Recent Warming of Antarctica "Unusual But Not Unprecedented" 163
First time accepted submitter tomhath writes with a link to the abstract (full article paywalled) in Nature of an "Ice core study that concludes that climate change and associated melting of ice in Antarctica is more the norm than the exception, including rapid warming cycles as we appear to be in today. Study concludes: 'Although warming of the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula began around 600 years ago, the high rate of warming over the past century is unusual (but not unprecedented) in the context of natural climate variability over the past two millennia. The connection shown here between past temperature and ice-shelf stability suggests that warming for several centuries rendered ice shelves on the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula vulnerable to collapse.'"
Round 783 (Score:3, Funny)
Let the Global Warming flame-wars begin!
Re: (Score:1)
If you can think of a better way to heat up the climate I'd like to hear it.
Re: (Score:2)
Have the elected officials in Washington D.C. give more speeches. They emit enough hot air to melt the Antarctic.
Re:Round 783 (Score:5, Funny)
WRONG. There was NEVER consensus as to the cooling. Not ever. In fact, it was never more then a tiny percent of climatologist.
You can try to pretend that cooling was "never" predicted. However, the inconvenient truth is that the seminal, and highly cited, work of Strummer et al. (1979) clearly predicted an incipient increase in ice coverage. As they stated (repeatedly):
The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin
At least, that's the only work I know of from that era that predicts another ice age soon...
Re:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Hehe - hook, line and sinker.
Hint: Strummer's first name was Joe. Though to be fair, he was more an observer of the political climate rather than the actual climate.
Re: (Score:2)
Woosh!
Re: (Score:2)
WRONG. There was NEVER consensus as to the cooling. Not ever. In fact, it was never more then a tiny percent of climatologist.
I've actually looked into this by searching out abstracts from the 50s - 80s.
I can't make claims about "scientific consensus", but the earliest AGW papers I found from the 50s were couched in the highly conditional language you'd expect when challenging an accepted idea, and the papers they cite assume or favor cooling. That looks a lot like a cooling consensus to me. Of course climate science was much smaller back then, so the notion that the Earth was cooling was probably not as strongly held as warming i
Re: (Score:2)
Let the Global Warming flame-wars begin!
Scientists first observed global warming in 1895... But that is all old news. Let's stop talking about discredited work and move on...
I was responding to an obvious joke about flame wars with a not so obvious joke. Apparently being subtle is not appreciated and moderated as if it were truth.
If we stick our collective heads in the sand... (Score:2, Troll)
If we stick our collective heads in the sand for long enough...
they will burn off.
JUST SAY NO TO FLASH! (Score:4, Funny)
Mod story down (Score:4, Insightful)
Story goes against slashdot groupthink. Climate deniers are stupid M$ users. Mod down!
Re:Mod story down (Score:5, Insightful)
A) Climate Deniers are Stupid
B) Climate Deniers are Justified
or
C) You're just a shill
It really seems to come down to which group has the most Mod Points or which group has the most dedication to the thread. Each side just views the other as Trolls so it goes nowhere.
Re:Mod story down (Score:5, Funny)
Shut up, you stupid, justified shill of a troll.
Re:Mod story down (Score:4, Interesting)
Say what you want, but I've been having a hard time gauging Slashdot GroupThink on the subject of Climate change. It's ether:
A) Climate Deniers are Stupid
B) Climate Deniers are Justified
or
C) You're just a shill
It really seems to come down to which group has the most Mod Points or which group has the most dedication to the thread. Each side just views the other as Trolls so it goes nowhere.
Agreed, on top of the fact that expending energy on this particular study is wasteful. The story might as well be "water wet, sky blue", basically it's just more evidence that was already had, that temperature variations in the past have happened naturally (read: change MIGHT be non-anthropogenic.) Given that it's not proof or even indicative of anything happening in the present (since there was not a change taking place until after the point where anthropogenic affects came into being) it is particularly only useful to the deniers, so expect to see a lot of that.
