Beta

×

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!

Darker Arctic Boosting Global Warming

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the melting-ice-and-plunging-albedo dept.

Earth 378

The Grim Reefer sends this news from an Associated Press report: "The Arctic isn't nearly as bright and white as it used to be because of more ice melting in the ocean, and that's turning out to be a global problem, a new study says. With more dark, open water in the summer, less of the sun's heat is reflected back into space. So the entire Earth is absorbing more heat than expected, according to a study (abstract) published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That extra absorbed energy is so big that it measures about one-quarter of the entire heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide, said the study's lead author, Ian Eisenman, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California. The Arctic grew 8 per cent darker between 1979 and 2011, Eisenman found, measuring how much sunlight is reflected back into space." The same decrease in ice contributes to the weather circumstances that led to extremely low temperatures across parts of the United States this winter.

cancel ×

378 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280651)

Post?

Small problem (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280667)

Small problem with that is this summer had 50% less ice melt in the arctic

Re:Small problem (4, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 5 months ago | (#46280821)

Arctic ice rebounded somewhat from the all-time record low of 2012.

However It was still the 6th lowest level on record.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... [www.cbc.ca]

The problem is the lack of context in whatever warped source you are reading.

Re:Small problem (3, Informative)

Stephan Schulz (948) | about 5 months ago | (#46280847)

Small problem with that is this summer had 50% less ice melt in the arctic

Says who? 50% less than what? 2012 was a record minimum year. 2013 has bounced back from that record low (in ice extend, not ice volume), but is still one of the years with the least sea ice extend science measurements began. And all the other similarly low extend years have been after 2005.

Re:Small problem (5, Funny)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 5 months ago | (#46280935)

the year after a record year is usually not a record year. it's called 'regression to the mean'. it's an actual thing, look it up.

Re:Small problem (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281159)

the year after a record year is usually not a record year. it's called 'regression to the mean'. it's an actual thing, look it up.

The letter at the beginning of a sentence should be capitalized.

It's called English grammar, look it up.

And your mention of regression fails to include the possibility of a feedback
scenario which results in an exponential change in a situation which doesn't fit
your high school stats textbook theory.

Nice try. Don't quit your day job.

Cloud formation albedo (3, Interesting)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about 5 months ago | (#46280675)

And increased heat in the oceans can (and likely will) lead to increased cloud formation, which will alter the planet's albedo in the opposite direction. How much and how soon? Nobody knows. But the planet has been both warmer and cooler than it is now during it's long history. Each time it's damped out cycles of extreme warming and extreme cooling all by itself.

Yeah, it does. Though sometimes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280817)

Though sometimes it can take 25,000 years before it returns.

Re:Cloud formation albedo (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280837)

Earth ultimately doesn't care; it's older than we are and will outlive us.

We care because civilization as we know it is really shockingly dependent on climatic patterns like rainfall and seasonal temperature and parameters like sea level being what they are.

Re:Cloud formation albedo (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about 5 months ago | (#46281261)

We care because civilization as we know it is really shockingly dependent on climatic patterns like rainfall and seasonal temperature and parameters like sea level being what they are.

All of these factors (rainfall, temp, sea levels) have changed all on their own without human input over the course of this planet's history. They will continue to change, with or without our input. To expect things to stay the way they are just because we happened to evolve at this particular point in history is kind of silly. The climate *will* change. *We* must adapt.

Re:Cloud formation albedo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281341)

Earth doesn't care because it's not sentient' it doesn't feel or notice anything. It's a ball floating in space with an interesting surface.

But it will fuck us up as the planet orbits on.

Re:Cloud formation albedo (5, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 5 months ago | (#46280883)

There is not a scap of evidence for what you claim in your post, unless of course you belive in the fanciful IRIS theory.Yes it's been hotter and colder in the distant past and those extremes usually coincided with mass-extinctions, 98% of all marine species went extinct during the Great Dying due to high levels of C02 turning the ocean acidic. It's not the planet that's in trouble it's our civilization, we can do our worst and life will enthusiastically bounce back after we have gone, just like it has with every other mass extiction.

