Ward Hunt Ice Shelf Breaks In Two 785
heidi writes "CNN has this story on the breakup of the largest ice cap. A permanent feature for the previous 3,000 years, it has broken into two pieces. "The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, on the north coast of Ellesmere Island in Canada's Nunavut territory, broke into two main parts, themselves cut through with fissures. A freshwater lake drained into the sea, the researchers reported.""
So sad (Score:4, Funny)
In a statement, the Giant Arctic ice shelf hoped they would be able to remain friends despite the breakup.
Re:So sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Shit happens.
Re:So sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes and no... what you describe, the natural cycle of the planet, warming and cooling, does happen.
But, what is ALSO happening, is that humans are creating the Green House Effect. This is due to our releases of gases into the atmosphere.
just because what you describe is true, does NOT mean that the Green House Effect, caused by humans is untrue.
Even though this article says that one of the researches isnt comfortable IMMEDIATELY pointing the finger @ the Green House Effect (GHE) doesnt mean that the GHE hasnt been contributing to warming in Northern Canada.
in short, the GHE *is* warming the planet, AND the Planet's climate cycles.
Re:So sad (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I'm just bummed I never got to see the great central sea that covered the great plains. Stupid climactic variation. Why can't everything stay exactly as it was, the day I was born? Except for computers, of course. And space exploration (wait a minute, we went to the moon a year after I was born). And internet porn. And tv channels. Need more channels. And surround sound. My 5.1 setup is so outdated, women who wouldn't have noticed me before and now really not noticing me. But wait until I get my 7.1 setup. Then they'll...still ignore me. But I'll have 7.1 channels of surround sound, with which I'll enjoy...Road Trip? Dare Devil? Gaahh! Movies suck!
Re:So sad (Score:5, Informative)
Reality check:
I can't seem to find direct figures on CO2 release from Krakatoa. However, we can do a ballpark estimate. Various sources state that it ejected 5 cubic miles of material. Other sources indicate that magma saturated with volatile compounds holds up to 6% compressed gasses, most of it water. Let's assume that Krakatoa's magma was 2% CO2. So that's 2% of 5*1609^3 = 416 million cubic meters of CO2. At 1070 kg/m^3 (liquid phase), that's 445 megatons of CO2.
Even if my estimates are off by a factor of 10, Krakatoa spewed no more than a few thousand megatons of CO2.
As for human emissions, the estimates I find are 6,500 megatons of carbon per year (about 1 ton per person on the planet), which when combined with oxygen make about 24,000 megatons of CO2.
So you say that the Krakatoa eruption dwarfs 100 years of human activity, and I calculate that Krakatoa ~== 1 week of human activity. My estimates would have to be off by 3-1/2 orders of magnitude if your statement were correct. If you can find any numbers to back up your assertion, I would be happy to see them.
Re:So sad (Score:4, Informative)
global consumption of liquid fossil fuels comes to
5595 KBbl/diem gasoline, 9247 KBbl/d. kerosene,
4873 KBbl/d. fuel oil, or 264, 435, and 230 MT/an,
respectively, for a total of ~929 MT/an. The
remainder of liquid fossil fuel production is
consumed by manufacture of materials or consists
of loss. Accepting BPs loss estimates, and assuming
all losses are gassified, that's 220 MT/an.
Coal consumption is 71.0% and natural gas is 60.0%
oil equivalent. To be generous, I include
production and refining losses to get a total
global annual carbon injection of
(1.00+0.600+0.710) * (220+264+435+230) MT
which comes to 2654 MegaTonnes annually, or
less than 443 Kg per person, annually.
This represents 90% carbon, which is 12/44 of
C02, for a total CO2 injection into the carbon
cycle of 1.46 metric tonnes per annum per capita,
or 8,750 MT/an total.
As you say, Krakatoa might conceivably have
emitted a few thousand megatons, but the human
emissions at that time were vanishingly small
in comparison to their current levels, so that
the eruption probably injected more CO2 than all
human activity during the *preceeding* century,
but in my estimation certainly injected an order
of magnitude less than the human activity during
the *following* century.
Perhaps it was equivalent to a century of human
injection at the rate prevailing at the time
the original estimation was made, and this statement
was later carried forward, and quoted on slashdot,
long after it was no longer accurate.