Re:Mod story down (Score:5, Insightful)
Say what you want, but I've been having a hard time gauging Slashdot GroupThink on the subject of Climate change. It's ether:
A) Climate Deniers are Stupid
B) Climate Deniers are Justified
or
C) You're just a shill
It really seems to come down to which group has the most Mod Points or which group has the most dedication to the thread. Each side just views the other as Trolls so it goes nowhere.
Agreed, on top of the fact that expending energy on this particular study is wasteful. The story might as well be "water wet, sky blue", basically it's just more evidence that was already had, that temperature variations in the past have happened naturally (read: change MIGHT be non-anthropogenic.) Given that it's not proof or even indicative of anything happening in the present (since there was not a change taking place until after the point where anthropogenic affects came into being) it is particularly only useful to the deniers, so expect to see a lot of that.
That's the difference between Science and cherry-picking facts to justify one's position. The normal pattern of fluctuation confirms nothing but that the normal pattern IS fluctuation. Climate Change doesn't happen in isolation or for only a single reason. It's part of a large and untidy cloud of general statistics of which this is just one.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the normal fluctuations of patterns confirms that all life on this planet will not be destroyed like some of the extreme political fear mongers championing the cause for their own ends want us to believe.
You have to remember, there isn't just one front of believers verses deniers here. There is the science and political fronts with several sets of extremes within subgroups of each.
My broker always tells me: "Past performance is no indication of future results".
Re: (Score:2)
I can't really say I see your point. If these changes are of a magnitude and rapidness found in natural variation then that makes it possible and the frequency with which it has historically happened would indicate whether it's probable or not. On the other hand, if the changes occurred with unprecedented magnitude or rapidness then that would be evidence to suggest it's not natural causes. Either way I'd say you know more with this research than you did without it.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way I'd say you know more with this research than you did without it.
I agree with all of your points. I think his mindset was clearly displayed with the statement, "it is particularly only useful to the deniers, so expect to see a lot of that". In his mind the science is settled for human-caused global warming, and any skepticism is to be met with a "denier" label.
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you want, but I've been having a hard time gauging Slashdot GroupThink on the subject of Climate change. It's ether: A) Climate Deniers are Stupid B) Climate Deniers are Justified or C) You're just a shill It really seems to come down to which group has the most Mod Points or which group has the most dedication to the thread. Each side just views the other as Trolls so it goes nowhere.
So, you are saying its like american society and government? Did'nt know /. was such a good mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mod story down (Score:5, Interesting)
Climate deniers? This has nothing to do with them. No unusual warming is predicted for Antarctica for now. Global warming is expected to make the ocean currents that surround Antarctica stronger, thereby isolating it from warming factors and preventing it from heating up significantly for some time to come. It's a pity Al Gore's Unconvenient Truth has incorrectly linked the breaking up of the Ross ice shelf to global warming, leading many to believe something unusual is going on on Antarctica while it is not. Yet.
Extinctions (Score:5, Insightful)
Mass extinctions are also unusual (but not unprecedented). Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid causing them!
Re: (Score:2)
Dinosaurs killed my ancestors you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mass extinctions are predominantly associated with global cooling and isolated extra-terrestial visitors, e.g., impacts. Global warming is associated with greater species diversity and expansion of life on Earth. Prepare for the dawning of a new age of bio-diversity. People just don't like it because it is change.
Re:Extinctions (Score:4, Interesting)
There's only 5 mass extinctions in the geological record and at least one may have been caused by an episode of global warming [economist.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Rather my point. People simply don't like change. Change happens. Life adapts. global cooling has tended (80%) to be far worse than global warming (20%). Thank you for making my point.
Re: (Score:2)
All those damn dinosaurs driving their monster SUVs to the mall, no doubt.