Each time it's damped out cycles of extreme warming and extreme cooling all by itself

It did that by putting carbon into the ground as coal, peat and limestone, humans are doing their best to put it back in the atmosphere by burning the coal and peat, and releaseing the CO2 from limestone to turn it into concrete. The problem with your sig and issues such as this is that your wrong decisions have a negative effect on everyone else, you rights are not infinite, they end when they negate the rights of others.

Re:Cloud formation albedo (1, Insightful)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 5 months ago | (#46281313)

This cuts both ways. Your rights to insist someone stop something must have fact, not fear behind them. The current state of our understanding of the climate doesn't support the claims being made. The fact that a number of those claims have fallen is further evidence that it needs further study not immediate action.

Re:Cloud formation albedo (5, Insightful)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about 5 months ago | (#46281351)

98% of all marine species went extinct during the Great Dying due to high levels of C02 turning the ocean acidic.

The exact causes of the Permian–Triassic extinction event you reference are not known. High CO2 are but one hypothesis, alongside many others, all of which have at least some supporting evidence. CO2 may be the favorite whipping boy these days but it is a blatant falsification on your part to claim CO2 was the sole driver of this particular extinction event. CO2 may have been the sole cause. It may have been a contributing cause. Or, in the case of something like a catastrophic impact, it may have had *absolutely nothing* to do with the event. I don't know the answer, but you most certainly don't either.

The problem with your sig and issues such as this is that your wrong decisions have a negative effect on everyone else, you rights are not infinite, they end when they negate the rights of others.

And your wrong decisions don't have similar impacts were they to be implemented as national policy? Of course they do! But you're naively assuming you're the only "right" person in this discussion. You've made up your mind and that's the end of it, despite plenty of evidence to show that there just *might* be other climate factors out there that could be just as -- or perhaps even more than -- contributory to what's going on with the climate. It's that kind of dogmatism that marks you as a zealot, and subsequently makes logical people tune you out.

Re:Cloud formation albedo (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 5 months ago | (#46281067)

And increased heat in the oceans can (and likely will) lead to increased cloud formation, which will alter the planet's albedo in the opposite direction. How much and how soon? Nobody knows. But the planet has been both warmer and cooler than it is now during it's long history. Each time it's damped out cycles of extreme warming and extreme cooling all by itself.

From what I've seen we're past the tipping point and warming will continue. Further compounding things is Unforeseen Consequences, such as changes in chemistry of the upper water column, resulting in changes in sea life. Change global climates has usually been gradual, this is happening so rapidly only species of flora and fauna which can adapt will survive.

But??? (-1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46280677)

Aren't all climatologists frauds and communists? Thank goodness for the Koch Brothers, Mark Steyn and Christopher Booker, paragons of scientific research and virtue. I think the time has come to start culling climatologists, too many of these evil people daring to say releasing CO2 is bad. After all, we all know that carbon emissions don't happen, and even if they did, they're good for you much like how cigarette smoke and teaching Creationism will lead to a better society.

Re:But??? (2)

ThatsDrDangerToYou (3480047) | about 5 months ago | (#46280823)

Damn furners...

... but on a serious note, the fucking Koch brothers are now the puppeteers running our state govt. Help us internets! You're our only hope!

Re:But??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281087)

Bah, fucking Kochs! Human pustules that fester in the rotted flesh of America's "elite", made rich by helping to fuel Stalin's revolution. How many millions of lives has this cancer caused? And how many more?

Re:But??? (1)

chipschap (1444407) | about 5 months ago | (#46280875)

I'll put forth what I always do:

1. It would be nice if global climate change were to be debated not on the basis of politics (etc.) but on a rational, unbiased, scientific basis. If we would stick 100% to the science I think we would come to a sound conclusion in fairly short order. But factor in all the special interests (on all sides) and you get the current mess.

