×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

747 comments

ocean acidification (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497202)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification stop calling the huge change taking place "global warming" that make it sounds like nice cozy sauna. The effects are much more complicated.

Alim tsk tsk! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497204)

Do you want to know what that is? It's the sound of an evil ghost toy slurping the graveyard fog off of your cheeks!

The stuffing is a nice place! It's warm, it's stuffy, and there's parades all around!

Hopefully (2, Insightful)

baresi (950718) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497208)

Hopefully reports like this are taken as good news not fuel for the skeptics and deniers. Good news because we have a better chance and perhaps more time at managing with increased CO2

Re:Hopefully (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497264)

Hopefully reports like this are taken as good news not fuel for the skeptics and deniers.

Doublethink detected!

So the deniers are always wrong? Even when the proponents change their models to reveal that they were right?

Re:Hopefully (3, Insightful)

baresi (950718) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497348)

You deduced 'always' from my one liner? Any way...No. to answer your question The point is there is plenty of evidence that it is happening, varying degrees of urgency or lack thereof does not change the overall message and science

Re:Hopefully (4, Insightful)

gustgr (695173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497454)

It's happening all right, but I still have my doubts if it is happening due to man or if it's part of some unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp yet.

Re:Hopefully (1, Flamebait)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497534)

Not only that, but there is absolutely no evidence for the involvement of CO2 in 'it.'

correlation does not imply causation, it implies connection.

Re:Hopefully (2, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497524)

Well actually, it would seem the overall message and the science will have changed rather significantly if this study proves close to the mark.

With a couple more centuries before dangerous warming takes place the situation changes drastically. Alternative energy supplies and improvements in scrubbing technology have time to advance in two hundred years. (And the increasing cost and scarcity of fossil fuels might have something to do with it as well).

To say nothing of the modeling capability.

(This is not the first suggestion that plant respiration was inadequately modeled, poorly understood, or simply left out all together. Prior objections were shouted down as delusional objections of deniers. But NASA and NOAA (under a democratic president) are harder to silence.)

Increased evaporation from the oceans, and the resultant rain, may also start to arrest desertification, adding to the effect modeled by these studies.

 

Re:Hopefully (4, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497514)

So the deniers are always wrong? Even when the proponents change their models to reveal that they were right?

Who has been proven to be correct? Which deniers have ever stated that doubling CO2 will result in a 1.64C rise? I doubt anyone has said that before. Instead we get a range of responses, such as:

  • an increase in CO2 doesn't result in an increase in temperature
  • the Earth is actually cooling
  • temperature rises precede CO2 rises
  • it's all natural and not man-made

You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes and then claim success when one of those guesses comes true. It is just not scientific. It is the same as trying to claim you have ESP because you can accurately predict the outcome of a coin toss 50% of the time.

Re:Hopefully (5, Insightful)

Robert Bowles (2733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497268)

Skepticism, I'd argue, is inherently good. Being environmentally conscientious should be a result of good science to be meaningful, not of being on the populist "team green". The moment we take a critical eye off our own views is the moment that our causes lose meaning.

Re:Hopefully (2)

baresi (950718) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497376)

Yes skepticism is good but don't confuse ideology hidden behind skepticism. Critical eye, of course always

Re:Hopefully (4, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497382)

This. Someone afraid of skeptics, and lumping them with the deniers, is someone pushing a religion, not someone interested in science.

Re:Hopefully (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497596)

And you completed the circle by calling the other side a kind of religious zealot. Maybe we can all do a bit better and leave out the characterizations, don't you think?

Re:Hopefully (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497424)

Skepticism, I'd argue, is inherently good. Being environmentally conscientious should be a result of good science to be meaningful, not of being on the populist "team green". The moment we take a critical eye off our own views is the moment that our causes lose meaning.

Well, I'm skeptical that your "cause" has any meaning to lose. Since when did science get mystically imbued with some greater meaning than just dispassionately reporting outcomes? You might wish to worship at the alter of science ("look I'm being a good science-motivated individual today") but I can tell you frankly that science doesn't care.