The article gives a reason for the increased CO2:
"The fossil record does not, however, show any indication of coal-fired power stations or heavy car use. So the question is, where did the CO2 come from? There is an obvious culprit. At the beginning of the Triassic, the world's dry land was united in a single continent, known as Pangea. By the end of the period, Pangea was starting to break up into the pieces familiar on the modern globe. The break-up was accompanied by massive volcanic activity--and in part
Re: (Score:3)
Mass extinctions are associated with drastic change whatever the direction it goes. For instance the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum [wikipedia.org] was a time of mass extinction.
Re: (Score:2)
Avoid causing them, or avoid them outright? Because those are two drastically different things.
The first assumes the following:
* we are not only capable but responsible for climatic changes, despite the energy requirement calculations required for such volumetric changes not even being remotely possible using existing technology
* the claims and panic about CFCs before they were banned was not only justified, but technically correct (both of which have been repeatedly shown to be false)
Avoiding climatic warm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We should avoid causing anything fast It's ok if a pink flamingo will gradually become extinct, or the planet gradually will become warmer.
It's not ok if sparrows in China suddenly become extinct, or Atlantic Ocean freezes overnight between Staten Island and Manhattan.
Re:Extinctions (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that word means what you think it does. 10,000 years is 10 millenia.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate ice ages (Score:4, Interesting)
How many ice ages we've had during last couple of millenias? I remember one ended about 10,000 years ago and during it large parts of Northern hemisphere were under a few km's of ice.
Humans, including those afraid of climate change, would not enjoy an ice age. The holocene is not the 'post-glacial', we're 10,000 years into an interglacial - about as long as the warm half of the previous interglacial lasted. [wikimedia.org]
I'm completely convinced that human activity is influencing the climate, but I'm entirely unconvinced that a few degrees warmer climate equals disaster, famine and mass extinction. Global climate has been stuck in a rut for the past 2.5 million years, swinging wildly between ice ages and interglacials, and it can't seem to escape from the cycle. Maybe our burning of fossil fuel can give the final push, and rid the world of the permanent ice caps on the poles that have been keeping our climate hostage over the past 2.5 million years.
Sure, low lying lands will flood, but vast amounts of land in North America and Northern Asia that are too cold today will become available for cultivation to compensate.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm entirely unconvinced that a few degrees warmer climate equals disaster, famine and mass extinction.
Just for reference, an average temperature climb of a few degrees Celsius over a relatively short period may have caused one of the great extinction events, the Permian Extinction [climatecrocks.com]. Over 90% of the earth's biomass died during that event. As I understand it, a large part of the problem was that photosynthesis became unsustainable in the plants at the time. Photosynthesis is temperature sensitive and one hypothesis is that the leaves on the plants that flourished at the time were unable to dissipate enoug
Re: (Score:2)
...I'm entirely unconvinced that a few degrees warmer climate equals disaster, famine and mass extinction... Sure, low lying lands will flood...
...and how does that not lead to disaster, famine and mass extinction?
Because it's slow! It takes thousands of years.
Oh phew (Score:1)
Since this is the sole and most serious problem associated with global warming, let's continue to release lots and lots of greenhouse gases.
Re: (Score:2)
Since this is the sole and most serious problem associated with global warming, let's continue to release lots and lots of greenhouse gases.
Hear, hear! If we release more greenhouse gasses at a faster rate, we'll be able to show those damn non-believers that it DOES have an effect. Well, hopefully. Most likely.
</snark>
Re: (Score:2)
Man I thought I was well clear of the Poe zone...
Re: (Score:2)
You were. I'm not sure what you're reading that makes you think I was taking your post seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we need a name for when it's hard to tell meta-sarcasm from disagreement.
Re: (Score:2)
If only someone would put some sort of punctuation suggest in their sig to denote this kind of stuff~
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, there's no way I was both aware of that and building on the same sarcastic foundation. nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope, I must clearly be an idiot.
Local Climate is not Global Climate (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate on a penninsula is vulnerable to changes in ocean currents. I would say nothing to see here unless global climates can be correlated with the local climate.