Spin vs. Facts (Score:5, Insightful)
That's your belief. Scientific evidence to support that belief is not in evidence, however.
Despite politically motivated statements to the contrary by some politically funded researchers with obvious interest in spinning things that way, the evidence suggests instead that human action has little, if any, net affect on the global temperature average. Humans produce greenhouse gasses, yes. Humans also do things with the opposite effect. One good volcanic eruption has a lot more effect than years of human activity.
We're in an interglacial period. Icepacks are receding. Natural, normal, and on the whole a good thing for humans and most other species as well. Why people want to spin this as some kind of disaster is beyond me, excepting those with an obvious political motivation of course.
Earths climate is never static. If the icepacks weren't receding, they'd be expanding, and that would be much more like a disaster.
Re:Spin vs. Facts (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an up side to telling them what they want to hear: "Go on and do whatever you like, and don't listen to these longhaired intellectuals over there".
The vast majority of scientists qualified to hold an opinion have settled this matter as fact. They have no "political advantage" to uphold; as a matter of fact, the present administration of the US has made it abundantly clear than scientists who hold this unpopular-with-industry opinion are no longer welcome to share their opinions, or even to work for the administration.
The only "spin" here are those who want to shout down those who calmly stating the facts. The arguments against the accepted facts closely resemble those against natural selection -- ad hominem nonsense.
Re:Spin vs. Facts (Score:3, Insightful)
Hogwash. There's no government grant money if you say "everything's fine". If you say "this might be a problem, it needs study", the money comes rolling in.
Re:Spin vs. Facts (Score:3, Insightful)
I probably shouldn't be responding to an AC, but how can you make a charge for others ignoring "facts" when you provide no evidence for said facts? Most scientists don't believe humans are a significant factor for global warming you say. What study shows this? Can you cite it? Do most of these scientists come from fields relevant to the issue?
You are wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest you stand back and get a bigger picture of just how long this planet has been in flux. From that perspective you can see that the match h
Re:So sad (Score:5, Insightful)
What isn't certain is WHY.
Is it "greenhouse gassses"?
Is it that humans are generating more heat through burning of fuels, and throwing off the balance? IE: even if "green house gasses" were brought to 100 year ago levels, temps would still rise
Is is that the Earth is going through a "warmer" part of the Galaxy/Universe?
Is it that there is some change in the Earth's core causing more heat?
Is the Sun putting out more energy on some long period that we don't yet know about?
Is it all those satellites that capture energy that normally passes the planet and direct some of back at us?
It it aliens beaning an interplanetery "slow death ray" at us?
Is it something else we can't think of yet?
Re:So sad (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly Occam's Razor dictates that we go with the alien slow death ray theory!
Re:So sad (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So sad (Score:3, Funny)
A slashdot poll (Score:5, Funny)
certainty (Score:3, Informative)
Re:certainty (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of other graphs that show similar growth rates.
To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science. There's no evidence to back it up. We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.
In my list I mentioned at least four very plausible reasons for global temperature rise that do not depend on an increase in CO2. Environmentalists continually shout about the GhGs because it's easy to make slogans out of and it furthers their agenda.
I have no agenda but to get at truth. In my experince, accepting the first piece of data that fits your assumptions is not the way to get at truth, but a way to sell books and get on the 6:00 news.
Re:certainty (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore it would seem to me to be reasonable to state that greenhouse gasses seem a likely cause and take action to reduce them while simultaneously doing more research on the subject to figure out what the cause is for sure.
Re:certainty (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that temperature changes coincide with increasing levels of a known greenhouse forcing gas, is actually fairly pursuasive. Or did you mean 'mere coincidence.' ;)
To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science. There's no evidence to back it up. We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.No serious scientist is arguing 'undeniability.' The large majority of scientists, however, are pursuaded that anthorpogenic carbon dioxide (and other gases) are making a major contribution to the observed climatic changes.
You are simply wrong about a lack of experimental data. The greenhous forcing potential of CO2 has been recognised since the time of Avernius. The mechanism by which heat is trapped (it's actually diffracted), is also well known. What is more the various indicies of heat forcing potential for CO2 and other 'greenhouse gasses,' has been quantified.
On the balance of probabilities, it seems to me that right about 10-20 years ago we should have stopped buring the planet's carbon sinks and moved over to nuclear.
