Siberian Permafrost Melting 1023
TeknoHog writes "New
Scientist Reports on a remarkable runaway process of global warming
that has been going on in Siberia for the past few years. 'Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3C in the last 40 years.' As a result, a million
square kilometers (the area of France and Germany) of frozen peat bog have
been found to be melting, according to Russian and international
scientists. This releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which
contributes to further global warming."
Word From the Whitehouse (Score:3, Funny)
La-la-la-la-la! MMMMM!!! I can't hear your!!! La-la-la-la-la!!
The war is going well, we plan to fix Social Security if the stubborn opponents would just see reason! I have political capital to spend and I'm going to spend it!
La-la-la-la-la! MMMMM!!! Hoo-Hah! Yellow rose of Texas .. HMMM MMM MMM MMM MMM MMMMMMM!!! La-la-la! (Dick see if we can round up some more troops and invade Siberberia, lookin' for weapons, setting up democracy sorta thing) La-la-la-la!!!
Re:Word From the Whitehouse (Score:5, Interesting)
Even worse to base your science... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, some places -- like Siberia -- are heating up, while others -- like warm ocean currents that heat air -- are cooling down. So it's not surprising that some areas are getting hotter and some are getting cooler. The point is that we can see evidence that a climactic equilibrium that has existed for hundreds of years is now becoming much more dynamic and unpredictable. And we're probably to blame for at least some of it, and maybe most of it.
Anyway, the short version of this speech is: Averages are often terribly misleading statistics.
Re:Interestingly enough... (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that we can see evidence that a climactic equilibrium that has existed for hundreds of years is now becoming much more dynamic and unpredictable. And we're probably to blame for at least some of it, and maybe most of it.
Hundreds of years on a geological time scale is nothing; it's a blink of an eye. And the climate hasn't been stable for even that long. On a scale of tens of thousands of years it's obvious that the planet has a cyclic climate, oscillating between ice ages and periods of warm
Re:Interestingly enough... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a much shorter climate-related transgression cycle for most coasts. In the Netherlands geology, archeology, and history suggest roughly the following cycle for the last few millenia:
Duinkerke III B (1000 - 1200)
Duinkerke III A (800 - 1000)
Duinkerke II (250 - 600)
Duinkerke I (500 - 200 BC)
Duinkerke 0 (1500 - 1000 BC)
Calais IV B (2150 - 1800 BC)
Calais IV A2 (2450 - 2150 BC)
Calais IV A1 (2700 - 2450 BC)
Calais III (3300 - 2700 BC)
The recent stability of coastlines is clearly exceptional. The map of Ptolemaeus [brucop.com] for instance, based on Duinkerke I data, shows most of the Netherlands, a part of Belgium, the east of England, and the Venice area in Italy missing (consistent with a modest rise of the sea level).
Peat formation occurs only in specific cold, wet, and acidic conditions. If land along the coast contains a large amount of peat, a few degrees of warming causing just a slight rise of the sea level, also causes the land to sink. In a few decades land can sink into the sea or turn into a lake, as our ancestors have frequently seen happening in the early middle ages. In 2003 we had two small floods in the Netherlands caused by collapsing peat dikes because of the unusually dry weather.
In the case of Siberia there is another major catalyst for quick change: melting of frozen water in peat. A little change in climate can have great consequences, apparently.
If we have reached some sort of tipping point then hold on. Humans will either learn to adapt or we'll die. I happen to think we'll adapt just fine.
Me too, but I am starting to get slightly worried about the future value of my house.
Hundreds of years on a geological time scale is no (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything I've heard about global warming suggests changes in sea level, which hits hardest on low-lying areas, with Bangladesh being frequently mentioned. So what happens when part of Bangladesh becomes the Indian Ocean, and a significant part of the rest has flooding problems? What happens when portions of northern European countries decide they'd rather be in the North Sea? How about when Florida seacoast becomes Atlantic and Gulf shallows?
Past tipping points were accompanied by extinctions of various sizes. I suspect humans WILL adapt just fine.
But I doubt our societies will. I expect there would be a lot of social strife, and more deaths would be caused by other humans than by climatic problems.
Re:Interestingly enough... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm no climate scientist, so take this with a grain of salt, but:
Different "greenhouse gasses" block different parts of the spectrum. It's my understanding that the section that CO2 blocks is already nearly closed. That means that further increases in CO2 will have little effect...there.
OTOH, methane blocks a different window. Ditto for sulfide ions (or perhaps it's hydrogen sulfide).
When a window is blocked, further releases have little effect on temperature, but continued releases prevent the window opening as the current gasses are cycled into the environment.
Methane has a relatively short half-life in the atmosphere. On the order of a decade. Then bacteria eat it and it gets turned into CO2.
HOWEVER, those methane clathrates that you mentioned are stored in "ices" that are very sensitive to the pressure and the temperature of the ocean that surrounds them. Occasionally something happens that causes large releases. If you know what, you know more than I do, but a warmer ocean sounds plausible.
Then there's another greenhouse gas. Water vapor. And we KNOW that that one's quite sensitive to temperature. The hotter it gets, the more water evaporates from the surface of the ocean. The warmer the air is, the longer it stays evaporated. And it's a very potent greenhouse gas.
Now the interesting thing is, the ocean has a long delay built into it. Water only evaporates from the surface, but the ocean has to be heated as a whole, and it has a vast thermal bulk. And water vapor in air is unstable. It tends to percipitate.
So the oceans are slowly being heated, which is increasing the rate of evaporation. And while a warmer atmosphere can hold more water, it can't hold an ocean's worth. So percipitation happens...but where? Not where it used to!
At some point we should start seing wild artic storms...something that hasn't been seen in centuries (at least). As long as the snow all melts in summer, the average temperature of the world will continue increasing, but at some point there will be a year of wilder than normal storms followed by a colder than average summer. This will lead to increased ice-pack, and snow not melting in the summer. But the ocean is still HOT, so it keeps evaporating more water. And in a few years, perhaps less than a decade, the glaciers will again start marching South.
As more and more land is covered by year-round snow, more light gets reflected back out into space. But it takes a long time for the oceans to give up their heat, and until they have finished doing so, there will be lots of percipitation every year, and each year more of it will be in the form of ice and snow.
This vast accumulation of ice and snow on the surface of the land will cause the ocean level to drop. (Sorry, I left out the ocean level rising during the lead up, but you're already familiar with that one.)