2. Having said that, I also think it is prudent to act as if climate change were real. This is in the Willilam James sense: if it's real, we dare not fail to act. If it isn't real, we still have acted in a manner that supports long-term sustainability (distant paraphrase of James' views about religion).

I am neither a "supporter" or "denier" by the way. Those labels represent the idea that there is room for widely-varying opinion on something that ought to be a matter of science.

Not Prudent (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 5 months ago | (#46280993)

I also think it is prudent to act as if climate change were real.

Not if it involves spending billions or trillions to simply reduce CO2 emissions, when it could have gone to medical or space research.

Or even in fact to reducing REAL pollution.

There's no sign anything like a runaway greenhouse effect is going to happen. CO2 levels have continued to increase even as global average temperatures have hit a lull. In the simplified glass jar experiments that is not what happens, so pretty obviously the earth is lots more complex than a glass jar with CO2 inside. The current rate of ocean level rise is less than foot over the next 100 years, not exactly a panic situation.

Lets get back to spending money on real issues instead of a bogeyman created to funnel large sums of government money in the hands of special interest groups or creating new things for financial moguls to get rich off of (looking at you carbon credits).

Re: But??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280897)

If the koch brothers were so powerful how come they don't own most of Wichita? I live in Wichita and they are not the all powerful.

Re: But??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280973)

Because most of their time is spent outside KS both living and working. I'd guess that if they need something done for their PAC you wouldn't see it. It's not like Warren owns Omaha as his power is national - like your Kochs.

Gay Nigger Seed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280679)

Nuff said, Dice Holdings.

As we've always said (0, Troll)

0123456 (636235) | about 5 months ago | (#46280717)

When the planet starts to cool down, the Global Warmers would blame that on Global Warming, too.

Re:As we've always said (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280755)

You put extra energy in a non lineal system and results go bananas, we already knew that.

Re:As we've always said (2, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 5 months ago | (#46280769)

The PLANET is getting warmer. The eastern half of the United States experienced a cold winter.

Re:As we've always said (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281167)

Actually much of the world in the last 12 months experienced a very cold winter, very cold throughout europe, Antarctica also experienced a cold summer and with the exception of a brief heat wave in Australia it has also been a very mild summer there too.

Re: As we've always said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281389)

Winter? This year? In Europe? Nope. Mild fall extending into an early spring it is. Here in Germany there was no snow and not even frost yet. 12 degrees C today.

Re:As we've always said (2)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 5 months ago | (#46280839)

I wish that after their climate models were disproved time and time again they would try and find another model. That's science. But this has never been about science or the climate. Its about personal gain and subversive people's ideal society that takes away other people's rights to add to their own.

Re:As we've always said (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 5 months ago | (#46280951)

When the planet starts to cool down, the Global Warmers would blame that on Global Warming, too.

Exactly!

I can't have a fever because my feet are cold!

nope (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280721)

They predicted the earth would get warmer and once again they were wrong. You can't twist the logic for every happenstance to fit your agenda after the fact. This just proves once again that "man made climate change" is in fact nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Re:nope (1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46280781)

But the Earth has got warmer. It doesn't mean every spot on the globe warms up.

If you're going to criticize a theory, at least have the wit to understand what it says. Otherwise, you just come off looking like an infantile moron.

Re:nope (4, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | about 5 months ago | (#46280819)

Yet, when a specific locality talks about an unusually warm spot of weather, we have people screaming "CLIMATE CHANGE!"

The problem is, there's too damn much noise at BOTH edges of the issue and it's completely drowning out the center.
There's been WAY too much alarmist bullshit injected into the discussion, and it simply distorts said discussion away from the facts of the matter.

Re:nope (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46280957)

No scientist is going to point to a specific event and go "That's caused by AGW". The theory cannot hope to explain every weather event. But what it can explain are trends.

Re:nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281211)

No scientist is going to point to a specific event and go "That's caused by AGW". The theory cannot hope to explain every weather event. But what it can explain are trends.

You only have to look at news or journal reports any day of the week to see that there are scientists that most definitely DO point to specific events and blame it on AGW.