Re:Local Climate is not Global Climate (Score:4, Interesting)
Quite true, although there are some other interesting bits in the summary:
Another interesting tidbit:
So it appears the peninsula did not experience the Medieval Warm Period and it's now about the maximum temperature it's been at since the last ice age (and still warming). Additionally, if there was a global MWP, then the peninsula may be so disconnected from global temperature trends that looking at it is next to useless, although the lack of a MWP/LI sequence is also evidence that the MWP/LI sequence either wasn't global or wasn't strong enough to affect the peninsula.
Re: (Score:3)
If Antarctica was connected physically to south America or Australia (or both) it could possibly be ice free and get a jetstream like effect from the south pacific.
Soon... (Score:1)
The Old Ones shall rise and embrace the earth in their dark and horrible glory.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Re:Soon... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The Old Ones shall rise and embrace the earth in their dark and horrible glory.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
The Kilngons are causing this.. OHHHHHH!
not unprecedented (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything up to and including the entire planet being a blob of molten matter would be "not unprecedented".
Just because the world was really hot during the Jurassic does not mean that humans would enjoy living in that state again.
Re: (Score:1)
High amounts of oxygen, giant bugs, velociraptors .. what's not to like?
Re: (Score:2)
Velociraptors?
Re: (Score:2)
Giant bugs?
Re: (Score:2)
Giant bugs?
We already have Florida for that.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Yeah.
1. This is a single study, of a single location.
2. The study *did* find that the temperature rise is in the upper 0.3% of the time period investigated.
3. There's significant error bars on the temperatures reconstructed, so I think the authors are overegging their data a little to claim that it's definitely not unprecedented.
The story summary claiming that current warming is more the norm than the except is plainly inaccurate.
Also, it's probably volcanos (Score:3, Informative)
Also, I think reasonable explanations exist for the periods of fast warming they found in ~200 AD, and 1600AD - looking at the chart, they were generally preceeded by large downward spikes, and represented the temperature restoring to its previous level. My speculation is that these events correspond to the gigantic volcanic eruptions in Taupo at around 200AD, and maybe Huaynaputina at 1600AD. Large eruptions project large amounts of sulphates into the atmosphere, which has a strong, but temporary cooling e
Re:not unprecedented (Score:5, Informative)
To put it in perspective, the estimate is that it would cost between 1-2% of world GDP (roughly equal to cost of sewer systems) to stabilise CO2 levels. And that estimate doesn't take into account technological innovation that might be spurred by the process. As I understand it, the estimates of the costs related to reducing sulphur oxide (SO) and Nitrous Oxide (NOx) levels turned out to be vastly over estimated by the industries involved. Both of those substances are currently regulated in the U.S. using cap and trade systems.
Re: (Score:2)
To put it in perspective, the estimate is that it would cost between 1-2% of world GDP (roughly equal to cost of sewer systems) to stabilise CO2 levels. And that estimate doesn't take into account technological innovation that might be spurred by the process. As I understand it, the estimates of the costs related to reducing sulphur oxide (SO) and Nitrous Oxide (NOx) levels turned out to be vastly over estimated by the industries involved. Both of those substances are currently regulated in the U.S. using cap and trade systems.
That all smells like hydrogen sulfide to me.
</snark>
Re: (Score:2)
To put it in perspective, the estimate is that it would cost between 1-2% of world GDP (roughly equal to cost of sewer systems) to stabilise CO2 levels.
What? Where did you get that estimate? I'm not sure that's accurate....
Re: (Score:2)
The sewage comparison [skepticalscience.com] originally comes from Earth: the Operators Manual [hot-topic.co.nz], but I read about it on Skeptical Science [skepticalscience.com]. They also have a cost estimate [skepticalscience.com] page.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of cost/benefit. If spending $4 quadrillion saves you $6 quadrillion in costs then it's worth it.
Stay out of the mountains (Score:2)
As long as they keep out of the mountains, the people there should be fine.
Tekeli-li !