The last time the glaciers marched they scooped out the great lakes and Yosemite valley. That's around the latitude of San Francisco and Washington. I'm not sure how far South they got in Europe...but most of it was covered. (OTOH, the Mediterranian Sea was a fertile grassland. The sea level REALLY dropped.)
Another feature of this is that the continents float on a layer of underlying magma, and how high they float depends on how much weight is present. Water is heavy, so when the glaciation is in full force, the continents start to submerge into the magma (they never get very far
So. Well, if you ask how much certainty I have in that model...not much, but more than in any alternative I've been presented with.
Re:Word from Chicken Little (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a mistake to think of this as a linear trend. It is accelerating; also it takes some decades to warm up to a given forcing. What we see now is the warming we already committed to in 1980. What's more, policies themselves take time to develop and implement, so really what we see now was pretty much the inevitable warming that we had in place by 1960 or so.
In effect, we are already committed to fifty years of more warming. If we don't get a grip on it, there is no reason to expect it won't accelerate, and go on for a very long time. If we do nothing as far as policy is concerned, the science tells us pretty clearly that things will keep getting more out of whack and faster.
The question is, when do we decide to do something about it? Until the coal runs out or we get it into our heads that it is time to act, whatever we see at any given moment will be a small fraction of what we are already committed to.
When I first started studying this matter in 1991, I believed that the world would start taking action by about now, so I did not believe people who saw this as the biggest problem around.
I was wrong.
At this point we are in big trouble and still lots of folks are coming up with irrational arguments for ignoring it.
Re:Word from Chicken Little (Score:4, Insightful)
The science says NOTHING conclusive concerning what part of global warming is natural and what part is due to human activity. Jury's still out on this one, at least to people who care about empiricism.
Without an answer to that question (and even with one) we really have no idea what, if anything, can be done to slow down warming. Everything in that area is pure guesswork and nobody knows if doing things like drastically reducing emissions will have any effect. We only have a single sample to work with, and a wrong guess won't become apparent for at least fifty years.
The question is, when do we decide to do something about it?
Perhaps when we know what part of climate change is natural and what part is artificial? And after we determine with some reasonable degree of certainty what methods can be used to slow it down - assuming that's the desirable outcome?
whatever we see at any given moment will be a small fraction of what we are already committed to.
That's true no matter what happens and what process is to blame. We've only got the one planet, which means we're "committed to" whatever the hell happens to it regardless.
At this point we are in big trouble
No, we aren't. The doomsayers cry out that the end is nigh, but so far humans have adapted remarkably well to changing climactic conditions. In fact, humans sans any real technology have managed to survive several much more radical climate changes - and without their numbers being endangered in any real way.
still lots of folks are coming up with irrational arguments for ignoring it.
Some folks ignore it, but a good many would like some more science along with an empirically sound approach, rather than frenzied hair-pulling, teeth-gnashing, and I-just-pulled-this-out-of-my-ass guesswork.
Max
Re:Word from Chicken Little (Score:4, Informative)
Hunters and gatherers move on to more fertile land, and kill or are killed by those who already lived there. Unfortunately, when the killing uses modern weapons, it actually could be threatening the race and not just unlucky tribes this time.
Many civilisations were wiped out by climate shifts; history is written by the victors, and not just in war. For instance, several years of drought is thought to have put paid to the Mayans, a cold change wiped out the Vikings in Greenland.
But yes, humans and civilisation will survive, but many individuals may not; and the cost to non-human life will be much more severe.
Need I remind you... (Score:4, Interesting)
Then you need to factor in every single extinct homonid species and subspecies that did NOT make it.
Sure, humanity survived without technology. Mind you, we weren't exactly causing this level of pollution a million years ago, either. Even with just "natural causes" to contend with, the vast majority of hominids did NOT make it and we damn near didn't, either.
Will we survive global warming? Possibly. Humans are sufficiently numerous and sufficiently mobile that it would take a total collapse of the ecosystem to finish off the race. That could happen, though. It is possible.
Will it decimate humanity? Oh, very likely. I suspect the human population will be in the hundreds of millions, by the end of the century, rather than the projected tens of billions. It depends on just how much the environment lags behind the input.
If the lag is sufficiently small, we're seeing the major effects of what we're doing now right now. This means a 5C rise over the last century would result in a 5C rise this century (we've had exponential growth, so far, but efficiency is beginning to catch up, so we can't just do a simple extrapolation). A 10C total rise would finish off life in the tropics and severely reduce it in the subtropics.
If, however, the lag is closer to a century (much more likely) then we're barely seeing the effects of the Industrial Revolution. A 5C rise now could translate to a cumulative 20-25C rise over a century from now, with no additional input from us. That's just from what we've put into the environment already, allowing for the time lags inherent in a global scale.
But, of course, humans aren't going to stop the pollution tomorrow. And if efficiency does NOT improve to reduce pollution, then the 20-25C rise will be an underestimate. In that case, a few hamlets might survive on the antarctic continent, but the rest of the planet will resemble Death Valley.
Re:Word from Chicken Little (Score:3, Insightful)
This is polemical nonsense. If science says nothing colclusive about this matter it says nothing conclusive about anything.
This is the only planet in the known universe that supports advanced life, not a court of law. Even if the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion were not satisfied (a threshhold which
Re:Word from Chicken Little (Score:5, Insightful)
We've been using that stored energy, releasing all of that carbon which is superbly good at reflecting infrared energy--which impacts the primary means for the cooling of the planet--radiation. It's proven by ice core samples that CO2 levels were fairly level for a long long time up until the 1800's, where concentration has grown almost exponentially. Even the oil giants will admit it in their studies!
We're using up gobs of energy that was stored up a long long time ago, which necessarily produces heat (except for energy derived from natural events which we have no control over, such as hydro, wind, geothermal, etc.--but most of our power comes from coal, oil and gas). Yearly consumption, by the way, is on the order of ~500 exajoules today. That's a buttload of energy, and if the earth can't get rid of it by radiating, it's just not gonna happen. If radiating ability is significantly impaired, we lose. Once it gets hot enough, water vapor will start to have much the same impact as the CO2. The cycle could literally run away and blow up in our faces, for all we know. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I can't say, but many scientists have a pretty good idea of what will happen, but it's possible that they know what will happen about as well as anyone else... So, why stack all your chips and throw the ball into the roulette wheel without giving it a real good thought?
