know the cause of global warming (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I know the cause of global warming (Score:2)
Confused ??? (Score:2, Interesting)
but reading the entire thing says that rocks closer to the surface are warmer.. wich to me says its heating from the outside inwards
and would most (if not all rocks) from the 1950's still be visable? let alone burried?
Re:Confused ??? (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree. I personally believe (not based on research) that the temeprature of subsurface rock is going to be more affected by the core than it is by the surface temperature of the air.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the temperature of seismic activity was affecting the atmospheric temperature more than the atmospheric temperature was causing any major change to the temperature of surface rocks themselves.
but reading the entire thing says that rocks closer to the surface are warmer.. wich to me says its heating from the outside inwards
I think there has to be a middle point. If you go into any cave in the Mojave desert of California and are more than about a dozen feet below ground, believe me, you'll know that the surface temperature doesn't do much to the subsurface temperature. It gets downright cold.
But if you get to the core, it's hot. So I suppose it's kind of like a sine wave. It's hot at the top, gets cooler as you go down from the surface, and at some point gets hotter as you get closer to the magma that's down there somewhere.
and would most (if not all rocks) from the 1950's still be visable? let alone burried?
That's what I was wondering, too. Ok, perhaps his approach works. But I would think he'd be able to compare temperatures from hundreds of millions of years ago to perhaps millions of years ago. Anything that was on the surface even 500 years ago is either still on the surface or very close to it, except in a few exceptional cases (fault lines, volcanos, etc.).
You've GOT to be kidding me... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Tree Rings" are the result of bark cycles of the tree. This is *not* the same thing... We're talking about rock that has never seen the light of day... so we're talking about radiation permeating the surface and being stored there like a BATTERY...
What about temperature cycles? Can he "see" the great cold snap of '78?
What about dispersal patterns? Does radiation permeate equally?
And does that mean that the caves that have a constant temperature of ~60 degrees WERE the temperatures thousands of years ago?
What *we* do know... is that its science that makes for good press, politics, and money...
National Post is not reliable (Score:3, Informative)
PK
Re:National Post is not reliable (Score:4, Funny)
The National Post is not a reliable source of information.
Good thing Slashdot is here to give us unbiased journalism.
So what do we do about it? (Score:2, Interesting)
"That's what worries me the most," Dr. Beltrami says.
Ok, that is something to worry about. We all know they are events on the planet (and off the planet) that we can't control that impact our lives greatly: earthquakes, hurricanes, global climate change, etc. Is all this research being done so we know how bad life is going to become or do these scientists believe they may actually be able to do something to stop nature's course?
Um, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Using extremely old holes could mitigate this somewhat, but then you have no measure of the geological composition, and therefore thermal properties, of the rock the hole was bored through.
This makes any measurements made of core earth temperature so speculative as to be worthless, except as a very "scientific" expensive way to spread fud. There are quit a few "scientific" methods to measure global warming that are in fact just pseudo scientific pawns in the politically charged arena of environmentalism.
To imagine that we have had no impact on global warming is obviously false. Any argument contrary to what should be painfully obvious to the most casual observer is pure political bullshit.
Re:data collection (Score:2)
It's still mostly our fault.
But in any case it doesn't really matter: if changes in the Sun's dynamics are making the Earth hotter, it will suck just that much more when we add insult to injury.
"To imagine that we have had no impact on global warming is obviously false."
Here we disagree:
Artificial heating locally will quickly re-equilibrate with the natural observed heat profile.
The facts in the Bible will quickly re-equilibrate with the facts of the Bible.
Do you have an independent observational verification of temperature gradients that is not full of corrupt data also? If so, why do we care about 614 holes that are all similarly flawed? The experiment is self-consistent but that does not prove that it is factually consistent.
Our difference is that I will not let my opinion on the subject of global warming bias my interpretation of the data or accept experiments that cannot comply with scientific method even if they support my opinion.
If you have ever spent any time standing in hot drilling mud, you would know that the thermal impact of drilling a hole is amazing. If a hole requires a 3500 hp V12 detroit diesel to run for 3 months, nearly 90% of that mechanical energy is converted to heat inside the hole. Additionally, the steel casing conducts heat 6 times better than, for instance, basalt and will smooth measured temperature gradients enough to make any data meaningless.