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. I didn't realize anybody else had read that book. I
Mis-use of science (Score:2, Insightful)
A whole bunch of people do research and say the planet is getting warmer. More people back up the research and verify it. Okay, the planet is getting warmer. Here's what we think we should do to stop it from getting too warm to support most life. Yay! Problem solved -- BY SCIENCE!
Another bunch of people don't think the solution is, um, 'cost effective', in that it would inversely affect the amount of money they might be able to make. So, they do SCIENCE and come up with research that seems to refute the imp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The planet is going to do what it will, no matter what we think or do. We've been doing research for how long? How big is our data pool? It is hubris to think that we know the answers, especially when you consider studies like this and the evidence of Norther Europe being warmer than right now within the last 2000 years shows that we don't know jack shit. I'd like to see a climate model and simulation that starts around the time of the national weather service and correctly and accurately predicts curre
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullshit. We have the power to re-shape our world. That has been demonstrated. That our environment is ALSO capricious is not an excuse for shitting in our own water, eating our own seed corn, and befouling our own air.
Re: (Score:3)
This, again?
Do you even read anything on this topic? You're post, and many like it have been shot to hell over and over again.
Why do you keep posting this crap they doesn't nothing more then let everyone know who you are wallowing in ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
It's folly to think you can say nothing intelligent about a subject until you know all the answers.
I've never actually met a concious subscriber to the philosophy, "Better to open your mouth and look a fool than to STFU till you know what you're talking about."
Re: (Score:2)
So a huge asteroid is going to collide with earth we should just do nothing and let the "natural cycle" take its course? Since man didn't cause the asteroid to be on course to kill us all we shouldn't do something to stop it?
Mankind alters the environment to suit himself, why do you think we should suddenly stop doing that?
climate change is the only consistency (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as normal. Normal is only a concept that we as humans have because we live such pathetically short lives. Normal simply isn't a natural concept, and we need to quit thinking of nature as being "normal" and start accepting that "change" in part of the natural cycle and learn to adapt with it.
The climate always has gone from warmer to colder and back and forth. Mostly it has been warmer, but it has also spent a fair amount of time under ice ages as well. I live in a place where I am 2000 miles from the nearest ocean and yet can find sea shells in my back yard from time to time. Things change and we need to quit fighting change and learn to adapt to our environment as our environment changes around us.
The continents will shift (there's a museum in Paris with an exhibit I have heard about that depicts how far the North American plate moves away from the European plate each year). Antarctica will eventually move away from the pole and simply melt. Other natural phenomenon will occur and we have to accept that we are simply one part of nature and to learn to live as part of it.
That being said, there is no reason not be be responsible with the environment and fight pollution for the sake of fighting pollution. Living sustainably is something that we have to do as our population becomes ever larger and we need to increase efforts for green energy like nuclear, thorium, solar and geothermal power sources. I really wish people would set aside politics on this and let science do the talking.....
And What of the Rate of Change? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as normal. Normal is only a concept that we as humans have because we live such pathetically short lives. Normal simply isn't a natural concept, and we need to quit thinking of nature as being "normal" and start accepting that "change" in part of the natural cycle and learn to adapt with it.
But there is such a thing as rate of change, right? And we can measure how long it took to get from temperature A to temperature B historically and we can then look at our own time period and compare how quickly or slowly the temperature is changing, right? The funny thing about life on Earth is that it's probably always going to be here in some form or fashion but it's those unicellular organisms that need lengths of time to adjust to extreme weather.
The climate always has gone from warmer to colder and back and forth. Mostly it has been warmer, but it has also spent a fair amount of time under ice ages as well. I live in a place where I am 2000 miles from the nearest ocean and yet can find sea shells in my back yard from time to time. Things change and we need to quit fighting change and learn to adapt to our environment as our environment changes around us.
Or perhaps we can adjust our actions to limit the amount of change? Why do you use a waste disposal system in your house? Why not just throw garbage and urine and feces where ever you want inside your house? You can always learn to adapt to your environment, right? You'll get used to the smell, you'll learn to make friends with the raccoons and cockroaches living in the debris -- possibly even feed off them. So why do you take these basic precautions to keep your home clean? Is your planning not comparable to policies that aim to keep the Earth clean?