Re:nope (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46281325)

I don't read scientific journalism any more. Can you point me to some journal citations?

Re:nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281403)

Interesting that the trend is currently down. You might know that but most of your type are stuck listening to the Alarmist nut jobs focused on covering up their totally failed models and predictions.

Yet, you continue to listen to them and spout their b.s.

Re:nope (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46281415)

You mean the cherry picked time period that you trumpet to declare that AGW is false, even as the actual trends show the opposite. Yes, we all know about pseudo-skeptics and their ability to defy what the scientists are actually observing.

Re:nope (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 5 months ago | (#46280963)

Yet, when a specific locality talks about an unusually warm spot of weather, we have people screaming "CLIMATE CHANGE!"

Citation?

Re:nope (0)

roc97007 (608802) | about 5 months ago | (#46281191)

Yet, when a specific locality talks about an unusually warm spot of weather, we have people screaming "CLIMATE CHANGE!"

Citation?

TFA?

Re:nope (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 5 months ago | (#46280995)

So how about we ignore the loud idiots on both sides, and just listen to the scientific community? Their consensus is available to anyone who cares to read it.

Oh, but I doubt you'd agree to that. Because, like most deniers, you probably think all the scientists in the world are in a great, globe-spanning conspiracy. You'll choose to ignore the 99.99% of scientists, and listen only to the guy who's saying what you want to hear. Who cares that he's on BP's payroll?

Re:nope (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46281057)

Those evil climatologists are up there with the evil evolutionists who medical researchers. It's a global conspiracy to kill oil, Christianity and cigarettes!

Re:nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281345)

It's not a one dimensional issue. There is no center. You sound like self proclaimed agnostics who think it's some kind of theistic middleground, and end up looking like fucking idiots when doing so.

Just like you look like a fucking idiot.

Re:nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281385)

Being in the center of a discussion isn't automatically a virute or the right position. It's a lazy thought process to say "I'm right!" popularized by Bill O'Reilly. While centrism works well in politics, it has little place in science.

People arguing 2+2=4 and the other side arguing 2+2=9, do you want the centrist position here or one of the "extremes".

Re:nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281125)

Did you miss the news that in general the world IS getting warmer moron?

BS junk science (-1, Flamebait)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 5 months ago | (#46280739)

Right now the arctic ocean and Hudson Bay are 100% frozen due to this thing we call winter. Summer it is a different story.

Second the world is getting cooler or stagnate in warming in recent years due to solar lull and dining as evident in the lack of solar flares. Last time this happened we had the mini ice age from 1400 - 1850. There is no scientific basis of global warming causing the polar vortex.

Re:BS junk science (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 5 months ago | (#46280829)

getting cooler or stagnate in warming in recent years due to solar lull and dining

your ideas are intriguing and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:BS junk science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280835)

At work we took the three-dimensional world limitation of a polar vortex to be resolved in higher dimensional space. In higher, multi-dimensional projective theory, it is possible to create string nodes that describe significant components of simultaneously identically yet different mathematical entities. Within this space it is possible and is not a theoretical impossibility to create a point that is simultaneously a square and also a cube. In our example all three substantially exist as unique entities yet are linked together. This proprietary methodology is capable of intentionally introducing a multi-dimensional patterning so that the nodes of a target binary string simultaneously and/or substantially occupy the space of a Low Kolmogorov Complexity construct. The difference between these occurrences is so small that we will have for all intents and purposes successfully encoded lossley universal compression. The limitation to this Pigeonhole Principle circumvention is that the multi-dimensional space can never be super saturated, and that all of the pigeons can not be simultaneously present at which point our multi-dimensional circumvention of the pigeonhole problem breaks down.

Re:BS junk science (1)

robbadler (1139975) | about 5 months ago | (#46280859)

Right now the arctic ocean and Hudson Bay are 100% frozen due to this thing we call winter. Summer it is a different story.

Second the world is getting cooler or stagnate in warming in recent years due to solar lull and dining as evident in the lack of solar flares. Last time this happened we had the mini ice age from 1400 - 1850. There is no scientific basis of global warming causing the polar vortex.