So, it's a two forked problem, we're pumping out tons of energy such that the planet has never experienced before, and we ARE impairing it's ability to radiate, as far as we can tell. History can't account for today, and for mankind--and we must tread cautiously because of that. It's true that there are climatic changes over the course of thousands of years, no argument there. But there were no humans driving their H2's around back then. A few degrees over the course of a couple hundred years are particularly worrying in the grand scheme of things, and sticking your head in the ground is the worst kind of solution!
Re:Word from Chicken Little (Score:4, Interesting)
Our energy production is in no way relevant, as the Earth's energy input from the Sun is still thousands of times more than that. Let's make a rough calculation... One kW per square meter makes 60*60*24*365*1000*pi*6300000^2=3.9322e+24 J per year. Divide that by your 500 exaJ, and you get about 8000. Ok, some is reflected (earth's albedo is
All heat on surface of earth is radiated to space, all the time, no matter how it is generated, so Earth's energy input and output are about exactly the same. It's the buffer effect of the atmosphere that matters.
So the only thing that is relevant, is CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, which keep the Sun's energy trapped. Please keep to the facts.
Re:Word from Chicken Little (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Word from Chicken Little (Score:5, Insightful)
There are leaders who could do something about it (or at least said they would), like Al Gore; blame the voters for sneering at his nerdiness and voting for people who tell them they can have it all and not pay for it. Don't give up on the system, participate and make it work, it's the only hope we have.
Re:Explain yourself time traveler! (Score:5, Informative)
Radiochemistry. For example,
What about "tipping point" don't we understand? (Score:4, Informative)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/ [msn.com]
Then there's the argument that, oh, the environment will just adjust and absorb the carbon. Nope:
http://www.sundayherald.com/51146 [sundayherald.com]
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/um
Oh, and why worry, it's just heat, right?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2949844
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/08/05/n
http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/pr/news/2005/news8474
Re: Word From the Whitehouse (Score:5, Insightful)
> There is not a *single* scientific report that can prove Global Warming, even as a theory. It's only the nut-job-leftists that tout their unprovable theories as fact
FYI, "global warming" is a measurable phenomenon. A theory would be something that explains it.
And AFAICT, the only scientists disputing the anthropogenic theory are those who have sold their souls to the oil companies.
Re: Word From the Whitehouse (Score:3, Insightful)
That must be based on faulty assumptions.
Re:Word From the Whitehouse (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not put more r&d money into alternative fuels and get the gas guzzlers off the roads once and for all? What's it going to take? $100 barrels of oil? $200? Will there even be oil left after 50 years? Dubya doesn't realize it, but he can't run his war machines on empty tanks and his so-called faith in God. So much for defending the nation in the future when we'll really need it.
Nevertheless, my apologies to everyone for flying off the handle, but let's face it. I'm growing incresingly impatient and hostile with people that bitch about the high price of gas, yet would rather fill up the tanks in their gas guzzling SUVs and pickups instead of trading them in for a more sensible vehicle. Meanwhile, I have to tighten my belt, make sacrifices, and pay the high price for their selfish gluttony? F*** them! They deserve the blame, too.
Re:Word From the Whitehouse (Score:3, Interesting)
You voted for a born-again christian.
believe humans are most likely to blame for global warming
You voted for a former oil company executive who believes that "the jury is still out" on global warming.
recycle everything I can, ride my bike to work year round (even though I do own an SUV)
You voted for a "free trade" booster who has opened the borders to more cheap disposable Chinese and Central american goods.
and, wait for it - voted for Bush. Twice. Wait, three times if you count
Re:Word From the Whitehouse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Word From the Whitehouse (Score:5, Interesting)
No. There are at this point exactly three possible reasons that somebody could vote Republican:
Me? I am sick of entitlements.
And so you vote for the party *most* commited to them?!?
That puts you squarely in category 2.
If anybody else doubts this, let's hear your reasons. It's really pretty simple to put them in one or more of those categories.
Re:Word From the Whitehouse (Score:5, Interesting)
So you, sick fool, are laughing. Making posts with no content, just some inane partisan crack. While talking about "communists", as if the real ones weren't part of the problem, in collusion with your oil corporate government heroes. When are you going to shut up and let the adults talk about how to salvage the wreck your boys have made? Or at least enlist and go to Iraq as a soldier to "support the troops", instead of just slapping a magnetic sticker (made of oil, in China) on the back of your suburban 12MPG SUV?
Problematic, but some benefits (Score:5, Interesting)
Again, from all the science it seems like global warming will be a catastrophe, but it would be nice to find a few more bog people.
And yes, I have a degree in anthropology.
Re:Problematic, but some benefits (Score:3, Funny)
"Yes, I have a grant to find bogmen in Siberia, but I can't make it because of the catastrophic flooding..."
Alternate energy source (Score:3, Interesting)
Burning methane (Score:5, Interesting)
It is debatable whether 99% remediation is sufficient, but surely it's a good start. At the very least, it would be nice to use some of the energy produced in combustion to sequester the CO2 rather than dump it into the atmosphere.
Mal-2
Re:Burning methane (Score:3, Informative)
Global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of how much a given mass of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to global warming. It is a relative scale which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of carbon dioxide whose GWP is one.
(...)
Examples:
* carbon dioxide has a GWP of exactly 1 (since it is the baseline unit to which all other greenhouse gases are compared.)
* methane h
Re:yeah but it'll stink won't it? (Score:3, Funny)
The answer is that it's mostly hydrogen, which doesn't smell. The odor comes from organic compounds such as indole, skatole, and mercaptans, and the inorganic gas hydrogen sulfide. All of these compounds taken into the nose together, oddly eno
Re:yeah but it'll stink won't it? (Score:3, Informative)
(from wikipedia)
Yeah it sucks, but.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah it sucks, but.... (Score:5, Informative)
And the polar ice cap is melting fast too... Most of us may live to see it all but disappear. Think of it as the mother of all ice cubes, and imagine what the melting is going to do --- dilute the 'drink' (which will change water density which will change ocean water flow, which will seriously mess with weather patterns) and once it finishes melting, it's function as a thermal buffer disappears and global warming will really start to hurt us.
I'm thinking that people are underestimating that last point.
Re:Yeah it sucks, but.... (Score:3, Funny)
Max
Re:It Sucks, But Not For You (Score:3, Informative)
Just build higher?!
