NASA Study Shows Net Gains For Antarctic Ice (google.com) 319
A widely circulated NASA study published in the Journal of Glaciology, and reported by UPI, says that Antarctic ice has measurably thickened in recent decades, a conclusion at odds with earlier findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "which in 2013 suggested gains were not keeping up with losses." The new study ... doesn't totally undermine the handful of studies showing significant glacier, ice sheet and sea ice shrinkage. Instead, if offers evidence of previously unaccounted gains. ... The new tallies reveal an annual net gain of 112 billion tons between 1992 and 2001. Annual gains of 82 billion tons were observed between 2003 and 2008.
It must be a biased study (Score:2, Funny)
Who funded it? Where did these people work before NASA? They need to be investigated.
It's a joke. Laugh! (Score:2)
I notice the parent was moderated "flamebait". Whoosh!
Science is Settled (Score:3, Insightful)
Yesterday Antarctica was contributing 0.27mm p/y to sea level rise
Today Antarctica is removing 0.23mm p/y to sea level rise
A 0.5mm p/y change in a day.
We are told sea level is rising 2.6 to 2.9mm p/y so that 0.5mm p/y change is 16 - 20% of the total figure, that is a massive discrepancy.
Keep being told that the science is settled, this hardly looks like settled science to me.
But queue the alarmists, I am sure they will explain this is 'worse news than eva' and matches what they predicted.
Or wait a year or two and NASA will adjust the data based on models 'cause the real data doesn't match the models, and everyone knows models trump real data in climate science.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But queue the alarmists, I am sure they will explain this is 'worse news than eva' and matches what they predicted.
Did you even RTFA?
In short, this is not good news or bad news. This is just news. It's not telling us that ice isn't melting.
Re:Science is Settled (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? Because you said, 'Ice loss in the Antarctic is causing sea level rise.' That was a big one, as far as why and how everybody is going to die.
Perhaps I exaggerate your position slightly, but is it really 'just news?' It changes nothing? I guess it wouldn't, if saving the planet from the deadly effects of AGW was never the goal in the first place.
Re:Science is Settled (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps I exaggerate your position slightly, but is it really 'just news?' It changes nothing? I guess it wouldn't, if saving the planet from the deadly effects of AGW was never the goal in the first place.
In fact, it changes nothing with regards to sea level rise; it's still rising. It changes things for Antarctica, but I don't live there. Also, thickening of the ice doesn't slow global warming. Only growing ice extent can do that, by reducing albedo.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, at a small rate that is of little practical significance.
Antarctica and Greenland are relevant because if they aren't melting, large scale sea level rise is simply not possible, and whatever changes we are observing now must be self-limiting.
Good! A wetter, warmer climate for the world is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems you missed the wet warm tropical storm aka Taifun in the Phillipines two weeks ago?
For basically every place on the world where it is aalready warm and wet, becomming more warm and more wet is a catastrophe.
Re: (Score:2)
The current status of the Phillipines, due to the El Nino, is drought, not wetness [philstar.com]. Absent said tropical storm, that is.
Also, warmer weather is expected to weaken cyclonic activity, not make it stronger [noaa.gov]. Until about the end of the century, anyway.
The upshot is: you don't seem to know what the
Paint the streets white? (Score:2)
Also, thickening of the ice doesn't slow global warming. Only growing ice extent can do that, by reducing albedo.
Which brings up the question of whether urban heat islands could be mitigated somewhat by switching from black asphalt and tar surfaces to painting the streets and roofs white?
Or, better yet, paint it with something like the new nanotech pigment [stanford.edu] that reflects (rather than absorbing and/or down-shifting) 97% of the incident light and only strongly couples to the "infrared window" where the atmosph
Re: (Score:2)
So now we have thickening of the ice AND growing Ice Extent.
It's much more important on land, where there's less snow and ice than ever.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, thickening of the ice doesn't slow global warming. Only growing ice extent can do that, by reducing albedo.