I have no agenda but to get at truth.If that is so, the best starting point would be the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [www.ipcc.ch] site. Providing, of course you prefer a scientific gloss on the issue rather than an ideological one.
Re:certainty (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that temperature changes coincide with increasing levels of a known greenhouse forcing gas, is actually fairly pursuasive.
In the absence of other factors that may even be true but in the presence of factors like the percentage of reradiated wavelengths being absorbed by atmosphere being already at 100% for the wavelengths absorbable by CO2 mean that CO2 as cause is a poor explainer at best
Correlation != Causation (Score:4, Interesting)
Anybody who deals in logic and facts will tell you that CORRELATION != CAUSATION! I'm surprise you've never heard that before.
Just remember, 30 years ago, some of these same crackpot hippy 'scientists' were predicting an impending ICE AGE! So which is it? Depends on what gets them more government funding, I suppose.
Re:certainty (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists are running climate models on supercomputers, and simulating the effect with and without the human-emitted CO2. When the scientists recommend cutting CO2 emition is desireable it is probably because they have run the numbers through their simulations.
No truth in it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Just recently they found that the AMAZON RIVER dumps more CO2 into the air than all the surrounding region. Go figure.
In our egotistical view we give ourselves too much credit over the influence of the weather. Sorry, but we ain't that "good" yet.
Re:certainty (Score:5, Informative)
Re:certainty (Score:5, Insightful)
To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science. There's no evidence to back it up. We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.
Good point.
Let's do a giant experiment using the Earth as a testbed. If the Earth is still habitable in 50 years, you were probably right.
-a
Re:certainty (Score:3, Funny)
Re:certainty (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes.
However, it is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that we release loads of it every year. There also have been some correlations made, even though they've not yet been proven.
Now, given the potential problems that could be generated by global warming (flooding of coastal cities, alteration and possible destruction of major ecosystems due to changed animal migration or plant survival/dispersal patterns - the latter possibly caused by changes in wind patterns of deep sea current shifts) don't you think it might be a good idea to stop pumping out as much CO2 as we currently to in case it's the problem.
Or do you want to bet the lives of millions (billions?) of people on the case that it turns out not to be the problem?
If you have no idea what the result of a course of action is going to be, but are aware that it might affect the whole planet in a very real and negative way, don't do it!
Please, I don't want to get 20 years down the line, find out CO2 was the problem all along, but that it's too late to do anything about now and is all fucked beyond repair.
Re:certainty (Score:4, Informative)
There are a lot of temperature graphs that show increases in the last 100 years. There is also a nice graph showing an increase in CO2 levels from coal and oil burning. That's not just a coincidence, given that the physics behind the temperature increase is pretty straightforward (greenhouse effect). in fact, in order for surface tempertures not to rise with increasing CO2 levels requires some rather fancy footwork; you have to invoke the existence of various negatiuve feedback cycles, like increased cloudiness (which may actually have a net warming effect after all) etc. The radiative-tranfer physics behind the greenhouse effect is a lot more solid than our understanding of cloud formation.
To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science.
In science nothing is "undeniable". However, some things are more or less plausible, likely, belivable etc. A good scientist working on something realitively new will always hedge. But sooner or later the evidence starts to build up to the point where only cranks deny it. Hence most scientists think e.g. evolution is pretty solid. The same goes for general relativity, QED, etc. Climate change due to increased CO2 levels is getting to be such a strong theory (or so says the NAS here [nationalacademies.org] and here [nap.edu], and the IPCC).
There's no evidence to back it up.
That is simply hogwash. There is a lot of evidence for a coupling between CO2 and temperature rise. It may be challenging to directly link CO2 to this particular ice shelf, but I ask you this: if global and regional temperatures are rising due to increasing CO2 levels, are you surprised that we are seeing more ice melt?
We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.
We always need more data (I'm a scientist after all), but we have the basis to act now, and the longer we wait the harder the problem will be.
In my list I mentioned at least four very plausible reasons for global temperature rise that do not depend on an increase in CO2.
I'm going to hope it is the "alien death ray", personally. Seriously, though, greenhouse gases are about the only plausible ones in your list. The Earths core is pretty stable in it's heat output, not to mention that it's about a factor of 100 lower than the heat input from the Sun. To raise temperatures by the observed amount you'd have to increase the core heat output by a factor of about 4. Not likely.