The continents will shift (there's a museum in Paris with an exhibit I have heard about that depicts how far the North American plate moves away from the European plate each year). Antarctica will eventually move away from the pole and simply melt. Other natural phenomenon will occur and we have to accept that we are simply one part of nature and to learn to live as part of it.
Again we're talking about a process that takes tens of thousands of years versus what we've done in the past hundred years. The rate at which we are influencing our environment is increasing as our population increases. The Earth's plates are not speeding up. I don't understand your analogy nor do I see how it makes our problem seem unimportant -- plate movements have been known to be catastrophic for humans.
That being said, there is no reason not be be responsible with the environment and fight pollution for the sake of fighting pollution. Living sustainably is something that we have to do as our population becomes ever larger and we need to increase efforts for green energy like nuclear, thorium, solar and geothermal power sources.
So I guess we can agree on that. Our record so far on sustainability hasn't been reflected too well in the ocean. And burning fossil fuels is directly influencing it [reuters.com] in addition to just plain overfishing. So is it still taboo to start to talk about curbing that stuff?
I really wish people would set aside politics on this and let science do the talking.....
Funny, your post about "times change deal with it" really seems to undermine nearly all the published peer review research on the topic. Your post is a shining example to me of how someone can interject their own politics and policies into a scientific endeavor and masquerade as being the voice of reason and science themselves. Tell me, what sort of first hand results have you collected and examined that I obviously do not have access to?
Re: (Score:3)
But there is such a thing as rate of change, right? And we can measure how long it took to get from temperature A to temperature B historically and we can then look at our own time period and compare how quickly or slowly the temperature is changing, right?
Not sure if you read the summary, but it mentions the rate of change is not unprecedented.
Tell me, what sort of first hand results have you collected and examined that I obviously do not have access to?
The summary, apparently!
Re: (Score:2)
You know, Onyxruby here happened to have read that article before it appeared on Slashdot. Here is the part that I found particularly noteworthy that I will blockquote for you:
Re:climate change is the only consistency (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, look. Climate change happens naturally, no one is disputing that. The thing is, this particular climate change has a real possibility of being much more sudden than those natural variations. It takes thousands of years for the climate to change a few degrees C naturally, the rates we are seeing will have those changes in less than 100. Over 1000s of years, plants and animals can migrate, change behaviors, and even evolve, rapid change will make that much more difficult or impossible. Not to mention, this climate change is going to be laid over top of the natural changes, if the natural cycle goes up and down 4C, and we lay our 3 degree addition over top of it, all the sudden you've got a global climate that hasn't been seen since dinosaurs were the dominant life form.
But hey, lets just keep ignoring it. After all, I survived getting hit by several dodge balls as a kid, I'm sure I can take a hit from this wrecking ball too, it's essentially the same thing after all.
Re:climate change is the only consistency (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the problem. You're likely correct - at least to some point. However, if you are at all interested in the 'fate of mankind' i.e., everybody else, then you notice that humans a perched on a fairly narrow ledge in terms of the survivability of large swatches of population. If you preturb the climate, especially if the changes are relatively rapid, a lot of people are going to a) starve b) displaced c) not be particularly happy about a and b and try to get a resources of those who aren't so drastically affected.
That leads to conflict, upheaval, war and pestilence - fairly typical (but generally frowned upon) human behaviors.
Note that climate pressures on human settlements are often the driver for abandonment / downfalls of civilizations (the Diamond and Tainter arguments) - it's just with 7 billion (or whatever) of us on the planet we're capable of making some really big messes at present.
Then there are the persons of the tree hugging persuasion who feel that it's morally indefensible to take the entire planet down so we can have iPods and Big Macs. Your personal moral codes may vary.