Do you have any concept of the time and money it takes to rebuild a commercial building more complex than a Wal-Mart? Or an interstate highway? Or a tunnel? Or a port? Or a railroad? Or an airport? Or a high-voltage power transmission line? Or a nuclear power plant? Do you have ANY idea how much human effort and raw material is tied up in the infrastructure of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Boston, Pro
Contrast the responses (Score:5, Funny)
American Right scientist: This is interesting data. However a few degrees change over a short span of only 40 years is not indicative of any long-term trend towards either a cooling cycle or a heating cycle. Nevertheless, as the historical temperature has fluctuated greatly in the past and it seems that we are actually coming out of a trough, it seems reasonable to assume that a warming trend would be on the horizon. At the least, it should indicate that we need more study of the phenomenon.
European scientists: Ziss is clearly ze work of ze fat, stinking Americans and zer fat, stinking wives and cars.
Siberian citizens: Ya, I am sinkink dat I like za balmy weather.
CAN YOU SPOT THE REAL SCIENTIST? (Score:5, Insightful)
GALLANT has a PhD in a field unrelated to his research.
GOOFUS gets little respect as a scientist outside the scientific community.
GALLANT gets little respect as a scientist inside the scientific community.
GOOFUS drives a beat-up old car.
GALLANT drives a BMW unless his chauffeur is driving.
GOOFUS wears street clothes to work, maybe a lab suit on occasion.
GALLANT wears three piece suits at all times.
GOOFUS is employed by a "university", a "hospital", or a "laboratory".
GALLANT is employed by a "Coalition", an "Institute", an "Association", a "Foundation", a "Council", or a "White House".
GOOFUS earns $30000 per year unless they cut his funding.
GALLANT earns $200000 per year but makes his real money from speaking fees.
GOOFUS lives anywhere in the country.
GALLANT lives in a wealthy area near Washington DC, but may have additional homes elsewhere.
GOOFUS may sometimes be filmed standing in front of big melting icebergs.
GALLANT may be filmed sitting in front of a bookcase or standing behind a podium at a $2000 per plate fundraiser, although there may be ice melting in his drink.
GOOFUS is a dues-paying member of several scientific grassroots organizations.
GALLANT is on the payroll of several scientific astroturf organizations.
GOOFUS gets summoned for jury duty but is never picked as a juror.
GALLANT claims "the jury is still out" on evolution or global warming, since he considers himself to be on the jury.
GOOFUS maintains the world is five billion years old.
GALLANT isn't really saying, but creationists distribute his pamphlets all the time.
GOOFUS claims the world is warming as a direct result of human activity.
GALLANT either claims that climate change doesn't exist, or if it does, that humans have nothing to do with it.
GOOFUS and his graduate students do the dirty work of collecting raw data and looking for conclusions to be drawn from it.
GALLANT does the dirty work of discrediting GOOFUS by manipulating his data in Excel with statistically invalid techniques.
GOOFUS writes scientific papers and grant proposals.
GALLANT writes the nation's environmental legislation and a column for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
GOOFUS draws scientific conclusions from the data he collects that usually come out in agreement with the scientific consensus.
GALLANT paints the scientific consensus as being entirely political in nature and enjoys comparing himself to Galileo.
GOOFUS is heavily trained to be a skeptic and to treat information from all sources with a skeptical mind.
GALLANT is heavily marketed as a skeptic but reserves his skepticism for GOOFUS.
GOOFUS isn't paid much attention by the press since his opinions are commonplace among scientists.
GALLANT holds maverick opinions for a scientist which keeps him busy running from one balanced talk show to the next.
GOOFUS has no PR skills.
GALLANT leverages his PR experience all the time, although he has access to paid PR staff.
GOOFUS claims the sky is falling and we have to take painful steps to reduce CO2 emissions now.
GALLANT claims the free market will take care of it and recommends solving the problem by conning Zimbabwe out of their pollution credits.
GOOFUS advises his kids not to go into science.
GALLANT advises the president.
Re:CAN YOU SPOT THE REAL SCIENTIST? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:CAN YOU SPOT THE REAL SCIENTIST? (Score:3, Insightful)
He probably flunked that 'conservative' student for being illogical.
Brandybuck, seriously something is happening and we can argue for the next millenia about whether humans caused it or not, but we may still have time to act, we
Re:Can you spot the born-again zealot? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a reason why even established stuff like gravity is called a "theory" and never renamed to "fact". It's always just a "theory" (ok, in the scientific sense, not in the common usage of "just a theory", which is more like "hypothesis".) It can _always_ be a candidate to be better understood, revised or outright discarded.
The moment one theory is put on a pedestal, it's suddenly taken as a 100% finished and definitive fact, that noone should ever question, it stopped being science.
So when I see a whole bloody thread and a whole bloody disertation aimed openly at discrediting anyone who dares question the sacred truth, and based on such fine fallacies as:
- Ad Hominem [wikipedia.org] and more speciffically a very verbose case of Poisoning The Well [wikipedia.org] (The _whole_ purpose of the whole GALLANT vs GOOFUS thing is to ridicule and undermine the credibility of GALLANT, instead of whether his theories might or might not be right. So most of the other fallacies are just there to serve this one.)
- Appeal to Numbers [wikipedia.org] (More of us believe X instead of Y, so X must be true. Or conversely, don't even consider Y, since it doesn't have a "consensus".)
- Appeal to Motive [wikipedia.org] (Let's divert the question from whether a theory is right to the possibility that anyone supporting it _might_ have some hidden motives.)
- Argumentum ad Lazarum [wikipedia.org] and other forms of Appeal to Emotion [wikipedia.org] to paint GOOFUS as _likeable_, as the only proof needed that his is the right theory. (Surely the poor guy who earns less and doesn't wear a suit must be right, because he's the one your average slashdotter can sympathise more.)
- Appeal To Spite [wikipedia.org] and/or Association Fallacy [wikipedia.org] (Surely the _only_ ones supporting those theories are those evil conservatives/oil cartels/whatever supporting those theories. And because they're evil, anyone or any theory associated with them is automatically evil and discredited.)
(You can also add the Begging The Question [wikipedia.org] to the last one, since there's a bit of circular logic and assuming that you already know they're evil, in classifying them as evil in the first place.)
- Appeal To Fear [wikipedia.org] (While not directly a theme of the GOOFUS vs GALLANT story, it _is_ the _main_ theme waved around in this whole using ecology as political capital. If you don't imediately stop believing all else and do as we say, we're all doomed!)
And so on, and so forth.