So, your statement destroyed by facts, you pivot to yet another argument. Suddenly the Arctic and Antarctic aren't important anymore because they refuse to play along.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"But queue the alarmists,"
When we have the alarmists all lined up, then what?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, obviously then they all take a number and wait their turn to give new reasons why their models still trump reality.
Re: (Score:2)
All I know, low laying islands and shorelines are getting into trouble. Google for Maldives.
Re: (Score:2)
The science is settled, the climate is warming.
Of course, the effects of a warming climate on the sea, land, fish, animals, etc. is being studied and the effects are not always clear and obvious.
This result is interesting and not obvious. If the Antarctic is actually contributing 0.23mm a year to sea level falling, then other areas such as Greenland are contributing more to sea level rise. It is clear that the sea level is rising about 3.2mm a year. This is not in dispute except for the flat earth folks. It
Re:Science is Settled (Score:5, Insightful)
That science is SETTLED my friend.
In science, the only things that are "settled" are things that have been unequivocally disproven. Things like Phlogiston, humors, etc.
Simply because a significant number (or even a majority (or even ALL)) of current scientists in the field agree that *this* is the One True Way, doesn't mean that they're correct.
Note: This is NOT the same thing as saying that they're wrong. Nor that the ideas they're espousing are worthless.
The basic message is "we should leave the planet better off than we found it". Which is a good and admirable thing.
The big problem is that nobody has a clear, and widely agreed-upon idea about what to do about it. And some of the options being put forth are fairly shady, dangerous, or just flat-out unacceptable. Sometimes two or three of those at once.
Sending everyone to live in caves, killing off a significant chunk of the world population, or destroying the world energy economy fall under the "all three" category.
The whole "carbon credit" trading scheme has already proven totally shady, since it's a carte blanche license to pollute.
Basically, I foresee nothing real being done about it for a long, LONG time while vast sums of money are spent uselessly and people wrangle over "The Right Way".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sending everyone to live in caves, killing off a significant chunk of the world population, or destroying the world energy economy fall under the "all three" category.
Nobody is asking that. moving to a low-carbon economy even has significant economic benefits, and I assume a lot less wars over oil would also be a very good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
moving to a low-carbon economy even has significant economic benefits,
Perhaps you'd care to list them?
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing you live in a democracy, eh? I mean, if you're Syrian, I'm so sorry, but this trend of westerners 'othering' their governments when they're part of it fucking baffles me.
Re: (Score:2)
but this trend of westerners 'othering' their governments when they're part of it fucking baffles me
That's easily explained by the "westerner" not actually being part of the government and not receiving the benefits in question.
Government are the other (Score:2, Flamebait)
I, most certainly, did not vote for Obama, who got just barely more than 50% of the vote and quickly fell below that in approval ratings. Congress' ratings are even worse.
At any point in time about half the country disagrees with the sitting President and the Legislature. We accept them as a necessary evil — "evil" being the keyword — hence the "othering".
We hire
Re:Government are the other (Score:4, Insightful)
Weren't you among those, "threatening" to emigrate to Canada, when Bush got elected? Or was it North Korea — the platonic ideal of government "taking care" of the citizenry's every need? WTF are you still doing here?
Nice of you to have included Somalia — this whole meme about how Libertarians are supposed to move there is as stupid as it is infamous [quora.com] — the country's current troubles are due to its previous government being Socialist. Venezuela is unravelling [huffingtonpost.com] into the same direction in front of our eyes — just ask Bernie Sanders, when you next meet him, what he would differently from Hugo Chavez...
Oh, but what about Sudan? Well, they have an ambitious social protection program called the Social Initiative Program [worldbank.org]. Nigeria does too [weebly.com]. Time to update your talking-points card.
Tell me, where in the Christian (or Jewish) dogma is there anything about it being the government's (Cæsar's) responsibility to help the "less fortunate"? It is not — good people are supposed to do it themselves, government spending tax-monies on it is not benevolence.