Re: (Score:2)
Either Slashdot gets an edit function (come on, it can't be that hard) or I quit posting until my blood caffeine levels are up in the therapeutic range. grrr.
Re:climate change is the only consistency (Score:4, Informative)
Simply put what has been happening isn't cause for alarm, were simply not in a state of crisis that we've been led to believe. There was another study that came out a while ago showing that temperatures were even warmer in the Roman era.
Before you get off thinking I'm some kind of Koch brothers shill you should know that I've been doing things like driving small cars with very good gas mileage for years before it was politically correct, have actually worked for a recycling company, drive a very low emission small vehicle now, compost, grow my own organic garden, take mass transit, use energy efficient appliances, have taught many people the finer arts of environmentalism and have been doing these kinds of things for the last few decades.
If the alarmist behavior doesn't stop the whole environmentalist movement is going to be discredited (it's already happening with the youngest generation - their environmental uptake is markedly lower than people just a few years older than them). The environmental movement needs to get grounded back in reality and lay off the panic button when the case simply isn't there. Focus on what is there like shutting down dirty coal power plants and things that actually do matter.
Re: (Score:2)
If the alarmist behavior doesn't stop the whole environmentalist movement is going to be discredited (it's already happening with the youngest generation - their environmental uptake is markedly lower than people just a few years older than them). The environmental movement needs to get grounded back in reality and lay off the panic button when the case simply isn't there.
Regardless of alarmists, one can hardly go wrong curbing our impact on the environment. In fact, one can hardly argue that latter is a better time than sooner in this regard. Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed: Mildly troubling issues don't get addressed in government, it's those issues of a pressing and alarmingly urgent matter that become addressed, like "piracy", child porn, and gay marriage. If you ask me, the fact that the security of our planet's future so frequently takes a back seat to suc
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of alarmists, one can hardly go wrong curbing our impact on the environment.
You can if you assess the risks wrongly. Imagine poisoning the environment in some other fashion over an unjustified fear of carbon dioxide. The truth is pretty much anything we do has some impact on the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
If the alarmist behavior doesn't stop the whole environmentalist movement is going to be discredited (it's already happening with the youngest generation - their environmental uptake is markedly lower than people just a few years older than them). The environmental movement needs to get grounded back in reality and lay off the panic button when the case simply isn't there. Focus on what is there like shutting down dirty coal power plants and things that actually do matter.
Well, the biggest reason to worry isn't what you see around you, it's that there's a few billion people in India, China and a few other places that'd also like a western standard of living (not necessarily western way of living) and people are getting a bit fed up in that even though some of them are cutting down overall the world is gearing up anyway. Environmentalism is something that thrives when either a) the economy thrives and people have a surplus to act unselfishly and socially responsible or b) bei
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, there is no reason not be be responsible with the environment and fight pollution for the sake of fighting pollution.
Sure there is: If I'm owning a corporation doing the polluting, I stand to make a very large sum of money by ignoring the problem. Of course, everybody else might be a bit upset about this, but I can use some of that cash to buy off politicians to ensure that those annoyed masses don't actually have the power to stop me, and some more of the cash to fund "Institutes" and "think tanks" and media organizations to legitimately convince people that that what I'm doing isn't a problem.
Purely hypothetical, of cou
Re: (Score:2)
Purely hypothetical, of course. [kochbrothersexposed.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This planet has been at peace for a long time, until we infected it.
I'm curious which scripting language and platform you used to post this after you killed yourself in the interests of the planet.
this planet never had a species like Humans
The planet has had all sorts of very destructive, greenhouse-gas-emitting species. Including gigantic herds of mult-ton herbivores capable of srtipping the vegitation from an entire valley in a week before moving on. Wildly more species are extinct than exist, and this was true long before we came along.
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting the fact that this planet never had a species like Humans for Millions of Years. We have done more damage to this planet in the last few hundred years, than nature could do in thousands of years.
That's simply absurd. Nature can toss a black hole toward Earth and do more damage to this planet in seconds than humans will ever be able to do if we exist for a hundred million years.