<citation needed>

Re:BS junk science (-1, Troll)

gabrieltss (64078) | about 5 months ago | (#46280903)

How about look at the current weather in the north, north central, midwest, and eastern, and southern parts of the U.S.. How much global warming do you see? I see JACK $H!T!

Re:BS junk science (4, Insightful)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 5 months ago | (#46280955)

north, north central, midwest, and eastern, and southern parts of the U.S.. How much global warming do you see?

i didn't know that the entire globe consisted merely of those portions of the US.

Re:BS junk science (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46280999)

Now let's move to California and Australia...

Re:BS junk science (1)

bug_hunter (32923) | about 5 months ago | (#46281155)

Thank you.
Adelaide had it's hottest February day on record, 44.7 degrees celsius.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/... [adelaidenow.com.au]

To respond to the parent of your post, yes when a jet-stream pushed air from the north pole over North America, and it got cold.
As you point out, that doesn't mean the entire world is colder.
And of course, obligatory XKCD http://www.explainxkcd.com/wik... [explainxkcd.com]

Re:BS junk science (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46281401)

At some point the denialists will run out of runway, but sadly, by the time they do, any notion of being able to even mitigate the effects will be long gone. And probably around the same time, we'll start running out of cheap fossil fuels, so we'll get a nice double whammy.

But as long as the Koch Brothers make money today, well, fuck the future.

Re:BS junk science (0)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46281219)

How about look at the current weather in the north, north central, midwest, and eastern, and southern parts of the U.S.. How much global warming do you see? I see JACK $H!T!

It's climate change now, not global warming, so they can never be wrong.
When it's hot or there's a drought they blame you and Al Gore takes your money.
When it's cold or there's a storm they blame you and Al Gore takes your money.
When it's nice and the weather is calm they say it's thanks to their continued efforts.

"Continued efforts" means Al Gore continues to take your money.

Re:BS junk science (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 5 months ago | (#46280969)

Right now the arctic ocean and Hudson Bay are 100% frozen due to this thing we call winter. Summer it is a different story.

Second the world is getting cooler or stagnate in warming in recent years due to solar lull and dining as evident in the lack of solar flares. Last time this happened we had the mini ice age from 1400 - 1850. There is no scientific basis of global warming causing the polar vortex.

<citation needed>

here [arstechnica.com]

Re:BS junk science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280867)

Leave.

Re:BS junk science (1)

MtHuurne (602934) | about 5 months ago | (#46281001)

Right now the arctic ocean and Hudson Bay are 100% frozen due to this thing we call winter. Summer it is a different story.

The summer story is much more relevant though. In winter, when there is a low angle sun a few hours a day, sunlight is reflected back into space. In summer, when the sun is at a higher angle and there are only a few hours of night a day, increasingly large areas are not reflecting much sunlight back into space. I don't see how this invalidates TFA.

Re:BS junk science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281011)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2013_v5.5.png

Positive over 30 year time frame.
Flat over a 15 year time frame.
Sharply negative over a 3 year time frame.
Positive over a 2 year time frame.

Which one do you think best fits a 50+ year time frame.

Re:BS junk science (1)

g8oz (144003) | about 5 months ago | (#46281025)

Good thing we have you to refute those damn scientists.

Re:BS junk science (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 5 months ago | (#46281237)

Name one scientist who believes the polar vertex is caused by warming based on scientific evidence? One!

Re:BS junk science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281291)

Second the world is getting cooler

Too much coolaid? Want to check reality?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/... [noaa.gov]

The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62ÂC (1.12ÂF) above the 20th century average of 13.9ÂC (57.0ÂF). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66ÂC (1.19ÂF) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th centuryâ"1998â"was warmer than 2013.

Re:BS junk science (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 5 months ago | (#46281393)

1) Reflectivity of ice vs snow is different.

2) Water is great at storing and DISPERSING heat; it raises averages even if it still freezes part time.