Let me put it into physics terms for you, since that is your field. The observer affects the observed. In the case of measuring the temperature of bore holes, the observer has had such a vast impact on what the observer is measuring, that all the data is irreversibly corrupt.
Yes, global warming exists and is primarily caused by humans. But this data, while supporting that fact, is corrupt, and therefore must be ignored. The experiment as conceived is flawed.
Global Warming isn't a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
There are better reasons to not cut down forests and to reduce emissions. When people argue global warming, they just pollute the issue and reduce their credibility.
Re:Global Warming isn't a problem (Score:2)
Re:Global Warming isn't a problem (Score:2)
b) Thank you for explaining to me why I cannot base claims of global warming on two winters. I feel really, really silly for thinking that I could.
Re:Global Warming isn't a problem (Score:2)
Whatever happens to it, some new equilibrium will eventually be achieved, which will be sustained for some period of time, until the next catalyst for change comes about.
The interesting queston to ask is will we be a part of whatever new equilibrium that is achieved? That is the concern of environmentalists, not "are we destroying the planet." The planet's always going to chug along (until the sun dies). We, however, may not.
As for your guesses at temperature changes, they're just that: guesses. You're not basing them on any emperical evidence, which makes them rubbish.
Re:Global Warming isn't a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
A little George Carlin quote seemed appropriate here:
"...there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the
planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference.
The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been
here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the
arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've
been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've
only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years.
Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT
to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in
jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin'
around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of
things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics,
continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic
reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by
comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide
fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic
bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The
planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!
We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't
leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little
styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be
long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological
mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad
case of fleas. A surface nuisance."
Rate of warming decreased? (Score:3, Interesting)
Dr. Beltrami and his colleagues from the University of Michigan found that more than half of the land's heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century, and 30% since 1950.
So, they believe the rate of warming for 1951-2000 was less than half what is was for 1901-1950. I don't have much basis for an opinion on the meaningfulness of these researchers' results, but I would sure like to know how they explain this apparently levelling off.
Re:Rate of warming decreased? (Score:2)
Example: 51% (over half) of the heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century.
30% came in the years 1950-1999.
Meaning 21% came in the years 1900-1949 in this example.
For the rate of warming to have decreased in the last half of the last century >60% of the heat gain over the last 500 years would have to come from the last century. If the researchers believed this they probably would've stated so.
Retraction, please ignore parent (Score:2)
Dr. Beltrami and his colleagues from the University of Michigan found that more than half of the land's heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century, and 30% since 1950.
Sorry, I blew it, so I'll publicly take responsibility for my error. As the responses by "dhogaza" and "PhuCknuT" correctly point out, I misread that sentence. Beltrami et al claim that 30% of the temperature increase over that past 500 years happened since 1950, not just 30% of the temperature increase since 1900. Although I obviously puzzled over that sentence for before posting about it, I will endeavor to be more diligent against making this kind of mistake in the future. Sorry for wasting everyone's time with a simple misreading.
Re:Rate of warming decreased? (Score:2)
Remember, any theory that contradicts reality is false. They might claim or suggest all kinds of weird and wonderful things in the past, but if their conclusion conflicts with what we've observed in the last 23 years, it's all sci-fi...
The evidence accumulates (Score:2, Interesting)
Things sure aren't getting any colder.
Re:The evidence accumulates (Score:2)
Uh huh... And tell me... how much has the sea risen during this time?
Arctic ice cap is thinning and will be gone by 2080
"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine." You know, with all due respect, can you recognize "gloom and doom"-speak when you see it? That's a rhetorical question.
on top of all the well-respected climatologists who have concluded global warming is a very real phenomena
Have you investigated how many well-respect climatologists and physicists have concluded that it's either not real or that, at least, there's not enough data to know?
plus the highest temperature ever recorded in the last hundred years
Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that there's people in more places to take more measurements? Or that we have satellites taking temperature readings 24/7? Nah, that couldn't be it.
the carbon dioxide levels have increased to 370 ppm from 250 ppm in the last 100 years
Reference/link please? And any evidence that that's inherently bad? Even if it is true, I've seen no conclusive proof that that's something I need to be worried about.
coupled with the fact that it has been shown there is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures
There's a strong correlation between the number of people farting in the world and global temperatures, too, but that doesn't mean that farting is heating up the earth.
well, there's only one thing left to conclude...