Think before you type.
Re: (Score:3)
First we're currently in a "warm period" (interglacial) that began around 11,500-13,300 years ago [wikipedia.org] (the last ice age began around 26,000 years ago). From the Wikipedia article on Global Cooling [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
The currently state of Milankovitch Cycles is most similar to what occurred during the interglacial period around 430,000 years ago. That interglacial lasted about 30,000 years. It doesn't appear the onset of the next glacial cycle is imminent yet, probably more like 20,000 years from now from all I've heard.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing this paper with the one a few weeks ago about the melting on Greenland. What you said was true about the Greenland paper but that doesn't apply to this on on the Antarctic Peninsula.
It's not evidence against or for global warming... (Score:5, Informative)
I wasn't going to respond since I have mod points and figured I'd mod up a good response instead. Too bad it's all been cheerleading for believers and deniers. Anyhow, this result isn't evidence for or against climate change. It's another data point. The fact that people think it is evidence for one side or the other shows most people still don't understand climate change. I know statistics and thermodynamics are hard as are non-linear systems. Blah, blah, blah.
Here's the deal. Global warming refers to *average* temperature increase. In order for the average temperature to increase we should expect a higher frequency of warmer events or events driven by increasing warmth. We're not in a pot on a stove over a fire that constantly increases in temperature (actually don't pick at that analogy too much because at a microscopic level it is somewhat similar). As global average temperature increases we should see more warm days but not necessarily the hottest days ever recorded. So, in this case, if we see more frequent unusual events like this one or not, then we might have some evidence one way or the other, but by itself it tells us nothing.
Published by Creationists against climate change! (Score:2, Funny)
And Mothers against Gay Marriage, Hillbillies for (foreign religious book that starts with a K) burning and rednecks for capital punishment!
And the Flat Earth Society!
Boiler Plate Restatement of the Theory (Score:3)
Of course that means we want to study the baseline climate variability, because that is how we find ways of confirming, refuting, or improving the above stated theory. That climate varies, even more than by the amount cause by human activity, is obvious from the climate record, and in the cases of natural climate variation, we want to look for proxies as to what the natural forcing was that caused it. AGW is the delta between the climate that should be without AGW, and what is observed. The long increase in Antartic ice size should have decelerated, but not reversed into a historically abnormal warming (specifically if you pull down the supplemental data, there are four, and perhaps five similarly rapid warming events in their studied period in the geographic area that the scientists looked at).
What irks people who study climate is that "natural variability" is the latest foxhole for "burn more carbon until catastrophic events occur in the present." The "Carbon until catastrophe" paradigm is the fall back from the denial paradigm, with the usual suspects pimping it in the usual places.
"Year without a summer" = 0.4C to 0.7C change (Score:5, Informative)
The Year without a Summer [wikipedia.org] (1816) had a global temperature drop of 0.4C to 0.7C.
It was thought to be caused by a series of volcanic eruptions combined with an historic low in solar activity.
The result was:
All that and more with a global variation of <1 degree Celsius.
It really is in our interest to keep global temperature averages from fluctuating too far from what we're accustomed to if possible. The repercussions with such a dramatically larger population could be catastrophic.
Proof... (Score:2)
Can't wait for 'em to drill down into the Hg.... (Score:2)
Should make thermometers cheap!
Three Miles (Score:2)
There are *three miles* of ice on Antarctica in some places. Meanwhile, many places on Earth are desertifying. We know that the Earth used to be hotter and wetter - I'm not sure why the doomsday people always paint a dry hot Earth future (the end of the current interglacial not withstanding).
Coasts that were charted by humans in centuries past are now completely ice covered - so a little long-term perspective might be in order.
Re: (Score:2)
These fuckers will not stop until every last vestige of thousands of years of western scientific and moral thought has been wiped clean to make room for their idiotic beliefs.
Looks like you got a head start on that.
Re: (Score:2)
About the time you idiots quit posting.