3) Anecdotal to mention some areas that are frozen today and ignore the larger trend. Can you see the forest or just the trees?

4) Net energy increases to the atmosphere are not going to be uniformly distributed (if that was the case, we'd likely not ever have much WIND which is created by the uneven temperatures.)

5) Higher energy input, NOT uniformly distributed is going to increase the severity of the natural flow to equilibrium. Global Warming doesn't make weather, it makes it stronger. You can't definitively proof such a thing. Give an athlete performance enhancing drugs and you'll not likely notice without blood tests... (the fact they relatively improve might clue you in... but that involves looking at historical trends and using fuzzy things like statistics.)

6) Polar vortex always existed; not as common and they are weaker than the equatorial vortex (with many names: hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones.) Note: they exist almost entirely above land/ice unlike the equatorial ones.

Finally, you can't seriously discuss terraforming Mars in 100 years and deny global warming.

Re:BS junk science (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#46281431)

Funny you mention Hudson's Bay being frozen over, it hasn't happened in awhile. And it was such huge crisis back in the 70's and early 80's that the Government of Canada commissioned nearly 100 air compressors from Gardner Denver in Woodstock, Ontario to keep sections of the bay open so they could land sea planes to deliver supplies to remote communities. You'd think that landing on ice would be okay, the problem was two fold. There was never enough clean ice to make a runway. The other was high levels of erosion from the water under it eating holes through it or thinning it to the point where it became dangerous to land craft.

Terraforming 101: Chapter 1 - What not to do (5, Interesting)

deathcloset (626704) | about 5 months ago | (#46280747)

Looking on the bright side - thanks to all our wanton climate changing industrial activity and glacial public acceptance of the situation, we are getting our first experiences with terraforming. Admittedly, these experiences are like one's first experiences with learning how to paint - finger painting and messy, but with much larger existential consequences and no actual paint.

Hopefully "soon" we get a good foothold on Mars, and hopefully, and this sounds weird I know, there is NO life on Mars. Because that would give us a nice "sterile planetary lab" on which to experiment as we find ways to control global climates without operating on the only global climate we have available - which we happen to depend on completely and utterly for our survival.

Better to start experimenting on another one as soon as possible, because even when we get a handle on our climate changing activities, nature is standing by with a much larger list of climate changing activities which we will have to confront.

Maybe Venus too - if we can fix that place we can fix anywhere! So Mars would be like our lab and Venus is like our final exam.

And I think we really need to pass this course.

Re:Terraforming 101: Chapter 1 - What not to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280757)

Did you RTFA?? I'm guessing that this guy is using "fractal statistics" to describe the probability of the atmosphere moving into different states. I don't think that this necessarily implies that "The weather is fractal" or self-similar or whatever. The fractal statement is usually at best an approximation anyway, and at worst completely untrue :)

But don't trust me too much on this. All I know about fractal statistics is that it uses fractal function as it's distribution. Maybe someone else knows more about fractal statistics?

Let it be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280749)

The earth isn't some fragile little thing, or a static rock like mars. Just let things take their course and we'll see what comes out of it.

Re:Let it be (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46280803)

The Earth isn't, but people are, and a good many are living in fairly marginal areas, and not just in terms of agriculture. Will humanity die out. Most certainly not. But there will be consequences, and they will ultimately be fair more expensive than if we had tried to curb emissions.

Re:Let it be (0)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46281259)

The Earth isn't, but people are, and a good many are living in fairly marginal areas, and not just in terms of agriculture. Will humanity die out. Most certainly not. But there will be consequences, and they will ultimately be fair more expensive than if we had tried to curb emissions.

Some people might die? I'm with Goldmember. Too bad for yooooouuuuuuu!
Losing a few (billion) people would ultimately be a good thing, not a bad thing.

Re:Let it be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280831)

Just wait for some mad biologist to design a super bug that kills off plankton. Then watch most life on earth suffocate.
retard.

"Give me a lever and I can move the world." brute force isn't required.