Sadly (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497538)

While these authors include CO2 uptake by plants they fail consider the reduction in vegetative cover that can be expected to result from higher soil temperatures and the increasing frequency of drought in many parts of the world. Plants must be able to survive throughout their entire life-cycle, not just during period optimum for growth.

Consequently, the results reached by this study are flawed. This often happens when you get NASA scientists, who have little immediate knowledge of biology beyond their area of expertise, taking measurements from satellites. Remember all the big fuss about life on mars, generated by geological artifact and the recent, the bogus Arsenic based life story? Here we go again.

Re:Hopefully (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497540)

The problem is that skepticism is not the be all and end all of thought. Not believing everything your told without at least looking into who is telling it to you is good, not believing anything is not.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497286)

Well, they might, if the Register wasn't a premiere source for denialist bias/propaganda.

Wait to see what realclimate has to say about this study before putting any stock in the Register's opinion of it.

Re:Hopefully (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497418)

Hopefully reports like this are taken as good news not fuel for the skeptics and deniers. Good news because we have a better chance and perhaps more time at managing with increased CO2

Unfortunately, the ongoing meltdown always turns out to be happening faster than the gloomy prognostics prognosticated.

And of course, the deniers already take *everything* as evidence for their views, so the chance that they won't seize on this is essentially non-existent.

Re:Hopefully (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497526)

As much as I love El Reg because of the BOFH and their generally good coverage of IT matters, when it comes to climate change, they are the skeptics and deniers. So it's a bit late for it not to fuel them.

i knew this was all Al Gore's fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497210)

this whole global warming thing will be revered as one of the greatest follies of the 21st century!!!

Re:i knew this was all Al Gore's fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497478)

Even if because after the world took preventative measures the catastrophe was averted? Probably...

Of course it's a farce (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497214)

I for one am looking forward to the (Human Induced) Global Warming myth being dispelled, with the governments of the world (especially the UN because of the IPCC) being forced to replay the trillions of dollars scammed out of businesses and individuals due to Carbon Credits and their ilk.

Re:Of course it's a farce (1)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497550)

They won't. They will credit the success of their attempts to lower CO2 with the complete lack of any long term extreme climate change whether it would have happened or not.

(i nearly used the wrong whether there but decided that the pun would make it much too hard to live with myself)

Good! (0, Troll)

UBfusion (1303959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497218)

Now let's see when Wikileaks publishes the other models taking into account solar activity.

Re:Good! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497276)

Why would Wikileaks need to be involved?

The sun is right overhead. You can collect data on it. There's plenty of weather data too.

Where's the conspiracy?

Re:Good! (1)

Unkyjar (1148699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497334)

The U.S. government is planning to build a giant machine to block the sun, their last and greatest enemy.

Re:Good! (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497532)

The U.S. government is planning to build a giant machine to block the sun, their last and greatest enemy.

You mean... to block the oracle [wikipedia.org]... now that sun is no longer?

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497322)

Don't hold your breath. Wait. Do. Less CO2 that way. Also less of teh stupid.

Re:Good! (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497342)

Can you point to a published model that does NOT account for solar activity? Can you tell me why we have been launching space probes explicitly designed to constantly monitor solar acticvity if nobody is using the data?

He doesn't have to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497452)

The main complain about ALL of the is that they ignore solar activity.

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497486)

Acquiring data and getting some meaning out of it are two completely different things.

Re:Good! (5, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497398)

Err... you mean the models the conspiracy theorists like to believe exist, which would link solar activity to global warming? The ones that would've predicted a decline in the warming trend over the last solar minimum. A decline that, well, didn't happen?

*Those* models?

That didn't happen has a lot of data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497504)

Guess what you moron. The actual actual temperatures recorded during the last few years show a drop in temperature. Why do you think the stop calling it "global warming" and now they claim is "climate change"?

So that didn't happen has a lot of evidence proving your high level of stupidity.

AHAHAHA (-1, Offtopic)

Jmanamj (1077749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497234)

Im sooper serial guys, manbearpig is out there, and hes the biggest threat we face. ...Well, I mean, there's a complex threat correlated to manbearpigs existence that we dont really understand...