Is the Sun putting out more energy on some long period that we don't yet know about?
First of all, there is not a lot of evidence for such a change (we can measure the solar constant afetr all). Second, you'd then have to explain how the increasing CO2 wasn't causing a rise, while at the same time the Sun caused a rise that coincides very nicely with the CO2 increase.
The rest of the list is just silly.
Re:certainty (Score:3, Insightful)
And by the way - CO2 isn't "air pollution."
Re:certainty (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I dont think CO2 emissions really make a big difference. Even if we did manage to completely stop all CO2 emissions (which I think we should do anyway) we'd still get global warming. Historical temperature data tends to point out that we're not even in a very warm period for the moment, and with or without human interference we'll get far larger variations than we've seen the last century.
So, not buying that beachfront property might be a good idea. You never know when mother nature will conspire to make your house an experimental submerged water dwelling.
Re:So sad (Score:5, Funny)
I told them they should avoid the brown acid and cut back on the burritos, but would they listen?
Nooooooooooooooooo!
KFG
Re:So sad (Score:3, Insightful)
The Pleistocene ended roughly 10,000 years ago (which was the last of the great ice ages). What happens when you come out of an ice age? You warm up.
Granted, this is just another one of the many theories around that try to explain for the increase in average temperatures.
Re:So sad (Score:5, Funny)
Global Warming is more than a myth, it is a European plot to undermine the US economy! They're all out to get us, because they're jealous of our way of living. That's why they've been drilling holes in the ice shelf for the last decade!
So hop into your SUV, drive home, turn up all your air conditioners (my hasn't it been hot lately), and relax! Overconsumption is your patriotic duty. Any more of this talk about anthropogenic climate change, and we'll send you to Camp X-ray, where you belong you terrorist!
Article discussed Global Warming (Score:5, Interesting)
Not mentioned in the article, but relevant, is that in some parts of the Canadian Arctic, I think including this area, the local Inuit had stopped making kayaks for some centuries, and had to relearn in the mid-1800s when the weather got enough warmer that kayaks were useful again. Don't know if that's global warming or just regional either.
Jeez (Score:4, Funny)
Thank you, come again... and again... and again, for the love of god, we're swimming in slushie, COME AGAIN!
[Correction] Largest *ARTIC* ice shelf (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:[Correction] Largest *ARTIC* ice shelf (Score:5, Funny)
ANTarctic ice shelves have also been breaking up (Score:2)
Ploy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ploy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ploy (Score:3, Funny)
And in typical Microsoft fashion... (Score:2)
Poetic justice dispensed, once again, due to the evil empire running their own software.
huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Shit happens. (Score:5, Funny)
Global Warming & The One World Government (Score:5, Interesting)
Bush covers up climate research [guardian.co.uk] (again)
Re:Global Warming & The One World Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's another good one: EPA definitely full of sh*t [wired.com]
Re:Riddle me this... (Score:3, Insightful)
The myth about Global Warming [troed.se]
The global conveyer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The global conveyer (Score:2)
No, but the volume of water in the oceans is staggering, and I doubt that there's enough fresh water in the entire world to make that much of a difference.
Re:The global conveyer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The global conveyer (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The global conveyer (Score:5, Insightful)
I, too, spent some time with geology and I prefer the "pack up the coastal cities scenario" to the "Snowball Earth" scenario (or even an ice age on the magnitude of the last one, for that matter).
In short, it's postulated that a "snowball Earth" occured approximately 600-700 million years ago (shortly before the Cambrian explosion) where glacial ice spaned from the polar regions to the equator. Several theories have emerged to explain this but they all revolve around the idea that something happened to cool the Earth (e.g. severe drops in the levels of greenhouse gasses) which lead to more land being exposed which in turn lead to a lessened absorption on solar radiation which lead to even lower temperatures, more land being exposed, even less solar radiation, etc, etc, etc.
Seriously though, I don't think we fully understand the role that natural forces such as tectonics, volcanism, and global weather patterns play in the Earth's climate. While it's pretty obvious that polluting the atmosphere is a Bad Thing, our contribution is probably just a drop in the bucket.