Sorry, that is _not_ science. It's politics and religion, but science it sure as heck ain't. I don't know which is the correct theory there, but it sure as heck ain't decided by such GALLANT-vs-GOOFUS Poisoning the Well [wikipedia.org] rhetoric.
(Which of course, doesn't invalidate the fact that global warming might (or might not) be real. Like anything which is just a string of fallacies, it really doesn't prove anything. It does, however, disgust me profoundly.)
You're muddying the waters! (Score:4, Insightful)
And you're just trying to muddy the waters, make it so that a casual reader of this discussion will conclude that there are crazy zealots on both sides and, gee, maybe we shouldn't do anything because science is divided on the issue. Which it ain't.
--grendel drago
Re:Enough.... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the question is, can you actually argue a point without crap like "I wanted to slap you like a bitch" or "you stupid cunt"? Zealot tantrums are an amusing read, but sadly prove nothing in science.
Are you *trying* to look like an idiot? (Score:5, Insightful)
As the OP said, GALLANT paints the scientific consensus as being entirely political in nature and enjoys comparing himself to Galileo.
They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein... but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. To compare fake science bought and paid for by folks with a huge monetary stake in the results to the work of Galileo or Einstein is an insult to every scientist who ever honestly questioned dogma.
--grendel drago
Re:Contrast the responses (Score:4, Insightful)
No, are you crazy? Hot weather in Siberia is *AWFUL*. With half the land being swamps, the area is literally crawling with mosquitoes, black flies, and horse flies. I'm not exaggerating! Your clothes look gray because of all the blood-feeding insects crawling over them. It's tolerable if the weather is cool, since several layers of clothing is the only sure way to avoid bites (deet gets quickly rubbed off by bugs hitting your body). When it's hot, not only are you crawling with bugs, you're also sweating and developing a heat stroke.
Believe me, late fall or early spring is the best time in Siberia, not summer, and everyone hates "za balmy weather."
(Yes, I've lived there).
Re:Contrast the responses (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't know for sure that we're fucked. But consider this analogy: There is a gun pointed at your head. It might be loaded. Are you going to take drastic steps to remove it, or are you going to play russian roulette on the grounds that "we don't know for sure that it's loaded".
The world actually needs more bogs (Score:4, Informative)
David Bellamy said, "We criticise people from the third world countries for not conserving their rainforests, but when it comes to our peat bogs which are actually a rarer habitat than the tropical rainforest, we are doing a much worse job". (The Times, Saturday November 25, 2000).
Exploitation by afforestation, conversion to agriculture and commercial peat extraction has destroyed much of our peat lands. In the last century we lost 75% of our blanket bogs and 94% of our raised bogs. Gardeners and horticulture used a staggering 2.55 million cubic metres of peat each year. In the UK there is less than 9,500 acres of near natural raised bog left.
Re:The world actually needs more bogs (Score:3, Insightful)
"Gee, even if there were a 'Global Warming', it just means we can go on destroying American peat bogs, because there are new ones thawing off in Siberia."
The orgy must end (Score:4, Insightful)
Question is, are we going to be stupid enough to continue down this wreckless path? Does humanity secretly have an unfulfilled death wish? Was World War II just a fluke or was it a flash of the selfish inhumanity really lies within each of us?
Listen I'm willing to admit I'm part of the problem. I recognize things have to change. Each of needs to wake up, find a way to snap out of these unsustainable lifestyles we all lead and avoid the terrible consequences that surely await us if we don't.
Let's quit being fucking idiots. What do we need to do?
Re:The orgy must end (Score:3, Interesting)
Give me a break.
Henry Ford made millions, but he also made fire trucks more mobile. Too bad they didn't have that in 1871 Chicago [wikipedia.org].
Franklin, Edison, Tesla, Shockley and Turing made research and information retrieval so much easier. Are you willing to give up your beloved Slashdot? I didn't think so.
Re:The orgy must end (Score:3, Interesting)
- Abandon capitalism (though not freedom), it drives consumerism.
- Raise taxes, if taxes are high enough, then no one will have enough money to be consumers... wait, this is kind of like getting rid of capitalism.
- Teach people the value of community, and of living for something greater than trying to attain personal nirvana. We would probably have to ban advertising since the goal of advertising is to make us feel inadequate about our current status, and offers a solutions for $19.99.
Dang,
Re:The orgy must end (Score:3, Insightful)
Your opinion, apparently, is "100%", and facts won't affect that. If you feel that way, why are you still using a computer, heating the atmosphere unnecessarily? Unless you're solar, wind, or nuclear powered, you are contributing to the emission of tons of CO2 from power plants around the country. Or, are you one of those "I know what's good for all of you" types, who will never sacrifice anything of theirs to fix what they perceive as the problem?
No, I am not a
Re:The orgy must end (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, wait, there was this: "So far the lifestyle *has* been sustainable. You're predicting unsustainability on the premise that technology will never progress beyond what we have today - like all alarmists. As if the status quo this moment is all we're ever going to achieve, despite the fact that the entirety of human history contradicts this notion."
And you are
thawing frozen peat bog (Score:3, Insightful)
Just hits me strange.
So what was this frozen peat bog before? How did peat grow in ice?
Re:thawing frozen peat bog (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this invalidate concerns about global warming? Not especially. Even if the warming were entiely natural it doesn't mean it's going to suit humans terribly well, particularly if the change is fairly abrupt. On the other hand the rate of warming (which is the main point for climatologists who are concerned about global warming) has increased very dramatically over the last 100 years. There is an increasing amount of data showing this rate of warming is unprecenedented over the last 1000 years. Interestingly the increasing rate of warming correlates very closely with increased CO2 (and other) emissions following the industrial revolution. There is enough data regarding how CO2 and methane can trap heat and produce warming to lend creedence to the claim that it may be a causal, rather than just correlated, relationship. If we really have provided a powerful enough new driver to significantly alter the behaviour of the system then that is definitely cause fr some concern. The global climate is a very complex system and we know little about its stability with new forces acting on it, nor do we understand the tipping points of the system which can result in sudden and complete changes in behaviour.
So yes, the earth was warmer, and no, that's not especially meaningful to discussions about current global warming.
Jedidiah.
Re:thawing frozen peat bog (Score:4, Interesting)
On the one hand this is unknown territory for humans as you mention. It is the 'greenhouse effect' which could have dramatic consequences including an ice age if ocean currents flip.
It is playing with fire. This is possibly the worst thing that can happen in the last several thousand years.