SHUTTUP DENIALISTS! IM SOOPER SERIAL

I already knew. (0)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497238)

I'm not a climate scientist, but I can tell when someone is bullshitting me.

LK

Re:I already knew. (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497284)

Most of the people on the "IPCC panel of unanimous experts" aren't climate scientists either.

You do Jiu Do?

what are the units of measurement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497240)

Was it done in metric, imperial, or a mix of both units? Either way, I think I'll reserve judgment until it's peer reviewed. If only the pundits would do the same the issue would be a lot less politicized and murky.

The models are crap. (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497242)

All of those previous models are crap, but so too is this one most likely crap.

None of the climate models have shown skill at prediction, which is the only objective measure by which to conclude that a model is not crap.

Until they can do that, its crazy to formulate policy based on model results. You wouldnt get in an airplane designed by model results as crappy as these.

Re:The models are crap. (3, Insightful)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497432)

Climate models != Weather models.

Weather models (which can easily be objectively checked via existing and coming weather patterns) are an attempt to describe the weather on small scale in great detail)

Climate models (which cannot easily be objectively checked via weather data) are an attempt to describe the average weather in an area over a large period of time. The only evidence for or against is over periods of hundreds to thousands of years as regional or even global averages.

The simple fact is climate models have not existed long enough for them to be checked with any great statistical significance, and they are at a huge disadvantage from human nature because people use weather fallacies to discredit climate all the time.

Just because a climate model predicts lower-than-normal wind patterns, doesn't mean the windiest day on record for isolated regions can't happen during that period without invalidating the model. Just because a climate model predicts periods of colder-than-normal climates, doesn't mean the hottest day on record for isolated locations can't occur during that period without invalidating the model. Just because a climate model predicts cloudier-than-normal patterns, doesn't mean the sunniest stretch of weather on record for some regions can't occur during that period without invalidating the model.

This is exactly what happens on a daily basis though. We have an idea that short-term climate models are getting closer and some are more accurate than others, but we don't have enough data to show statistical significance to even decade-length climate models. If you get to century-or-greater climate models, we have historical data and estimations to work off of, but no empirical "check" data to work off of.

The mere suggestion that climate models are not accurately predicting shows you are suffering from this exact same fallacious logic.

Re:The models are crap. (5, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497464)

The first real demonstration of climate model skill was in the 1960's when models predicted the counter intuitive phenomena of stratosphereic cooling. The next significant demonstration was when models in the 80's predicted the phenomena of polar-amplification. Both these phenomena were predicted by models before they were confirmed with observations. As for predicting the global average temprature trend the observations have been well within the error bars of model predictions since the 1970's.

"You wouldnt get in an airplane designed by model results as crappy as these"

Hate to break this to you but you already do, climate models work on the same finite element algorithims as any other engineering model does when there is no anylitical solution to the equations. Computers have been doing this type of numerical analysis since they were first invented and took over the job of producing artilery tables. Such methods have revolutionised both science and engineering over the pats 50yrs to the point that no major engineering project would dare contemplate not using them.

Are they perfect? - Of course not but imperfect certainly does not mean useless, if it did all of science would be useless.

I knew those forests were good for something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497246)

This is great news! As long as nobody chops down all the tropical rainforests, those trees will offset global warming. Surely mankind would not be so stupid as to dump massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while simultaneously destroying the forests. This solves the problem once and for all.

Re:I knew those forests were good for something (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497488)

Rainforests aren't actually that good of a carbon sink. They are so bioactive that everything gets digested. Rainforests DO post a small carbon storage in the wood of the trees and slash and burn does release that. Where carbon is really sequestered is in grasslands. The grass roots generally go deep enough that they do not rot, and carbon therefore is more or less permanently stored. That, and in Oceanic systems. Carbon is drawn out from the atmospheric carbon cycle in the form of marine snow and deposited calcium carbonate shells, reefs, etc. Unfortunately carbonic acidification of the oceans may reduce the ability of corals/etc to fix carbon in this way. And knowing about buffered solutions, the oceans may look like the have a steady pH for a long time, until the buffer is exhausted and then the pH will swing wildly.