Besides, even if we do screw things up so badly that we suffocate ourselves, the Earth has shown a remarkable resiliency in it's geologic past. In a couple million years, things will be pretty much back to normal and the race of uber intelligent cockroaches will be wondering how these silly bipedal organisms in the fossil record went extinct. ;-)
Re:The global conveyer (Score:3, Interesting)
I basically said the same thing you said to someone else below. Nothing now is extreme - people worry about how a non-extreme setting is going to affect everything (usually with dire consequences). Usually those same people have no real idea how rapid or extreme differences have been in the past. Obviously something happened back then to cause both t
Re:The global conveyer (Score:5, Informative)
There is a potential risk to the warm surface currents from the loss of floating ice, though it isn't to do with a one-off influx of fresh water. This will rapidly disperse over the ocean and make no perceptable difference.
However, the 'pump' driving the global conveyer is the constant differential melting and freezing at the base of the sea ice. Sea ice is essentially floating fresh water. If you freeze part of sea water into fresh water you are left with dense, cold, salty water. This sinks to the bottom, and then flows south from the arctic. Warm, surface water then flows north to replace it, forming the Gulf Stream (and other similar currents around the world).
Over the last few decades the extent of sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk noticably. There must be a point at which this will have an effect on these currents[1].
It is not clear what the level of sea-ice required to maintain the currents is, nor on quite how the currents will respond (gradually decreasing or simply shutting down). However there is evidence from the sedimentary record of the last interglacial that the gulf stream in the North East Antlantic, at least, switched on and off a number of times, and that the switch from 'on' to 'off' was very rapid.
There is thus the possibility that current climate trends will result in a situation in which the flow of warm water to the N.E.Atlantic may cease (or dramatically reduce) over a timespan of years or decades, producing dramatic climate changes in north Western Europe (especially Iceland and North Norway, but Britain, Ireland and France are also major beneficaries of the Gulf Stream). The lack of transfer of heat from the warmer regions may also result in higher sea-surface temperatures in those regions, which in turn could provide more energy for severe bad weather and hurricanes. There are futher possible effects from the lack of the cold water current. These are important in carrying oxygen around the oceans, and when they upwell against continental shelves they bring nutrients from the deep ocean to the surface, producing rich fishing grounds.
[1] It is also, incidentally, having a major effect on polar bears, which rely on sea ice in their hunting.
Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Amazing (Score:2, Interesting)
Skepticism is the cornerstone to good research. Unfortunately, global warming naysayers view it as weakness or a lack of confidence. Even Einstein's Noble Prize made no mention of relativity, because it was still a little too unprovable at the time.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Global Warming (Score:2, Informative)
But as we can see.. the world is getting warmer.
Global warming is a natural occurance, however it IS being accelerated by high levels of industry.
Something to think about as we sit in our 18degC constantly cooled server rooms.
Re:Global Warming (Score:5, Informative)
Local warming of the climate is to blame, they said -- adding that they did not have the evidence needed to link the melting ice to the steady, planet-wide climate change known as global warming.
"There's a regional trend in warming that cycles back 150 years," Mueller said in a telephone interview. "I am not comfortable linking it to global warming. It is difficult to tease out what is due to global warming and what is due to regional warming."
The Arctic region is warming far faster than the rest of the world (I seem to recall estimates of five times faster), if the rest of the world is indeed warming at all, and its related to natural shifts in water and wind currents. Even if the world temperature was stagnant, this area would still likely be warming, and the shelf would have cracked anyway.
Ozone Hole at record size in 2003. (Score:3, Informative)
In fact the WMO has realeased findings that say the ozone layer hole above the antartic has this year already reached the record size of 2000.
"The 2003 ozone hole remains similar to that observed in 2000, although more circular and
apparently more stable. The size of the ozone hole has increased from the 25 M km2 reported two weeks ago to
28 M km2, matching the record size observed during mid-September 2000. This is larger than the combined
areas of Canad
Out of curiosity... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Out of curiosity... (Score:2)
This ice wasn't just floating before -- it was indeed anchored to land. Ellismere Island, where it was located, is indeed a true island.
Yaz.
Truly Terrifying (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't even imagine the terror of an entire ice shelf splitting. The reuters article doesn't mention if this was a slow or fast occurance.
Even scarier, we're several thousand years past due on the next ice age. This "global warming" thing could actually be the precursor to the beginning of the next, depending on which cadre of scientists you believe.