But it is the greenhouse effect. If you have ever worked around greenhouses, you inject C02 to induce faster plant grow. Like plants like bogs..
Why did dinosaurs tower 3 stories? The biomass could support them. Would we survive a transition to a CO2 rich atmosphere? I don't know.
Peat Bog? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, wait....if it's not natural for this formerly "permafrost" peat bog to be melting, how is it that this peat moss was, at some point, able to grow in the first place?
Re:Peat Bog? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh it's natural for peat moss to be able to grow there, given the right gloal climate. The question is more whether it is natural for humans to continue populating the areas we do in a global climate in which peat moss grows there. The earth and the global climate are, historically, remarkably resilient; humans, and other fauna, are not.
Jedi
How peat bogs grow (Score:5, Informative)
the bottom layers of moss (pete, decomposed moss) haven't defrosted in millenia, and they now are. and staying that way. I think that's the news.
I haven't read the article, mind you, and this explanation is from memory of biology 10. so I may be waaaaay off. someone, feel free to confirm or deny this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat [wikipedia.org]
hey, guess what. I didn't read the wikipedia article either, but I glanced at it, and I think it agrees. w00t!
And the Alps are melting, too (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And the Alps are melting, too (Score:4, Informative)
The boat parable (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Take more measurements and get conclusive evidence that their boat is actually going to sink before they can make it back to shore.
OR
b) Start bailing.
Re:The boat parable (Score:5, Interesting)
In (a), you're assuming that this is a do or die. Either they will make it to shore, or they won't. In reality, the question isn't "is the planet going to die" it's "how badly is the planet going to die, and how badly has it already died". So yes you are right, either we can (b) start bailing (fixing the problem) or (actually the proper word here is AND, but you'd rather we forget that) we can take measurements to see how bad the damage is, how permanent the damage is, and how quickly we need to fix things.
We have what every reputable (non-political / lobby) scientist declares a problem or potential problem. If this is a true problem, we are constantly doing damage even now. You are advising that we double check previous findings before attempting to fix it, instead of attempting to fix it while double checking at the same time. Let me spell this out for you: If we try to fix it and it turns out not to be a problem, we lose billions or trillions of dollars (note: "lose" is of course not taking into account the reduced pollution which is a huge gain even if global warming doesn't exist). If we don't try to fix it while double checking, we lose the footing we need to combat the problem.
Here's another analogy. There is a colored plastic cup upside-down on a table. Underneath is either a mini-cupcake or termite digging into the table. Scientists hear scratching noises through the cup, but can't lift it. Either we fix the problem (smash the cup) which might ruin a cupcake if that is under it, however if it's a termite, we stop an infestation before it enters the table. If we wait around and double check our readings to confirm a termite, it will burrow into the table and squishing it will no longer be possible.
Re:The boat parable (Score:5, Interesting)
c) patch up the leaks and keep working, cause if they don't make a catch on this trip they'll be broke. If they make a catch they might be able to afford patch materials for the next trip AND have money to feed their families.
I believe that's the current method being used.
I hate to break it to y'all (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone notice the price of oil (and other fossil fuels, which have gone up dramatically as well) today?
Back when I was a debater, in college, virtually every proposal to counter Co2 emissions was dependant upon altering the prices of fossil fuels.
Sure, the mechanisms were different; some utilized high levels of taxes, implemented globally. Some used means of artificially limiting supply; when we agree to burn only x exajoules of energy, the price per unit goes up.
In any case, none of those proposals (all of which were directly from left leaning political panels on climate change) envisioned prices as high as they are now, or as high as they are projected to be in the near future. I do not believe there is anyway that political action will be able to unite all the major Co2 emitting countries under one policy. It's simply impossible.
Significantly higher oil prices? We'll have conservation out the wazoo, now, and alternate energy technologies (yes, including Nuclear, which is probably the best way out of fossil fuels in the short run (you take what you can get, and there is the potential for a really wonderful powersource, if the only idiotic nuclear companies would step out of the way for the latest and greatest designs being used in research throughout the world)) are on the short-term horizon.
Anyone notice the hybrid trend? Or walk into a honda dealership or a saturn dealership?
See all the signs about conservation? Fuel Efficiency? Mark my words-- If oil prices collapse again, all of this green-wave will vanish. Keep oil prices high, and we'll move off the fossil fuel economy in the near future.
Quite frankly, if you are really worried about emissions-related global warming, (which I'm not, there are many other factors which I believe account for warming better than industrial era emissions. Like humanities desire to clear forests, and the resulting desertification. Or conversion of various land types to ecologically useless farmland) your best bet is to vote for policies that keep oil prices high, and drive it up through the roof.
If oil was $120-200 a barrel, electric cars would be a reality, even with their dinky 100 mile range. If oil was that high, nuclear plants would be built *right-now*, and the major auto companies would be building a hydrogen economy in conjunction with the oil companies *right-now*. Oh, and oil is projected to be at these levels if demand patterns continue to grow at their current rate.
I never believed the supply-side problems presented by the dooms-dayers of the 70. Rather, I thought we would experience demand that slowly outstripped supply, allowing the market to adjust economic allocations to account for it. That's exactly what we are experiencing. These corporations already have their plans laid; they've been waiting for economic conditions to be right, so they can get the jump on their competitors.
Basically, I'm asking for people to stop clamoring for lower gas prices. It's a blessing in disguise. If oil prices had only gone up from their high in the 70s, we'd live in a different world today. It's really too bad that the Shah's regime collapsed; as the architech of the first-wave price hikes, he would have unknowingly corrected the world dependence on fossil fuels.
The next best step for concerned individuals to take (i.e. people who are not the dictators of statist regimes who can alter prices at whim
That's the way out of fossil fuel emissions. You'll *never*, *ever* get a pure political solution. Attack the economics of the problem, and the free market
Re:I hate to break it to y'all (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I'm a believer in free m
Re:Third Post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Third Post (Score:4, Funny)
NeoCons believe what now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NeoCons believe what now? (Score:5, Insightful)
The scietific debate on global warming was over before the 90s.
The political debate is ongoing, but has as much to do with science as the so-called 'debate' over intelligent design.
Re: NeoCons believe what now? (Score:3, Insightful)
> Why does your political leaning have anything to do with whether you believe humankind is causing global warming? If you're that far gone, you're not judging the issue on the evidence; you're believing whatever fits most comfortably with your pre-established worldview.