But yeah, I suppose coral reefs aren't fairing much better than rain forests under our stewardship. At least we are causing massive oceanic algal blooms which could in theory fix carbon through marine snow... while massively reducing biodiversity. Oops.

1,64? (1)

RedACE7500 (904963) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497256)

Is that a range between 1 and 64 degrees?

Re:1,64? (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497290)

No, dumbass, that's celsius coordinates.

Re:1,64? (1)

RedACE7500 (904963) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497384)

Ohhh, right. Okay, I put 1,64 into maps.google.ca and it's the middle of the Indian Ocean. So only the Indian Ocean is warming? Why should I care?

Re:1,64? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497428)

wow, that is some dense brain matter you've got there....

Re:1,64? (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497476)

I hate to provide some agreement with a post so crass as that provided with Yvan256, but do you understand what a coordinate is? May I suggest a dictionary [reference.com]?

Re:1,64? (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497502)

Sigh. I forgot to point out that one of the noun definitions discusses linear scales. I used to blame these lapses on beer, but was forced to forgo beer for the most part. May I blame the lapse on one too many glasses of wine?

Re:1,64? (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497522)

I just realized that I've never seen another engineer drink wine: It's always beer or hard liquor. In that case, I've been drinking vodka, not merlot.

Re:1,64? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497494)

He said Celsius coordinates, not geographic coordinates. Are you brain sick?

Re:1,64? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497366)

Please tell me your joking.

Re:1,64? (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497436)

You do know that some countries use a comma the way Americans use a period as a decimal point, don't you?

Re:1,64? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497600)

You do know that some countries use a comma the way Americans use a period as a decimal point, don't you?

offtopic, but it's really frustrating that Google does not seem to know this either. Try doing calculations on google.com search bar using comma as a decimal point, or using google spreadsheets with commas as decimal point.

Re:1,64? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497622)

My country uses a decimal comma, but I'm smart enough to switch to the American/C/Java notation when I write to an American/nerd website.

Re:1,64? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497510)

Is that a range between 1 and 64 degrees?

Some countries use the comma as the decimal marker, others use the dot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark#Countries_using_Arabic_numerals_with_decimal_point

Mentally replace '1,64' by '1.64' if that pleases you.

Assumptions check? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497278)

The second-linked FA:

Increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.

And what if it the precipitations don't increase? Or don't increase enough in areas with vegetation (like mid of the ocean)? Or if the precipitations are high enough to flood and drown the vegetation? What about precipitations during winter?

Yes, yes, yes...the simulation is sooo more precise: it predicts a value with 0.3C lower than the older models. But... errr... what about the confidence levels of the modeling? (not that the older models would have one ready).

Error Bars (5, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497282)

1.64DegC is still within the error bars for climate sensitivity that have not significantly changed since the 1970's; ie: 3.0DegC +/- 1.5 degC for a doubling of CO2.

The abstract itself claims: "By accelerating the water cycle, this feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming, reducing the land surface warming by 0.6C. Compared to previous studies, these results imply that long term negative feedback from CO2 induced increases in vegetation density could reduce temperature following a stabilization of CO2 concentration." [My emphasis] - In other words nature will suck up our excess if we stop pumping into the atmosphere faster than she can cope with it, which has been the assumption for many years.

Disclaimer: I'm not rubbishing the study I think it's a valuable in the effort to reduce the above mentioned error bars. However despite the inference of the summary it does not change the risk assesment one iota.

Re:Error Bars (1)

stdarg (456557) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497456)

The risk assessment has to change because of this paper. If it's correct, we can have a much easier CO2 target than we currently have. With the new model, the risk of high CO2 concentrations leading to runaway warming is lowered. Maybe risks like economic harm are more significant.

This is the key, from the article:

International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently devoted to keeping global warming limited to 2C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2C.

I~ (1)

Aerorae (1941752) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497294)

Give it a week or two at most before something (or someone) refutes it. Remember the magical Arsenic Bacteria NASA discovery? Didn't even last a week.