Re:Truly Terrifying (Score:2)
Re:Truly Terrifying (Score:5, Informative)
Leads? [noaa.gov] There's a word for the actual cracking and fracturing process "calving", but I think that only applies to glaciers and icebergs.
YLFI
Re:Truly Terrifying (Score:3, Interesting)
The ice age stats aren't quite that precise - there are up to tens of thousands of years of wiggle room. I'm more worried about the vast amounts of fresh water dumped into the arctic by this - fresh and salt water in the arctic actually stay seperate, and if the fresh water flow pushes far enou
Arctic meltdown... (Score:4, Interesting)
The October 2003 Scientific American has a feature article on all the warming problems the Arctic has been undergoing. This is just one more in the pile...
According to the article, scientists are witholding judgement over whether this is a symptom of global warming: the arctic is such a complex place with so many feedback and self-regulating systems that the case simply isn't clear yet.
Now remember kiddies (Score:5, Interesting)
As the earth is still coming out of its last ice age, we shouldn't be too concerned about global warming. What we should be concerned about is desertification due to the lack of vegitation and depletion of the Ozone. Given the natural course of things, the earth will make big dinosaurs, not silly monkeys who play on computers and bitch at eachother.
Anyone else up for a nice honda civic hybrid yet?
Re:Now remember kiddies (Score:2)
Of course "drop in a bucket" springs to mind...
Re:Now remember kiddies (Score:3, Informative)
The article seemed to imply that this was one of the ice masses that sits on land instead of floating in the water (many do) thus the level would increase. I do not know for sure and am too lazy too look it up for sure.
As the earth is still coming out of
Re:Now remember kiddies (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure if you're just talking about this ice shelf, but there's a helluva lot of ice sitting on Antarctica (ie land).
Re:Now remember kiddies (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet, science is uncovering that the opposite is happening, as an increase in CO2 levels may help forests to start reclaiming the world's deserts [independent.co.uk], as forests are encroaching on the Negev desert. Higher CO2 concentrations reduces water absorption of trees, leaving more available for the surrounding regions, which resulted in more vegetation.
NASA & DOE [edie.net] found the same thing, as did the National Academy of Sciences [sciencedaily.com] when
Re:Now remember kiddies (Score:2)
Re:Interesting ? (Score:5, Informative)
You, sir, are so wrong it hurts my eyes to read!
Place a big chunk of ice in a container and fill it with water. Then sit back and see how the melting of ice does not rise the water level. Then get back to your physics books and figure out why it doesn't.
The problem with global warming is not with floating ice. It's with Antarctica where ice is sitting on the continent. Melting of that ice will rise the sea levels.
If I were a LONG-TERM investor... (Score:5, Funny)
3000 years is nothing. (Score:4, Informative)
3000 years is a lot longer than I'll live... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and the rocks really don't care if they're above or below water.
I, on the other hand...
All part of the cycle? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cool. (Score:2, Funny)
have diet refreshements.
Northwest Passage (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been sought by adventurers and explorers for hundreds of years, and only now is the northern boundary of the American continent becoming free of ice to allow passage. No longer will the Panama Canal or Cape Horn be the only routes between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Not all changes are bad. Sometimes the world actually changes for the better, contrary as this is to the worldview with which we have been indoctrinated.
Global warming or not? (Score:2, Informative)
As the warm water of the atlantic follows the Gulf Stream northward along north america, and then towards europe, it cools and sinks, then following other currents southward. This heat transfer cycle is why Europe is not a lot colder than it is.
If the surface water heats up enough, it won't be able to cool off enough to sink when it gets to europe, the water underneath being cooler, the warm water will stay at t
Wow....you can't make this up (Score:2)
A)Comparing audio codecs
B)Mini Motherboard comes out
C)"Fulfilling the Promise of XML-based Office Suites?"
D)Arctic Shelf breaks in half
Well, there goes my slow news day...all that other stuff and bam! Headline in the Times tomorrow?
EXTRA! EXTRA! Part of World Snaps Off!
This is serious stuff folks ... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I must mention that those who rush to blame anything and everything on climate change are just as irrational and stupid and those who rush to the assumption that climate change has nothing to do with anything. Both assumptions are erronous, unlearned, and emotionally modivated.