Yes:
1. Icecaps are apparently melting and the sea isn't rising.
2. The Antartic will be habitable in 78 years so at least we don't have to worry as much about overpopulation; we can export people down there.
3. You haven't fully investigated how many real climatologists believe and don't believe that global warming has been proven.
4. You don't know the difference between a correlation and a relation.
Thus, the only thing left to conclude is that we don't know dick about the subject any any knee-jerk reaction would be premature.
Dont wake up the morons (Score:2)
I mean they fuckin even got the basis of this article wrong. It is heat conducting down from the surface. Similar measurements, on permafrost, have been done for the last decade. The earth is getting warmer, there is absolutely no doubt on that. Is it due to CO2. Well fuck me
Am I a greenie ? Nope. Do I think global warming is going to stuff things up big time ? Yep. Do I think humans will actually do anything to stop it ? No. Just look at history. Humans aren't really good at planning long term. Better still look at all the fishing grounds and the reaction when scientists point out the consequences of continued levels of fishing
Normally I don't get this pissed off. But the level of ignorance is totally frightening. Oh well that's what natural selection is for.
Expert research in progress... (Score:3, Funny)
...
*Dig, Dig, Dig*
...
"Hey Jack, we got two holes dug for ya. Now whatcha want us to do wit'em?"
"Lower the temperature guage into each hole and measure the temperature of the crust at the bottom of each hole. While you do that, I'll calculate the historical dates for each hole based on their depth..."
"Okey dokey boss...well, this here hole's got a readin' of 42 degrees...whatcha make out it's date to be?"
"Okay, according to my calculations, that one is from January of 1849, and the other one is dated to be around July of 1968."
"Okey, well, the udder' hole's got a readin' of 74 degrees."
***Next Day's Newspaper Headlines"***
"Experts Discover Dramatic Global Warming in the Earth's Crust"
Great, now maybe we can finally nationalize (Score:2)
</sarcasm>
Global Warning is Good (Score:4, Funny)
I am devoting my life to the continuation of global warming. I promise I will not rest until the North/East (my home) has Florida like weather conditions year round.
Please explain to me this... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you talk to Europeans, they accept that the Earth is warming up and think that something must be done to prevent it from messing up the balance of nature.
If you talk to people from the USA, they come up with who knows what explanations about why the Earth is not warming up. Why is it so? Do they teach you at school that the Earth may not warm up and thus it is perfectly safe to pump more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere?
There still is an ozone hole. The Earth is warming up. Okay, the ozone hole is not so large as it was a few years ago, but this was because ozone-layer eating gasses were banned.
Think about it, if everyone had thought "what a bunch of hippie communist propaganda, ozone-schmozone, ha" things would be different now. In that scenario you had better not go to Southern Australia for a vacation.
So, please explain what drives especially people from the US to close their eyes from the facts and cite corporate spin doctors who offer "proof" about why the planet is NOT warming and hence it is safe NOT to invest in expensive modifications of manufacturing plants or environmentally friendly technology.
I would love to create stockholder value, but I'm constipated right now.
headline is misleading (Score:2)
I'm noticing a disturbing trend of headlines on Slashdot that completely contradict the article they reference. In this instance, a study has shown that thermal energy from the atmosphere penetrates surface rock layers, which then store that heat as a record of historical climate, much the same as rings on a tree indicate its age. If this study is to be believed, it is strong evidence that the earth's atmosphere has warmed dramatically in the last hundred years.
The headline implies precisely the opposite; that the earth's crust is being warmed by its molten core. This is misinformation.
I'd appreciate seeing a little more careful work on the part of the editors. Lots of people are going to see that headline, not bother reading the article to find out the details, and then wander off assuming that global warming has been resolved and that it doesn't matter if they buy that Ford Explorer they've been thinking about.
I know I'm going to be flamed by people who don't buy the concept of global warming, or think that the study is flawed. That's not the issue. The issue is that this study is being represented as evidence for one side of the debate, when in fact it is evidence for the other.
Slashdot is a clearinghouse for information that influences a lot of people. That's only a positive thing if great care is taken to not spread misinformation. Inaccurate or misleading information is worse than no information at all, and just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio.