Re: (Score:3)
Weren't you among those, "threatening" to emigrate to Canada, ;)
No I weren't. I don't live in the states
The rest of your rant only shows two things: you are an idiot and I hope if you live according to your attitude one will take care about you.
The other thing is: the idiots modding you up, are the same kind as you are.
Tell me, where in the Christian (or Jewish) dogma is there anything about it being the government's (Cæsar's) responsibility to help the "less fortunate"?
I did not say that, idiot
Re: (Score:3)
In science, the only things that are "settled" are things that have been unequivocally disproven.
Okay, so things like:
Smoking tobacco increases your risk of lung cancer.
The HIV virus causes AIDS.
Many diseases are caused by microorganisms.
The Earth is round.
Most plants produce sugars via photosynthesis.
Are not "settled"?
Re: (Score:2)
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersi... [tufts.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
Ummm, I want to mod the parent up for "straw man".
I never said the earth was a sphere. Also, I wonder since you consider the germ theory of disease invalid, do you subscribe to bloodletting to release malignant humors or to exorcism of evil spirits when you are sick?
All of those assertions I made, to a certain level of approximation, are correct. Science is really the stepwise refinement of our model(s) of the universe.
From the standpoint of AGW, the assertion that atmospheric CO2 warms the planet is true
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A few clear, viable, and widely agreed-upon solutions:
- Stop burning coal
- Increase energy efficiency (buildings, appliances, vehicles, etc.) as much as possible
- Stop Deforestation
- Slow population growth
- Eat more plants and reduce production of meat
- Switch to non-fossil energy sources as quickly as possible
With a simple search, you can find plenty of lists like this all over the web:
http://www.scientificame [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
- Stop burning coal
While I agree with this, it just isn't going to happen. We will talk about it and hem and haw about it, but we'll keep burning it...
We may not burn EVERY last pound of coal in the ground, but we'll sure give it the old college try...
All the talking back and fourth won't change that...
- Increase energy efficiency (buildings, appliances, vehicles, etc.) as much as possible
We are already doing this, it takes time, decades, to make a major difference. Existing buildings don't get torn down and replaced overnight. Building codes also vary widely. Sadly, in Texas, home builders are still putting
Neither is whether anything needs to be done. (Score:2)
The basic message is "we should leave the planet better off than we found it". Which is a good and admirable thing.
Hear hear!
The big problem is that nobody has a clear, and widely agreed-upon idea about what to do about it.
Even if the planet is warming, there are a number of steps between that and "We must stop it even if it takes us back to the stone age and kills off most of the population!" Most of the attention is on "Where's the temperature going?". That leaves out a number of others, starting with
Re: (Score:2)
In science, the only things that are "settled" are things that have been unequivocally disproven. Things like Phlogiston, humors, etc.
Regardless of anyone's views on climate change, this is unequivocal BS, no matter how you define "settled."
Karl Popper was a great man and wrote a number of very insightful things about the philosophy of science, but it's unfortunate that such major misunderstandings of his ideas and naive "falsificationism" can carry such weight.
I mean, come on -- this doesn't even pass the basic "smell test" for logic. You're basically claiming that science can never prove X to be true, no matter what, but then you s
Re: (Score:3)
Define a "non scientist".
Howsabout a German Jew working in a Swiss Patent office?
Science is not the sole domain of those who do nothing but fieldwork or write papers for a living.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a suggestion here. Stop being a tool.
Re: (Score:2)
And why is the alternative to fossil fuels always "DESTRUCTION OF GLOBAL ECONOMY"
It's not.
Also, as I clarified, Global *ENERGY* Economy.
However, the way people generally present decommissioning coal and oil fired plants in favor of renewables leaves us at a SIGNIFICANT energy deficit, with energy priced such that massive, unsustainable austerity measures are virtually REQUIRED.
Re: (Score:2)
Real science is never "settled".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Gravity is not SETTLED.
Initially it was thought to be a wave, which works on a small scale.
Einstein suggests that it is the curvature of space time. Which works on a larger scale but falls apart at a galactic scale, thus we invented dark matter to explain that.