Asking the right question (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497300)

Yah! Finally! Some is asking the right question. Here are the wrong questions:

1) Is the climate warming or cooling?
2) Are humans responsible?

Here are the right questions:

3) What's going to happen that's so bad we have to "do something about" now?
4) When is that going to happen?

Maybe you need to answer the first two questions to answer the last two but if no-one is asking the last two then we're likely to run off half-cocked and implement political policy that does more harm than good. (see, for example, cap and trade).

Re:Asking the right question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497378)

Wrong questions entirely.

1) Al Gore needs more money for another heated swimming pool!
2) Send your money to Al Gore right now!

Those are proper GW questions.

Re:Asking the right question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497420)

except, those are not questions ...

Re:Asking the right question (5, Informative)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497444)

1) Is the climate warming or cooling?
2) Are humans responsible?

Addressed by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I [www.ipcc.ch].

3) What's going to happen that's so bad we have to "do something about" now?
4) When is that going to happen?

Addressed by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group II [www.ipcc.ch].

WGI establishes the physical basis of anthropogenic climate change. AFAIK this is has not been convincingly challenged. WGII attempts to quantify the results, which is of course harder to pin down (and included a notorious inaccuracy [skepticalscience.com] or two). This new study will doubtless help refine the WGII predictions further.

Re: Asking the right question (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497474)

3) What's going to happen that's so bad we have to "do something about" now?

Climate is going to shift; species are going to go extinct; agricultural and hydraulic "haves" are going to become "have-nots", and vice versa; nations will have new things to fight about; we're going to have to move all our coastal cities to higher ground; maybe a few other odds and ends.

4) When is that going to happen?

It's in progress now. Don't know when the shooting is going to start, but the effects seem to consistently outrun the predictions, so you should expect the shooting to start sooner rather than later.

Re: Asking the right question (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497518)

Yes, actual reputable claims would be better.. citations needed.

Re: Asking the right question (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497612)

Yes, actual reputable claims would be better.. citations needed.

I stand by those claims. If you're not aware of what's happening on your planet, I'm not the one that needs to dig out a newspaper.

Re:Asking the right question (0)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497500)

In other words, keep your big SUV and let the future generations deal with any issues that might arise?

Re:Asking the right question (3, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497590)

The existing cap and trade system for sulpur emmissions implemented (and personally spearheaded) by Ronald Regan in the early 1990's has been an outstanding sucess at reducing acid rain. The scheme is international, based on sound science and free market ideals, I don't see what's to dislike other than paying more for your electricity if you choose a provider that insists on using antiquated technology.

The four questions you raise have been discussed ad-nausem for the last 20yrs, your "finally" comment only serves to demonstrates you haven't been paying attention to the science or the politics.

Re:Asking the right question (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497618)

No, the only worthwhile question is:

If we stop spewing so much CO2 (and equivalent) into the sky, will the climate stop changing as rapidly as it has been the past few decades?

We have absolutely no science that says "No", and plenty that says "Yes". Reducing our GHG emissions will protect the relative stability of the climate upon which our civilization depends. With far better certainty that we ask to do anything else we do on the scale of the globe or billions of people.

Oh, guess we were all overreacting (0)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497308)

Okay, everyone! Pack it in! No need to plan for a green future free of oil dependency! NASA says coal is okay to burn, so let's get to it!

Even if it only raises temperature 1.64 degrees (4, Informative)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497328)

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 partial pressure above a water surface will acidify it by approx. 0.2 pH units. (ref. [wikipedia.org])

Re:Even if it only raises temperature 1.64 degrees (1, Troll)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497426)

The animals in the ocean will just have to adapt won't they, unless you believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and think evolution is the devil trying to trick you, nature will find a way to fill the niches opened up by having a slightly more acidic ocean. It is called natural selection and it works pretty well the animals that can survive more acidic oceans will thrive, the ones that don't well too bad...

Re:Even if it only raises temperature 1.64 degrees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497472)

Hope you don't like seafood

Re:Even if it only raises temperature 1.64 degrees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497498)

It's not as if the ocean /naturally/ ( as in /natural/ selection ) becomes more or less acidic all the time.