What we need to do hear folks is educate ourselves. As one who has done a fair amount of reading on the subject, I can assure you that although the world isn't going to end tomorrow, the effects of climate change (and man's contibution to climate change) are well worth taking seriously. Instead of blowing it all off as has been done with this subject on this forum in the past, I think we all need to grow up and at least seriously consider the very real possibility that this is in fact a very real problem and that perhaps we should rethink our dependence on fossil fuel and the rest. Because let me tell you folks, if it's half as bad as many scientists predict it is, we'd better get moving on this right now!
So please put aside your impulsive reactions for a bit and go out and learn more about this subject. It's important enough to offer it the benefit of the doubt.
Re:This is serious stuff folks ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, no. This may not be a good development for the HUMAN inhabitants of the planet, but the ecosystem will chug merrily along without noticing at all if the humans are all gone.
Is it not a fact that at least until the end of the 'dinosaur era' the planet's temperature was SIGNIFICANTLY warmer than it is now? So how is a increase or decrease in global temperature of tiny amounts going to affect the planet? The answer is, of course, it WON
where's the map? (Score:4, Insightful)
Notes to self... (Score:4, Funny)
Buy Milk.
Call Dentist.
Sell all Florida real estate.
Pick kids up after soccer.
Mow lawn.
www.climateprediction.net (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I just wanted to make everyone aware of the new distributed project - www.climateprediction.net [climateprediction.net].
Whether you agree with the theory of human caused global warming or not, with this you can help getting the world scientific community more accurate climate models.
Unfortunately only a Windows client available at the moment, but a Linux one is in development. Personally I think this project and the [stanford.edu]
Folding at Home distributed project are much more deserving of peoples' clock cycles than Seti or distributed.net.
Cheers,
Lars
MEDIA KIT: Debunking Pseudo-Scholarship: Things a journalist should know about The Skeptical Environmentalist [wri.org]
Re:www.climateprediction.net (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of what humans do, short of blasting Earth in to tiny bits, the environment will be fine. In the geologic/astonomical timescale we are insignificant to the planet, and this global warming thing is like a small pimple you had back in 7th grade on Wednesday night.
The environment is self healing. If we cause it to get too hot (and I'm not sure we're responsible), humans and a bunch of other life forms will die off. Evolution and the geoligic processeses will reform the terrain and biosphere such that new life forms will become prevelant, and perhaps dominant.
The planet seems to have been here for 4.5 billion years, it's traveled trillions upon trillions of miles and been bombarded by untold tons of material large and small. It's been through stages of liquid rock and solid water covering the surface, it likely will go through such stages again.
As for your project, I have a few problems with it:
1. It doesn't seem to incorporate any external changes to the system. ie: it treats the Earth as a closed system and ignores interactions with surrounding space and the local star. At least that's what I gather from the brief reading I've done so far.
2. Its conclusion will be based on the "most popular" result being the most likely. The idea as I see it is: "We'll make a bunch of guesses based on assumptions and very rough modeling, and the most often guessed result is the winner." Sounds a little less than very useful to me.
Re:www.climateprediction.net (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, technically the environment is "self-healing". It remains to be seen if humankind is.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is? Entropy rules and it's a waste of time to interfere? And you want to argue symantics? Where's the value of such a diatribe?
There has been extensive research into humankind's impact on the global climate. Citing the absence of criteria doesn't invalidate the innumerable amount of hardcore information which indicates that human activities are causing climate change at a radical rate.
The issue of global warming will continue to be debated, but what is the more enlightened premise: assuming our activities have an averse impact and trying to do something about it, or ignoring or discounting the possibility? It seems to me to be a no-brainer.. where is the liability in assuming that this is a serious issue that warrants more attention?
Hello Juan Carlos, this is Jeb (Score:4, Funny)
I think we may still have the Receipt [bartleby.com] around [wikipedia.org] here [yale.edu] somehwhere...
On the other hand, at an average height of just 4 feet above sea level, this may be Governor Jeb's covert attempt at "wetlands" reclamation.
Not warming, ice age. (Score:3, Interesting)
Warm salt water floats. Cold salt water sinks. BUT... cold fresh water floats on warm salt water. And when it does, it displaces the warm salt water towards the south. And that, of course, pushes the "great conveyor" to the south.
What's that mean? [csulb.edu] Well, for an ice-age to happen in the past, it means there had to be one heck of a lot of fresh water disrupting the conveyor up north.