Some scientists believe it is produced by a sub-atomic particle called a graviton. Which is more akin to the wave theory.
Another set of scientists has suggested that is it not a graviton but is a side effect of several gluons being bound together.
Ano
Gravity's inevitable consequences? (Score:2)
I'll couch my dispute in the form of a net. Gravity tries to take me out; I win. Concrete is un-splattered.
Or in other words, what nature hath wrought, technology may provide an answer for.
In the case of climate change, such answers are all around us: solar power, nuclear power, electric vehicles, carbon sequestration technologies, etc.
Try not to panic. It is both unseemly and uncalled for. We solve problems as they come to face us; that's our nature. We'll solve whatever problems climate change may presen
Re: (Score:3)
Gravity is a wonderful example of the phenomenon at work here. Dark matter is an "inconvenient truth" in the astrophysics community, a fudge factor that keeps getting put into the equations, then taken out, then put back in again as newer and better observations are made.
Right now, the climate scientists have their own dark matter to deal with, which is the inconvenient refusal of the atmosphere and oceans to undergo consistent, predictable warming in defiance of our best numerical models. The answers to
Cue Al Gore (Score:5, Funny)
Antarctic ice has measurably thickened in recent decades, a conclusion at odds with earlier findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
That sounds like an...
*sunglasses*
inconvenient truth.
Yeaaaaahh!
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
One problem: that pesky old Greek guy with the bathtub,
Arctic ice floats. Antarctic ice is on land.
Re: (Score:2)
See Greenland.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ARCTIC vs ANTARCTIC - the map is startling (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
When arctic ice melts, it doesn't lead to sea level rise, so as far as sea level rise is concerned, this is important, since it contradicts the doomsday scenarios of AGW activists when it comes to coastal flooding.
I'm sorry, but the problem here is that you failed to understa
Arctic ice mostly floats, not affecting sea level. (Score:2)
When arctic ice melts, it doesn't lead to sea level rise, so as far as sea level rise is concerned.
Except for the drop-in-the-bucket part of it on land rather than in the Arcitc Ocean.
That's mostly Greenland and Iceland (which are really pretty small, though their position near the pole makes them look gigantic in Mercator projection maps.)
I hear there is joy in Iceland over their current warming trend. Though the recent retreat of their glaciers and improvement of their growing conditions is still far fro
Re: (Score:2)
Icelands in in the middle of the gulf stream. ;)
In comparision with the "rest of" Europe it never was really cold there
they are once again able to grow some of the crops that were common there at the time. ;)
That is nonsense. They never stopped growing them. You are mixing up Icelands with the south of Greenland
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked Greenland, Alsska, north Skandinavia and north Siberia was in the Arctic, AND on land.
In case there was a recent change in the earth axis, which I missed, which puts some of those regions out of the Arctic: please inform me.
Urgend: if that is the case, the ice there will melt even quicker!
If the ice on Greenland melts, it will alone lead to a sea level increase of ~15meters. For you US citizens: it is save to assume a meter is a yard ... or multiply by three to get feet.
Re: (Score:2)
It is an interglacial. Of course ice cover is shrinking. Has been for ~12,000 years
Used to be hundreds of feet of it where I am sitting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As recently as July 12, Antarctic sea ice extent was at a record daily high extent for the satellite period of observations. For much of early 2015, Antarctic sea ice extent was either slightly above or slightly below the levels seen on the same date in 2014, the record high year. However, beginning in mid-July, the growth rate for Antarctic sea ice slowed significantly, causing the 2015 maximum extent to be only the sixteenth highest in the record.
Link to article (Score:4, Informative)
You can connect at the bottom of the page as of right now the link in the article above is not working for me.
I am not a glaciologist but i read the article and am a bit puzzled by the findings related to snowfall and "thickness". It looks as if only satelite data was used, so why can't Antarctica actually be losing massive amounts of ice and the resulting removal of mass cause uplifting of the underlying rock? Removal of large amounts of mass over wide areas tend to have that effect and I was not able to find reference in the references. ICESat only uses laser range finding.
http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/icesat/glas.php
Re: (Score:2)
Ice has a density of approx 0.91 g/cm^3. The Earth's crust has a density of approx 2.7 g/cm^3. So the crust weighs about 3x more per unit volume than ice.