It's a sad fact that the holders of some political worldviews think they can bend reality to match their ideology. E.g., Lysenkoism [wikipedia.org] and Deutsche Physik [wikipedia.org].
I suspect history will add the USA's will to deny global warming and biological evolut
Re: Third Post (Score:5, Insightful)
> We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind. We maintain that climate change is a natural part of the planet's life cycle.
Since it's going to screw up your golden age regardless of what's causing it, why aren't you interested in doing whatever is possible to reverse it?
Re: Third Post (Score:4, Informative)
"What on Earth makes you think we should change it?!?!"
Um.. disappearing glaciers? Insurance companies panicking ?
"Are you so arrogant as to think we have a say in it?"
Dutch researchers calculated China and India can reduce emissions even when the use of electricity will double. Key word: efficiency. Absent word: nuclear power.
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can thank American Government pollution laws for that not happening. Go to a major city in China; there, you'll DEFINITELY need gas masks to deal with pollution, especially near those "free enterprize" zones where pollution is not regulated. China has 7 of the world's most polluted cities. Proof: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nts40287.htm [gasandoil.com]
Oh and recently, Exxon-Mobil Corporation announced that peak oil will happen in 5 years. Proof: http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj
Also, for a good miniature end-of-the-world scenario that happened, go read up on Rapa Nui, aka Easter Island.
Re: Meh. (Score:3, Insightful)
> We'd have to wear gas masks when we went outside, because of air pollution.
Do you have any idea how many laws and regulations have been imposed to reduce air pollution during the last 40 years?
> We'd be out of oil (evidently it was all floating in the ocean).
There's only a finite amount of oil in the ground, and demand is still growing. You do the math.
> DDT was the scourge of the world.
Are you arguing that DDT is, in fact, safe?
> And, yes, the Coming Ice Age would freeze us all.
Was there ever
Re:Third Post (Score:4, Informative)
*Slow* climate change is. As far as we can tell, the world has never seen anywhere close to this fast of global climate change. Perhaps you remember this famous graph [lakepowell.net]. Note two key details:
* The biggest difference, as far as resolution will allow, is about 10C. It took about *20,000* years for this to happen. Just at our rate over the last century, that would take only 2000 years. At current rates? About 500 years.
* CO2 levels have an incredible correlation with temperature
dramatic warming following the last ice age
That was nothing - three degrees average in several thousand years? That's a walk in the park compared to what we have ongoing currently.
Re:Third Post (Score:3, Informative)
Next time, don't just make stuff up when you want reply to a post, ok?
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
While the original list was plain silly, I have to laugh at this.
Because the US is the single greatest defender of democracy in the history of the world.
Given the history of the US in backing non-democratic governments that overthrow democratic but socialist governments, (nd remember that doesn't mean communist or want to become communist, lots of countries elect socialist governments from time to time, much of Europe for example.
Look at the brutal un-democratic regimes the US still backs. If someone from Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan hates the US its unlikely to be because they hate it for its freedom and democracy but more likely because it backs a deeply unpopular regime (of course that is just one reason, there may be others rational and irrational).
We are all grateful for what the US did in WWII, but remember was against a democratic election there since the result would probably have been something it didn't want.
The US is no worse than most countries in the way it acts in its own interest, but it isn't really much better either. If you look at its history it isn't some great bastion of worldwide democracy and freedom, just self interested like everyone else.
To come vaguely back on topic, when the rest of the world sees a US reluctance to do anything about climate change, a lot of people see that same self-interest, although very short term, again. It seems to largely be US scientist (and a minority of them) who don't think humans are having an effect. Many of which work for US companies that give large donations to US politicians. This makes people pretty sceptical.
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because we have the most powerful, best-trained military in the world, and can work on two things at once.
Yeah, you lot are so good that you regularly shoot your own side. Not to mention that the US army is rediculously trigger happy too.
You might have the bigest army in the world, but that sure as hell doesn't make it the best. Training is what counts, and from what I see on the news (including abc) it appears that some parts of the US Army
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope this is meant as irony, because otherwise it's kind of sad.
Although the US is indeed one of the biggest countries that occasionally comes to the defense of democracy, it's also one of the biggest countries to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with a pro-US dictator whenever that fits better into their goals.
Iran, for example, had a democratically elected government before the US replaced it with the Shah in 1954. You may also have heard of Pinochet in Chili, and of all the mess the US was involved in Central America.
And because in the preceding years, they saw terrorism work like a charm.
I don't think that was because of terrorism, but rather because the US forces were unable to deal with guerilla's. I can't remember any terrorist strike against a US civilian target that had anything to do with Somalia.
And about those WMDs, it was the US that claimed to have proof, not the other way around. So far, that proof seems to have been a complete and utter fabrication.
mcv.
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, sad would be the lack of democracy in Japan, or Germany. Or throughout eastern Europe. Happily that's not the case. Happier still will be democracy throughout the Middle East - not just in Israel, and partially in Egypt. That, of course, is the whole damn point of sticking it out in Iraq. Even the Saudis just started having municipal elections... these things take time.
don't think that was because of terrorism, but rather because th
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, you must know by this point in your life that
Re:TF Text from TFA (Score:5, Informative)
So I guess the remaining question is how fast this 70 billion tonnes of methane is actually entering the atmosphere (adjust properly for acceleration effects)...
Re:TF Text from TFA (Score:5, Informative)
High latitude methane may nevertheless work out to be a big deal. Softening the blow a bit is the fact that methane is shorter-lived in the atmosphere than CO2.
Some researchers believe that tundral methane releases play a big role in the termination of the recent glaciations.
Re:TF Text from TFA (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
oh, I guess I should add that ID is just an idea, but I will omit that in order to dupe the retarded public.
Re:Air is getting warmer inside heads too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good scientists ask a lot of questions, but then they do research to try to find answers. The problem with this topic is that every jackass on both sides thinks he's an environmental scientist because he noticed Earth used to be hot or that it's really big or that we burn a lot of crap. Or, more likely, he heard someone on the radio who heard from "a scientist" that everything is going to either be okay or explode, depending on which station you listen to.
I wish everyone who didn't at least have a very strong chemistry background would just shut up about it. Which might be quite a few people on Slashdot, but every time my boss mentions it, he deserves to be punched in the mouth.
I don't know. I'm not one of those chemistry guys. I don't have the kind of equipment you'd need to measure this stuff. My stance on the issue is entirely based on the fact that I don't think it's a good idea to be pumping billions of tons of anything into the atmosphere, and that should get slowed down a little.