Re:Let it be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281163)

Maybe that would give anaerobic life forms a chance to make a comeback.
I'm not too worried.

Re:Let it be (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46281269)

"Give me a lever and I can move the world." brute force isn't required.

Tell that to the fulcrum and the lever.

On the other side (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#46280775)

How much more light is reflected by the extra snow cover from the polar vortices?

Repeat the mantra (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 5 months ago | (#46280799)

Don't forget, all climate change is bad and man-made.

The Earth would have stayed exactly the same temperature forever if we were not here, nor would any animals have ever gone extinct. All days would have exactly the average temperature values and snowfall would never vary year to year.

Re:Repeat the mantra (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46281031)

People die all the time. I wasn't aware that was an argument for allowing them to be murdered...

The whole point of anthropogenic climate change isn't that we should stop climate change, it's that massive CO2 emissions from human sources over the last three centuries are producing far greater and more harmful changes than natural processes. This

Re:Repeat the mantra (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 5 months ago | (#46281181)

People die all the time. I wasn't aware that was an argument for allowing them to be murdered...

It is.

Lots of people are dying in Syria now. Do you want to expend millions/billions and many lives trying to stop people from doing what they really want to do?

The whole point of anthropogenic climate change isn't that we should stop climate change, it's that massive CO2 emissions from human sources over the last three centuries are producing far greater and more harmful changes than natural processes.

That's the claim for sure. But it's not proven to be true (the more harmful part). And you cannot REALLY say AGW changes are specifically the reason why we have a polar vortex.

In human history warmer periods are better periods. Anything we contribute to warming is overall helping more people than it hurts. IF we are even creating significant warming over what natural climactic changes would be anyway.

Re:On the other side (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280845)

None.

The snow happens every year.

Re:On the other side (1)

Raumkraut (518382) | about 5 months ago | (#46281293)

Perhaps about the same amount that isn't being reflected from those areas of the world where snowfall has been at a record low this winter. Like here in the arctic.

The Chicken Littles at it again (-1, Troll)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 5 months ago | (#46280779)

After running around in circles and sqwaking tirelessly about the sky falling, the chicken littles have invented another reason to get even more scared that the sky is falling.
I say let's have some bbq chicken for lunch!

the skynet is spauling the skynet is spauling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281039)

hard to resist the notion of considering ourselves in relation to one another & our new clear options

spalling you ediot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281093)

the skynet is spalling...

Global cooling (1)

hottoh (540941) | about 5 months ago | (#46280789)

Kind of obvious that white reflects more solar energy than do dark colors. So the point of the story is a several year old point, less ice/snow the faster the poles warm in the sun.

Imagine the stories if the opposite were happening, global cooling. The panic.

Re:Global cooling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280895)

Both would be a panic.

Global warming because entire countries go under water, If enough happens, things like the central US (you know, where most of the food is grown) can go under water.

Global cooling becomes a problem because the entire North America (as far south as Virgina) could get covered in ice, Europe gets covered in ice (at least as far south as Italy/Spain... Not sure how much of China gets hit. That Mongolian desert might hold it back... As for the southern hemisphere... a LOT more ice - possibly as high as South Africa.

There are two "Arctics" (0, Troll)

jamesl (106902) | about 5 months ago | (#46280809)

The Arctic and the Antarctic.

It's a good thing that the amount of ice in the Antarctic is growing.

Antarctic sea ice extent continues to track very high in January, reaching the second-highest monthly extent in the 36-year satellite monitoring record. New monthly extent records were set for each month between August and November, and December was tied for the record (within the limits of the precision).
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen... [nsidc.org]

Re:There are two "Arctics" (0)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 5 months ago | (#46280863)

antarctica is losing an astonishing amount of land ice. this land ice melts and flows into the southern ocean, freshening the upper layer of water, which of course will freeze easier adding to the amount of sea ice.

Re:There are two "Arctics" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281239)

I think you are confusing the arctic with Antarctica, Antarctica is not losing land ice at all, it doesn't even get warm enough in the height of summer for the land ice to melt, the only loss it receives is glacier movement that breaks off into the ocean.