You are hypothesizing that (in terms of net potential energy) the removal of 1 ton of ice lowering the top of the ice by a net 1 meter results in the uplifting of a net 3 tons of rock by more than 1 meter. Basic
Re: (Score:3)
Ice has a density of approx 0.91 g/cm^3. The Earth's crust has a density of approx 2.7 g/cm^3. So the crust weighs about 3x more per unit volume than ice. You are hypothesizing that (in terms of net potential energy) the removal of 1 ton of ice lowering the top of the ice by a net 1 meter results in the uplifting of a net 3 tons of rock by more than 1 meter. Basic physics says what you posit can only occur in the presence of a (massive) external energy source which replenishes that lost potential energy and then some. I suppose that might be possible if there's a huge pressurized magma bubble underneath Antarctica exerting a huge amount of upward pressure, but the burden of proof would be upon you.
No what I was thinking was the ice could have been receeding for a long time and while the underlying rock wont rise to compensate the total distance overall, if it has been an ongoing process it can still be rising. Therefore if there was loss in the past centuries, it could be rising. This has happened in other areas of the world for different events
I was not seeking proof or making a claim, I just was wondering where in the references cited by the paper where the question of the underlying rock late
Re: (Score:2)
Ice is less dense than rock, and rock isn't perfectly elastic anyway. So if you remove ice from rock, even if you get uplift, it's much less than the thickness of ice you removed.
Climate change hogging the spotlight (Score:3)
I wish other (arguably more pressing) environmental concerns could get half as much attention as climate change. The shocking level of plastic pollution in our oceans for example. Why can't we have a big international panels on that? Could it be because fixing that would require actual work, rather than just dreaming up more ways to tax and control the population.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish other (arguably more pressing) environmental concerns could get half as much attention as climate change.
Be careful what you wish for, friend. Next thing you know, there would be plastic pollution deniers asserting that floating six pack rings are actually an undiscovered form of kelp and, even if there were such a thing as plastic pollution, it would a good thing, because it gives wildlife something to eat in lean years. These would shortly be followed by an almost equally obnoxious cohort of armchair plastic experts, eager to demonstrate the reality of plastic in our oceans. And then we'll all be too busy de
Warmer Climate == More Snow (Score:2)
Per TFA's conclusion: If dynamic thinning continues to increase at the same rate of 4 [gigatons/year] with no offset from further increases in snowfall, the positive balance of the [Antarctic ice sheet] will decrease from the recent 82 [gigatons] to zero in ~20 years. However, compensating increases in snowfall with climate warming may also be expected.
Apparently, warming has added mass via more snow, and the paper doesn't appear to address possible bedrock rebound from thinning ice. At some point, temper
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently, warming has added mass via more snow, and the paper doesn't appear to address possible bedrock rebound from thinning ice. At some point, temperature will likely increase to the point where added snowfall can't keep up with the ice outflow. At the moment, the changing dynamic of the climate seems to be causing counterintuitive local changes, like added snowfall in the eastern US and eastern Antarctica, due to added water vapor in the air.
This is only counterintuitive to people who subscribe to the Church of Alarmism. To anybody paying attention, it's natural and expected. The Earth is naturally habitable. Despite massive traumatic perturbations over the course of the past several billion years, including cometary impacts and continental drift that has rearranged the Earth and its oceans again and again, Earth still supports life. It is not going to become Venus. It is not going to become Mars. It will remain livable. Is it always go
"Sea ice and land ice are two separate phenomena" (Score:3)
According to this skepticalscience.com:
> Sea ice and land ice are two separate phenomena. Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The reasons for sea ice increasing in a warming Southern Ocean are complex
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
so in otherwords it's also serving as a "give us more money to do further research" piece.