Re:weather events (Score:2)
Ice storms seem to be caused by fronts shifting quickly (warm enough for rain, then cold front moves in quickly)
Re:weather events (Score:2)
Re:weather events (Score:2)
Yes, as a matter of fact, there would be a LOT fewer ice storms if the entire planet were 20 degrees cooler. Colder air + water == less evaporation == less moisture falling out of the sky in any form.
Let's drive the point home: guess which continent has the lowest amount of annual precipitation [google.com]?
Wow, you're a great thinker. (Score:2)
Why is it every time someone calls someone "hippies" they're always spouting nonsense? Did you read the article before you posted? HALF the heat in the crust is coming from the center of the earth. This heat is generated by radioactive decay. The other half comes from the sun.
When people say humans are causing an increase in the global temperature (whether you agree with this or not), what they mean is that humans are generating atmospheric gases that trap solar heat by interfering with its thermal radiation into space. Saying the heat "comes from the sun, not from humans" is correct in a narrow literal sense, I guess, because we aren't warming it up with our breath.
Re:Cart leading the horse... (Score:2, Troll)
They have to. Why? I'll tell you.
Because the anti-environmental, pro-capitalism crowd has fought tooth and nail against EVERY environmental initiative, EVERY time any environmental issue pops up. They refuse to try to strike a balance between environmental protection and economic growth; they insist that ANY environmental regulation is an unbearable burden that will result in the total collapse of the economy.
Is it any wonder that environmentalists have to portray their arguments in such alarmist tones? Nothing else works, because of the pro-capitalists who think sparing a single tree from being cut down is unspeakably immoral, and lobby ceaselessly to retain their right to destroy whatever they want in the name of economic growth.
Re:Cart leading the horse... (Score:2)
My belief is that they do it because it's easier to get funding that way and affect political change.
The last thing on many of the environmentalist's minds is the environment. Many of the changes they propose will actually, in the long term, make things worse (reduce CO2 which drags the global economy down making it impossible for poor countries to get richer and invest in cleaner technoligies, etc.).
I can't believe that the environmentalists are really as stupid as their conclusions would necesitate. My only conclusion is they are using the environment as a "popular cause" to affect the social and political change that they desire.
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. I don't think the environmentalists get together and plan how to use the environment to redistribute wealth from richer countries to poor ones. But doing all this in the name of environment has the following effects:
1. It increases their visibility. They make news and headlines and gives them their 15-minutes.
2. It attaches (supposedly) scientific necesity that justifies their political and social goals that would otherwise be rejected out of hand.
Give me an environmental solution that is friendly to the economy and I'll give you a solution I'm willing to consider.
Pro-business/capitalists suggest (I believe correctly) that a robust economy, currently based on greenhouse-producing fuels, will eventually produce clean technologies that will eventually reduce pollution. Forcing drastic limits of CO2 production (or whatever "in" chemical is to be limited) tends to reduce the efficiency of the economy, reduces the wellbeing and standard of living of people worldwide, and makes it less likely that the economy will be robust or innovative enough to come up with clean technologies.
Many environmentalists, however, believe that rich countries should limit their greenhouse-gas production while poorer countries should be expempt. This will obviously transfer jobs (and thus wealth) to those areas of the world where there are no limits. So, globally, you have not reduced greenhouse-gas production, just relocated it. What you have accomplished is a redistribution of wealth: I.e., political and economic change.
Which of the above really makes more sense? Is either really concerned about the environment? I don't think either is, but I believe the first solution (pro-business) has a chance of coming up with "green" solutions whereas the second solution ("environmentalist") has little chance of doing anything but transferring wealth to poorer countries at the expense of successful countries.
Re:Cart leading the horse... (Score:2)
Ah, the economists. The experts in the subject. The ones, as they say, that have predicted 20 of the last 10 recessions.
which is why any real economist will tell you that externalities, like environmental damage, must be controlled through government regulation.
So to be a "real" economist you must believe in government intervention and not believe in the free market. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
What are you going to tell us next, that limiting cyanide dumping by mining companies is a bad thing and these companies would come up with 'green' solutions on their own?
Perhaps you misunderstand "the other side" of the argument.
I'm not pro-pollution. I'm not in favor of dumping waste products into rivers. That should be illegal, and it is.