Re:There are two "Arctics" (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about 5 months ago | (#46281019)

The sea ice extent is the surface area of ice that is floating in the sea. Unfortunately, there is more ice floating in the sea because it's calving off the land. The total volume or mass of ice in the Antarctic is decreasing [skepticalscience.com] .

Re:There are two "Arctics" (1)

hey! (33014) | about 5 months ago | (#46281107)

Indeed we do have two poles, but they have entirely different climate dynamics, due to the fact that the Antarctic has a continent surrounded by water and the Arctic has an ocean surrounded by land.

Old News (3, Informative)

BlindRobin (768267) | about 5 months ago | (#46280853)

To anyone that has been paying (not even very close) attention this is nothing new.

asphalt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280869)

So the amount of asphalt has an impact also, right?

Re:asphalt (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 5 months ago | (#46281021)

So the amount of asphalt has an impact also, right?

Yes, we should clearly use more concrete, it is more reflective than asphalt.

Re:asphalt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281363)

so alt.pave.the.earth has it wrong? Dang.

Can we still chrome the moon?

dark matters continued glowbull warning band of 85 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280889)

aka the WMD on credit hurry sundown gang of genocidal warloks & wizards. keep it to ourselves? http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

Reflect back the heat? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46280967)

Solution : Install a massive array of mirrors everywhere.

Paint your roof white (1)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 5 months ago | (#46281071)

The best dye for that is Titanium White - Titanium Dioxide. However it is rather expensive; Zinc Oxide is good, not as good as Titanium Dioxide, but far cheaper. If we all painted our roofs white, I expect it would have a measurable effect.

Ask Slashdot: Why No Paragraphs? (0)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 5 months ago | (#46281055)

This doesn't happen to other users as far as I can tell. It has only recently started happening to me. If I separate two paragraphs with a blank line then press the Submit button, until recently the blank line would result in separate paragraphs above and below the blank line. But more recently all of my comments post as just one giant paragraph, which makes them hard to read. For example this particular comment should have five separate paragraphs but I expect it will post as just one. I don't see any option for it in my user options. Could it be because I cannot be bothered to update Firefox? That's because I grew weary of Mozilla.org pushing out frequent new versions without fixing any bugs that actually affected me.

Please tell me I'm not dreaming! (1)

wdhowellsr (530924) | about 5 months ago | (#46281281)

Please tell me the browser cache is screwing with me. Please tell me that my wife wants to have sex more often ( ok that isn't going to happen, I have a 12 and 15 year old) Do we really have Slashdot.org back?

How to measure Slashcot Participation (1)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 5 months ago | (#46281423)

My own log file analysis quite clearly tells me that to understand my overall site performance, I must average over seven-day periods. This because some visitors visit while at work, others in the evenings, others on the weekends. But the overall shape of the traffic periodic, with a period of seven days. This would be easy to do, but rather tedious: Go back over the last few months, since at least a month before the beta was announced, and enter into a spreadsheet the timestamp of each story, and how many comments it got. For extra credit, count how many comments had each possible moderation score, from -1 to 5. Now tally those up weekly, and compare the trends both before the Slashcott - february 10 through 17 - and during it. Eventually you'll get significant data for after the Slashcott as well. I haven't actually done this but my vague impression is that an insignificant number actually participated. I did. It was sorely tempting just to peek a little, being a nerd I need news that matters on a daily basis, but no, I never visited the site from the 10th until midnight this morning, on the 18th.

It was a fucking ICE AGE. Get over it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281433)

The FUCKING ICE AGE was never going to be a permanent thing. There were no polar ice caps for MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS before the recent ice age. There are tropical fossils in the bedrock in NORTHERN CANADA.

God dammit. Can we please just finally accept the fact that the Earth is changing, realize that we are powerless to do anything about it, and start adapting to our changing environment like we should?

Solution... (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 5 months ago | (#46281449)

man made fake icebergs, painted white of course.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>