That's the natural outcome of every constrained body of research. In fact I don't think I've ever read a research paper which didn't lead logically to asking another question. Or do you think at some point we can just science as finished?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not reliable (Score:5, Informative)
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
NASA seems to think it came from NASA. Maybe I should take their word over yours?
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to mention the real threat.
MANBEARPIG!
Re: (Score:2)
Read the article quick before it gets taken down.
Re: (Score:2)
The relativity of wrong. (Score:3)
As for TFA, there is nothing in it that says or implies "they've been measuring it all wrong", they are using all the measurements they have. NASA found something interesting in the data, something that
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming(and cooling) have been going on for millions if not billions of years. So what's all the hubub bub.
People have died since there are people. Why should we try to solve this particular murder?
Re: (Score:3)
My question is what temperature is the Earth supposed to be? I mean is it supposed to be a hothouse with tropical foliage everywhere as it once was or is it supposed to be a ball of ice like it once was? I'd think somewhere in between would be good but really all I hear is that it's getting hot but no real idea of what temperature it should be.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Famous Bill Gates Quote (Score:4, Insightful)
My question is what temperature is the Earth supposed to be?
There is no temperature that it is supposed to be.
It is probably in our best interests that the climates we live in are compatible with us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, then global warming should be good news, since for the past several million years, we have been living in an ice age.
And the only reason we are even doing as well as we are is because we are living during a temporary warm period during this ice age; without anthropogenic climate change, our climate would return to having much of the US and Europe covered in thick ice sheets.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one theory. All the research I've done makes it seem like maybe the earth has no one stage, it's up and down. I kind of like it like it is now but I'm used to that.
Re: (Score:3)
For the past several million years, the earth has undergone regular glacial cycles, first every 40000 years, then every 100000 years. There have been dozens of these. That's not controversial or "a theory", it's something you can read off ice cores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, the sea rise from the current warming trend will leave much of the coastline (where many people live) uninhabitable.
freezing (Score:2)
Re:Famous Bill Gates Quote (Score:4, Informative)
At about 3mm / year, we're looking at a foot per century, or a meter per millennium. That's easy to adapt to. Even several times that rate of sea level rise is something we'd barely notice.
Furthermore, taking current topographical maps and combining them with sea level rise data is bullshit anyway; most coasts are sedimentary, not rocky.
Re: (Score:3)
At about 3mm / year, we're looking at a foot per century, or a meter per millennium. That's easy to adapt to..
Umm, no. Your simple version of sea level rise is really good, as long as you don't take into account just how low much of the coastline is. That and tides. That and storms. That and the fact that rise and sometimes fall are not always the same everywhere - in some areas, land is rising as it rebounds from the last ice age. So new land is being created at the shoreline.
Even so the rise is not consistent per year. Hell, in 2010, the ocean levels dropped due to a combination of conditions:
http://www.scien [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Large portions of the US are already desert. So far, climate change has led to an overall increase in precipitation in the US. Overall, long term, climate change will probably not lead to significant net changes for the US; if it does, it will be towards less desert.
That's always the case with climate. It is na
Re: (Score:2)
We've been in an ice age for 3 million years were ice has covered much of the earth. There are glacial periods where ice extends furthur to the equator (what most people think is an ice age) and there are interglacial periods. We are currently in an interglacial period. During this ice age, the earth hos more often than not ben in glacial periods. The last interglacial period lasted only 12 thousand years. We are currently getting relatively close to that time frame.
Basically "what temperature the Eart
Wat temp is ideal (Score:2)
My question is what temperature is the Earth supposed to be? I mean is it supposed to be a hothouse with tropical foliage everywhere as it once was or is it supposed to be a ball of ice like it once was? I'd think somewhere in between would be good but really all I hear is that it's getting hot but no real idea of what temperature it should be.
Well, the temperature that maximizes biodiversity across the planet.
Why is diversity a goal? (Score:2)
Could you expand on why "biodiversity" ought to be the goal? If I had to pick something, I'd have picked "comfort of humans" or, perhaps, the humans' longevity or something like that.