But if you want to debate keeping things "clean", do it on the merits. Few people would argue that it should be illegal to dump cyanide into a river. Those same people, however, may not believe that "global warming" is real until there's a heck of a lot more to convince them, and to convince them that it is bad even if it exists.
The problem with many environmentalists, yourself apparently included, is you automatically resort to the "Oh, if you're against controlling greenhouse emissions you must be in favor of dumping cyanide into rivers." That's an extremist conclusion that, while in the spirit of the typical environmentalist, has very little relation to reality.
So let me be clear: Those of us that don't believe in limiting greenhouse emissions to combat "global warming" are not necessarily in favor of pollution. Thank you.
Get a clue, man. 'Green' solutions will almost always be more expensive than their counterparts which is exactly why Government regulation is necessary - to provide the incentive to companies to create and use the 'green' solutions.
Initially, see. But I have no doubts that some day we will be using solar power extensively, as soon as solar panels are more efficient and batteries can store power better. These require technological improvements, but some day it will be cheaper to slap some panels and a battery in your house than to connect to the local grid which burns coal to light your house.
That requires advancement of technology, not government regulations that mandate it--or throw people out of work if it can't be achieved in three years.
But economists that say that government regulation is necessary to accomplish that are dead wrong. You don't need to be an expert economist to know that. Technology advances with or without government intervention--usually faster without it. And, yes, that includes advances in technology that will benefit the environment.
Re:Cart leading the horse... (Score:2)
I would agree with most of what you said, above, but what they are defending is not economic growth, but rather the economic status quo. New industries will spring up around renewable energy, public transportation and conservation, and these will be a threat to the existing oligopolies. The established corporate interests fear change and new technologies - it cuts into their profits, even as it stimulates the overall economy.
Re:Cart leading the horse... (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless of their intentions, the hyperbole coming from environmentalists is really hurting their argument in the long run... Everyone older than 20 probably remembers at least one (usually many) serious prediction of shortage or catastrophe in 5-20 that simply failed to pan out--the global shortage of food or oil, ice age, drought, sea level changes... (the only one I recall ever coming true is fishery destruction, which seems to be proceeding as planned).
People feel like they've been suckered, and when new predictions are made, they just ignore them. If environmentalists want to improve their creditability, they need to start making realistic predictions and pointing out when they come true.
--
Benjamin Coates
No, Good Science (Score:3, Informative)
(It's been ten years since I took a PDE course, so parts of this could be slightly off.)
The heat equation looks like this:
du/dt = A * (d/dx)^2 u
where u is temperature, and the partial derivative with respect to time is proportional to the second partial derivative with respect to space (depth). (A is a constant determined by the thermal conductivity of the material.)
To use the heat equation to solve for u(x,t), you need boundary conditions surrounding a two-dimensional domain (space and time). Time here runs from 1500 AD to 2000 AD, and space runs from 0 meters at the surface to 1000 meters at the bottom of the hole. So there are four boundary functions along the extremes of both dimensions:
1. u(0 meters, t)
2. u(1000 meters, t)
3. u(x, 2000 AD)
4. u(x, 1500 AD)
The first one is the function they're trying to get- it's their unknown. The second they have to assume is constant, because there is no way to directly measure it. But since temperature perturbations at the surface of the earth won't have penetrated that deep over the time scale they're looking at, and most of the variability will originate at the surface, this is a fairly safe assumption. The third just requires them to drop a thermometer down the hole, as they have done. The fourth is what you're worrying about, but they don't need it because they have 2. and 3. and can use the heat equation to extrapolate over the rest of the domain.
A problem arises because the left side of the heat equation is a first derivative in time. As time progresses, features in the temperature profile u(x) degrade. (Partial differential equations that have second derivatives on both sides, like the wave equation, don't have this problem.) What you don't want to find, when you measure the temperature down one of these holes, is that the temperature increases uniformly with depth. That means you've waited too long, everything has equilibrated, and both sides of the heat equation are now zero, which prevents you from extrapolating backward. Apparently they must have found some curvature in u(x), or we wouldn't be seeing this article posted.
There are other complications. The thermal conductivity constant won't be uniform with depth, for example. What that means is they need computers to solve for u(x,t) numerically. Partial differential equations can almost never be solved symbolically anyway, so this isn't much of an issue.