Re:Air is getting warmer inside heads too... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is precisely the point I try to drive home. Even the experts don't really know what the hell is going on, and why should we expect them to? It's not as if we spend an enormous amount of money researching either the direct question or the indirect factors involved (
Re:Air is getting warmer inside heads too... (Score:4, Informative)
You overestimate the uncertainties. If you read things like the IPCC report you will see that there is actually a fairly strong consensus on the amount of warming (they give confidence limits); and fairly good models for the impact. Scientists always admit uncertainty - but uncertainty isn't synonymous with having no clue...
You then state that the economic impact will be devastating. That statment is probably fraught with more uncertainty than any of the climate change predictions. How do you know that the effect of limit greenhouse emissions won't actually improve our economy by stimulating greater efficiency and innovation?
Re:Air is getting warmer inside heads too... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the earth has been warming. The issue that is being raised here, however, is not the general warming trend, but the rate of warming. The claim (and there is an slowly increasing amount of data to back it up) is that the rate of warming has undergone a very dramatic increase in the last 100 years that is unprecendented in recent history (last 1000 years or so). The sudden rise correlates well with dramatic increases in atmospheric CO2 from the industrial revolution onward, and there are studies on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere that lend creedence to a causal rather than just correlated relationship.
Yes the planet goes through natural cycles of cooling and warming, and over time it can indeed fluctuate over huge temperatures. The risk is that we are disturbing the natural fluctuation and pushing the system out of its rough equilibrium. Systems often have tipping (bifurcation) points that can radically alter the behaviour of the system. A pendulum naturally swings back and forth steadily, but give it a hard enough push and it just starts spinning round and round. In essence we are giving the pendulum of warming and cooling a very strong push. Whether the pendulum will simply swing a little higher then settle back, or go over the top and start spinning in just one direction is certainly up for debate. Possibilities for feedback systems and induced dampening given the manner of warming are almost innumerable, and we are still working to understand the most obvious candidates well. There isn't reason to panic yet, but there is most certainly reason for concern.
Jedidiah.
Re:What is Peat? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is Peat? (Score:4, Informative)
"The problem is that these phases normally last millions of years, and the transitions between them are often extremely slow"
Antarctic ice cores from the last 300,000 years show something different from what you claim.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/ historical02.jsp [koshland-s...museum.org]
The data that I have seen shows that the ice-age cycles last 100,000 years, not millions, and that the transitions can be abrupt. (data from 300,000 years of ice cores from Vostok, Antarctica)
Climate can exhibit abrupt shifts over large regions of the world. As the last glacial period was giving way to the current warm interglacial period, average temperatures in Greenland returned to glacial levels for more than 1,000 years. This unusual period, which is called the Younger Dryas, ended abruptly about 12,000 years ago. Evidence from an ice core drilled in Greenland indicates that temperatures there rose approximately 15F (8C) in less than a decade.
http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/1999/10 /20.html [weathernotebook.org]
"Scientists used to think that climate took hundreds, even thousands of years to change. Now we know better. Hi, I'm Dave Thurlow from the Mount Washington Observatory and this is The Weather Notebook.
An example of an extremely quick climate change came during a period of time known as the Younger Dryas, which happened right after the last ice age ended, about 12,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas itself lasted about 1,000 years. What we didn't know until recently was just how quickly the Younger Dryas started and stopped. In a period of less than 50 years, the climate from the eastern US and Canada to much of Europe went from climate conditions much like today's, to frigid readings more like the Ice Age, at least a ten degree Farenheit change. That's how it stayed for a thousand years - and then the climate flipped back to normal in as little as 20 years."
Are you just making up your claims?
Do you have data to back them up?
Re:What is Peat? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure that the system as a whole will find a new equilibrium around the new input, it just might not be plesant for humans in the short to medium term. The question isn't whether the global climate can cope with us, but whether we can cope with the global climate.
It seems sensible to me that, being intelligent and capable, we should try and find our own sustainable equilibrium rather than just pushing the system as hard as we can and finding out what balance it decides to strike to deal with it.
Jedidiah.
Re:Proper earth temperature (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that hard to imagine why we can't really tell whether sudden warming or sudden cooling will be the result.
Imagine a pendulum. It's a ridiculously simplified model, but it provides the right basic mechanics to get the idea across. Set a pen
Re:"Global" "Warming"? (Score:5, Informative)
More than a little. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 [realclimate.org] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76 [realclimate.org]
Re: "Global" "Warming"? (Score:5, Insightful)
> I am listening to Michael Crichton's STATE OF FEAR book, and I'll admit I have my doubts now about global warming claims. Or at least I'm more skeptical now about claims from either side. Suffice it to say, Crichton is normally a very astute researcher for his books, even though he obviously bends the truth to make his fiction more interesting.
Why the hell anyone would rely on a fiction writer to inform them about the state of the world is beyond me.
Or if you do, you should at least be a dedicated geek and get your spin on reality from Star Wars or The Matrix.
Re: American jobs! (Score:5, Insightful)
> All real science I've ever seen shows global warming to be total bullshit.
Could you cite some of that "real science" for us?
Or does "real" just mean "that I agree with"?
And speaking of "bullshit", did you know that bovine flatulence is a major soure of atmoshperic methane?
> Also, we know from history that the planet goes through cycles of hot and cold (remember the fact that there was an Ice Age anyone?)
We also know that the current cycle isn't behaving like the previous ones, as you'd know if you'd actually been reading any "real science".
> so there's no proof that any changes in temperatures are from human causes.
We aren't looking for "proof", we're looking for an explanation. We see abberations in the pattern of global temperatures, we have physics that explains the interactions of gasses and heat, we put 2+2 together and get 4.
Your ignorance doesn't do much to undercut that line of reasoning.
Everybody signed Kyoto (Score:5, Informative)
What!? Dude. Every single country in the UN signed the Kyoto protocol [wikipedia.org], including Russia. Two, the US and Australia, have since changed their minds and won't ratify it. There are only four other countries that haven't yet ratified it: Croatia, Kazakhstan, Monaco, and Zambia.
The Kyoto Protocol isn't some little thing. It's a pact between 141 countries to tackle global warming, even though the planet's #1 greenhouse gas polluter refuses to help.
Re:I almost wish someone would invent... (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone have photos of this? any aerial ones I can overlay on google earth?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gal