Why do you pick "biodiversity"?
Re:Why is diversity a goal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could you expand on why "biodiversity" ought to be the goal? If I had to pick something, I'd have picked "comfort of humans" or, perhaps, the humans' longevity or something like that.
Why do you pick "biodiversity"?
Maximizing biodiversity is a decent goal to have high on your list. The more organisms there are, the more resistant a given system is likely to be. If you've got one species of tree in a forest and beetles come and wipe out that species, you're in trouble. If you've got high biodiversity, you're more likely to have less trees that will be affected, plus a better chance that there's somebody that calls the beetle dinner.
Why should humans care about resilience? We derive a lot of services from natural systems. Protection from extreme events (flood, fire, insects, etc); diverse food stocks; tourism; unique chemicals for pharmaceuticals; groundwater purification; local weather stabilization; and so on. Even if you don't "like" nature, you derive a tremendous number of services from it. The best way to maintain longterm comfort/longevity of humans is to make sure those systems continue to be able to perform those services.
Re: (Score:2)
Well for a majority of the Cenozic era (the age of mammals) there have been no glaciers or polar ice caps.
just below water freezing w/o atmosphere (Score:2)
The Sun is about 15% brighter than when the Earth first formed. The the atmosphere was import for the evident liquid water the first couple billion years. It may have been at least half CO2 then.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Listen dick cheese. It's a simple question that even a simple mind like yours should be able to digest. The idea is that the earth has had climate change since there has been an earth. The temps go up and down and who is to say what is normal. We know what we like and that's about it. Yes, the climate is warming. No shit, sherlock, I can read a thermometer. Ice is melting and you know what, things change. One day one of those super volcanoes we read about is gonna blow and then things will get ugly.
Re: (Score:2)
He fucked all night and now his ass is sore and bleeding.
GW (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. So enjoy the ride, maybe move inland and hope for good TV coverage of the drowning masses at the beach.
So much for "seas rising" (Score:3)
Al Gore, of all people, undercut this particular aspect of his own scare-mongering, when he bought an ocean-front villa for himself [latimes.com]. A real nice one [huffingtonpost.com] too, I hear...
But then, the "recovering politician" was never much about practicing, what he preaches [snopes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Not up onto my hill. It's cool if you think that climate change is a myth and you enjoy your beach resort. But put your money where your mouth is and if you should be wrong and the water starts climbing, don't be a sore loser and have the dignity to drown.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't actually expect a slow rise of the waters to be the problem. Before that we'll probably get a few floods, hurricanes and whatever else is necessary to clean our beaches.
Eventually, yes, the place will be going under, but I fully expect you to be washed off long before that.
Re: (Score:2)
"The people with the money and power to change anything are selfish, lazy, SOBs, with no foresight, but believe they know everything."
They don't care how high the sea levels go, that's what they have the yacht for.
Re: (Score:2)
I freely welcome my competitors to make the better mousetrap..."
Kind of hard to do when the factory I have my mousetrap made at has to pay Bill a fee equal to their profit on my trap for every mousetrap they make for me.
Watch documentary "Merchants of Doubt" (Score:4, Interesting)
Or read the book.
Corporations hire PR firms that hire professional deniers to "muddy the waters"
The tobacco industry did this for decades, pushing the message that the negative effects of smoking were disputed, controversial, etc.
As it turns out, the same scientists who denied smoking dangers also denied global warming. Look up "Frederick Seitz."
Yes, it can be hard to know. That is because certain corporations spend millions making it hard to know.
Meta Ta Size of it. (Score:2)
[looks at your user ID] You're not new here... are you fantasizing? That's the only thing I can imagine that would account for your post. Moderation here is broken, has been broken, and likely will continue to be broken. It is incredibly poorly designed, if "designed" is even the appropriate word. There is zero accountability, zero recovery of incorrectly modded posts, and zero incentive to "do it right." Human nature at large being what it is (venal and small-minded), the results are always like this. "I d