Re:Heat Transfer -- HELP (Score:2, Funny)
I'm no expert in heat transfer: I slept through most of the (7AM!) Thermodynamics course I took back when I was a student. I decided to bone up on it, however, the book is lodged in the middle of a stack of textbooks holding up one side of the shelf that my monitor rests upon. So, instead I'll bullshit my way through it. Just think of the earth to a big computer: the crust is the CPU, the atmosphere is the heatsink and the seas are the liquid cooling system God put in so He could overclock the world.
After thoroughly reading Tom's Hardware Guide [tomshardware.com], HardOCP [hardocp.com], and a bunch of other sites on the web, I can say with all the authority of an expert in a completely different science making a bad analogy that we just need to shave a few mountains, apply a nice, thick layer of thermal compound and put tall enough (must reach beyond the atmosphere) heatsink/fan combos on top. Or maybe the Overclocked Jesus [bbspot.com] can turn the seas to liquid nitrogen and save us all! Of course, I'd never have a taste of fried halibut again, but I'm willing to make sacrifices.
If, in fact, there is a global warming trend, which I'm not inclined to dispute as there may well be, just what can we realistically do to prevent it? At this point, I'd suggest adapting, since there's only one other certain solution...
Re:Why all the right wing nastiness here? (Score:2)
I think it's great, actually. As long as they're kept busy indoors posting vitriol to web sites and unleashing scripts against online polls, their SUVs are parked outside and not emitting any greenhouse gases.
Re:early April Fools (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think you understand something. Nowhere in the article did it say heat was "affected by gravity". Heat does show limited properties of signal propagation, because it flows at a finite rate along a gradient of decreasing temperature and is always conserved. (Meaning, because of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.)
And measuring temperature alone provides little useful information, you also need to know the thermal conductivity and specific heat of the medium(rocks), which is highly non-uniform.
This just requires extra data on rock composition, which is well known and easily accounted for in any computational heat equation model.
Old boreholes? Give me a break. The air convection in the hole will effect the measured temperature.
Air convection is unlikely to be much of a problem at all. Air is a good insulator and a borehole of air has low thermal mass. Water convection is a much larger problem. This is from their web site, [geophysics.stfx.ca] explaining how they get rid of environmental interference:
Temperature perturbations in boreholes are produced by several processes. For climate reconstruction it is important to distinguish between a changing temperature through time at the Earth?s surface and other sources of temperature perturbations.
Geologic conditions and processes, other than climate change, that produce curvature in temperature-depth profiles include the following: (1) systematic variation of thermal conductivity with depth, (2) radioactive heat generation in rocks, (3) topography, (4) lateral variation of surface temperature caused by surface orientation, changing vegetation, or variable snow cover, (5) uplift and erosion or subsidence and burial at the site, and (6) vertical percolation of groundwater.
Several approaches are taken to isolate and correct for temperature anomalies from these sources. Available topographic and geological information available at each borehole site allows one to compute the magnitude and expected shape of temperature perturbations from each source. Sites can be discarded if the geologic disturbances are too large, otherwise corrections can be made. It is also possible to combine or stack temperature anomalies from several nearby drillholes. As geologic, topographic, and hydrologic conditions at each hole are unlikely to be identical, spurious temperature anomalies are likely to cancel. If each hole has experienced a similar climatic thermal signal, the climatically induced temperature anomalies will constructively interfere in the stacked temperature profiles.
There is one very efficient method of isolating climate change effects in borehole temperatures but the method requires patience. All of the non-climate sources of temperature anomalies are steady state, or quasi steady state relative to the time scale of climate change. Thus curvature in temperature profiles from these sources is stationary in time. By measuring and remeasuring borehole temperatures after an appropriate time lapse, changes in temperature with time can safely be ascribed to climatic sources. Several monitoring experiments are in progress. With present technology available to measure temperatures in boreholes to better than 10 mK accuracy, the repeat time to isolate climate-change signals is about 5 years.
So it appears they have thought of some of these things.
I for one don't believe any such thermal signal more than a few years old can exceed the noise threshold.
It's clear you haven't read the paper, but I guess I'll take your word for it. You should know.
Re:'leftism'? (Score:2)