They account for an increase in vegetation (3, Informative)

bunbuntheminilop (935594) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497336)

If the last century is to go by, I doubt we're going to see an increase in vegetation anytime soon. We've already lost 20% of the Amazon since 1970.

NASA quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497352)

2010 NASA claims Arsenic-based DNA discovered
1996 NASA claims fossils found in Martian meteor

in both cases it was determined that NASA lacked the evidence to back up those assertions. should I even bother listening to them anymore?

Good models. Bad Models. It doesn't matter ... (1, Insightful)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497368)

I don't care if the models are good or if they're bad. This is because I was brought up to believe that every action we take has consequences. Some of those consequences may be bad. Some of those consequences may be good. But something happens as the result of our actions. Now if the models are good and they're predicting nasty consequences, then clearly we must act otherwise people will die and there will be mass migrations of displaced populations that will come knocking at our doors. But some argue that the models are wrong, or that they are inconclusive, or that they are inconsistent with each other. Clearly the scientists don't know what they are talking about, so we can safely ignore them. WRONG. Just because we don't understand the consequences doesn't mean that those consequences don't exist. And if you have the choice between unknown consequences (bad *or* good) and the status-quo, then you should seriously consider the status-quo. After all, our world may be imperfect but at least we know that we can survive in it. Usually.

The Register has an agenda (2)

spike hay (534165) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497404)

They have a pretty crazy AGW-denier agenda. Models have long taken into account the effects of plant growth

Re:The Register has an agenda (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497574)

AGW-denier agenda

I don't think that means what you think that it means. El Reg has long been a denier of global warming (to my displeasure) for as long as I've been a reader.

Re:The Register has an agenda (1)

spike hay (534165) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497614)

I think that's what I meant (they have a denialist viewpoint). But yeah, they are wingnuts and commonly completely misrepresent research like this.

Steven Goddard, NASA, what's the difference?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497410)

El Reg, your go-to place for judicious pronouncements on climate change, the publication that launched Steven Goddard. That's right, the same Steven Goddard that predicted we should see C02 snow at the South Pole, that Venus is warm because of adiabatic heating, etc.

So, of course, The Register's editors are the very best at judging the significance of climate science findings, right?

The Register? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497414)

Seriously? Were Fox News and World Net Daily unavailable?

Re:The Register? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497552)

The primary link is to a peer reviewed study published on the Geophysics Review Letters:

Bounoua, L., F. G. Hall, P. J. Sellers, A. Kumar, G. J. Collatz, C. J. Tucker, and M. L. Imhoff (2010), Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L23701, doi:10.1029/2010GL045338.

Idiot.

CO2 could become irrelevent, tragicly ! (1)

tkjtkj (577219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497450)

I consider it irresponsible for scientists to single-mindlessly point fingers at CO2 as the culprit most worrisome. Recent news articles on the matter of methane now spewing-forth from the melting tundra and ocean depths should at least be mentioned! Methane's 'heat-trapping' effects have been published to be 23 *times* that of CO2 .. !!! Yes, CO2 could give warming a nudge .. but once started, warming becomes an unstable, perhaps unstoppable cascade where entirely different entities cause much more massive effects!

Blame Assange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497492)

Is this as close as we get to a leaked cable showing global warming to be a liberal made conspiracy?

The Register never fails to amuse (0)

enodo (603503) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497592)

Because their denialist agenda is so strong that they always get this stuff wrong. 1) Doubling CO2 doesn't mean doubling from the current value of 390. It means doubling from the original pre-industrial value of 275. Hence they are talking about what happens when there are 550 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, not 780. This is a huge difference from the point of view of how much time we have to stop the warming. 2) The model used in the paper predicts only a 1.94 C warming in the absence of the plant feedback. This is just barely inside the range of what is expected from a CO2 doubling. Most estimates are closer to 3.5C. Of course, changing the model to a more sensitive one (and therefore more likely), might change the plant effect, but if we assume that the plant effect is properly modeled, then it's -0.3C out of 3.5. 3) At any rate, we can't go on for centuries in any case. The authors are talking about what happens *after* the CO2 is stabilized.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...