So, to the experts who scream, "See? Warming!" I might suggest that you consider that the fresh water doesn't just *go away* when it has melted. It has a definite impact, and it doesn't make things warmer [whoi.edu], either.
Next time, learn a little before you open your mouth.
Burden of proof (Score:3, Insightful)
The burden of proof should fall on the businesses and enterprises to quantify how much environmental impact their new factory will produce. Then they can pay for all of the research.
Granted, this makes way for more biased research, but (1) there are ways around this (oversight committees, etc.) (2) the research gets done (3) we're not sticking our heads in the sand, building stuff that reaps resources from the environment, while waiting for some non-profit environmental research firm to finally proove that global warming is happening and you need to eliminate your excess C02 emissions 5 years ago or we'll sink under the sea in 2.
Re:Burden of proof (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you've got burden of proof backwards...
Simple example - take something easy like birth-control pills. They've been around for several decades, but not as long as a single lifetime. Do they have an effect on long-term health? We don't know. Doesn't seem like it, but we can't be sure. What about the long-term health and lifespan of children whos
Not quite (Score:3, Informative)
Disraeli Fjord [dfo-mpo.gc.ca] is (was) freshwater on top and saltwater on bottom. The freshwater was due to the ice shelf, with the boundary at the bottom of the shelf. It would make sense that only the fresh part was drained. It's sad that this unique body of water is no longer that way.
global warming differences North & South poles (Score:3, Informative)
Probably redunant (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is "What, if any, effect has human industry had on the warming effect?" That is the question that people are attempting to answer and truefully we don't know. People point to a study that shows the average tempature rising at an increasing rate over the last 80 years or so when they began the study.
To me, 80 years in the scheme of things isn't enough to say one way or the other. Now we know that we caused the hole in the Ozone layer, and it looks as though the problem maybe starting to correct itself after banning the wide-spread use of CFC's, but its an important lesson: The earth is enduring until the sun gobbles it up in another 4 Billion years or so.
If the north pole ice cap melted, it would not raise the ocean 1 inch since it already displaces its own weight in water. I think the water in a cup and add ice example has been given, now the question is, how much ice is down there in the south pole? People predict horrid flooding of coastal cities, but I have read some documents that say that if all that water is realeased and dispursed throughout the world, it would raise the oceans by only a few inches. Sucks to be you if you own a beach house.
The biggest threat seems to be the breaking of the Atlantic Conveyer with a large influx of fresh water. I think there is some evidence of this happening about 60k years ago, but again I am not a geologist, just an avid reader of things. If that breaks, then a rapid global cooling may take place and the return to a new expansion of the polar caps.
Oh yeah, this would be a good point to note that WE ARE STILL IN AN ICE AGE. There is still ice, isn't there?
As far as weather goes, look at Europe circa 500 AD, a great cooling happened, if I remember my history correctly, that lead to many problems with farming and crop cycles. The other factor is Media. I mean, people really didn't here much about the weather around the world until the last 50 years. How do know that weather hasn't had these odd years with extremes before? Oh wait, I think it has, but there wasn't a media to record and have slow news days with nothing else to bitch about.
Endgame: we need more solid info besides some corralations. There is a famous Missourian named Mark Twain that once wrote, "There are lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" and that is the truth. Stats can be manipulated like markets. My first thought is usually ignore them as evidence and look at the raw data before drawing conclusions. After the Earth will survive: its mankind that is fucked. George Carlin stated that once, and you know, he's right....
Re:Has to be asked. (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just another point on the curve? (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, they build shiltunamai (warm houses they say, we say green houses) for their start seeds and for their tomatos. The tomato plants grow 6-8 feet high, so the green houses are good for that. Then, they alternate potatos with grain. Grain is for the cattle; potatos are for the humans; the alternation helps refresh the land, as *did* the spring flooding of the rivers. [That's less often nowadays, though].
In the spring they harvest strawberries.
Then, they run beets, onions, carrots, Swiss Chard, Currants, bilberries, and raspberries, through the year. Sunflowers, apples, plums, and grapes are common autumn foods. Flowers of all kinds are grown in quantity as well.
From the forests, they harvest mushrooms.
Each garden also has a bee hive to help fertilize things.
Unfortunately, the area is being deforested now, which means that less rain falls, and the fields don't flood. But I can say that the Baltic region is definitely good farmland already.