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!

What Caused a 1300-Year Deep Freeze?

Unknown Lamer posted about 6 months ago | from the should-have-discovered-coal-earlier dept.

Earth 258

sciencehabit (1205606) writes "Things were looking up for Earth about 12,800 years ago. The last Ice Age was coming to an end, mammoths and other large mammals romped around North America, and humans were beginning to settle down and cultivate wild plants. Then, suddenly, the planet plunged into a deep freeze, returning to near-glacial temperatures for more than a millennium before getting warm again. The mammoths disappeared at about the same time, as did a major Native American culture that thrived on hunting them. A persistent band of researchers has blamed this apparent disaster on the impact of a comet or asteroid, but a new study concludes that the real explanation for the chill, at least, may lie strictly with Earth-bound events."

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

Climate change is for pussies. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985135)

Seriously, is there any tech-savvy person out there that feels we can't cope with a temp shift of a few degrees? For fuck's sake - STOP.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46985211)

Cope, yes. Cope inexpensively, no. Coping with a significantly warmer climate will be expensive. There's evidence that we could spend some money now to reduce the warming, thereby reducing the total cost. Wouldn't reducing the total cost mean that it makes economic sense to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985247)

I fail to understand how extending the agricultural belt northward would not make economic sense. As the polar areas become more agricultural, we all will benefit.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985283)

Tundra soil is not particularly fertile and the processes that enrich soil can take hundreds if not thousands of years. I suppose if you have enough compost to cover Canada and such.

and that ignores the obvious desertification that would happen across huge swathes of currently productive land.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 6 months ago | (#46985465)

Tundra is not marginal. Tundra will become forest, forest will become fertile farmland.

Desertification is not 'obvious'. Key to global warming is more water vapor feeding back any heat increases. Likely increased average rain with increased temperature.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (2)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46985551)

The impact of warming on food yields [epa.gov] is complex. The latest research suggests that food yields will decrease [asu.edu] with a warming of 2 degrees Celsius.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

radiumsoup (741987) | about 6 months ago | (#46985841)

at the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, you did cite an Arizona State study, so I must, out of principle, ignore your entire post altogether.

/go Wildcats

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986281)

Arizona State is an expert in porn. If you cite pore and ASU +5. Science? Try UofA - masters of Mars

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986351)

Arizona State is an expert in porn. If you cite pore and ASU +5. Science? Try UofA - masters of Mars

Could be worse...

Masters of Uranus.

[rimshot]

Thank you. Try the veal. I'm here until Tuesday.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#46987455)

I see what you did there.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (4, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 6 months ago | (#46985737)

Tundra is marginal for most crops. Tundra is typically a thin, acidic soil. Given a couple of hundred thousand years, it probably would pick up a bunch of new critters and plants and become more organically active, but most of us are not that patient.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (3, Funny)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 6 months ago | (#46986621)

Good thing most of our food grows on ammonium nitrate and very little else.

junk food (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987183)

If you want healthy food, then you need healthy nutrients in the soil.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 5 months ago | (#46998211)

Don't forget the phosphate - the end of which element's cheap supply is looming on the horizon.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (1)

delt0r (999393) | about 5 months ago | (#46998733)

We really should never throw real shit away for just that reason. I mean how much phosphates are in sewage? Its a bit IIRC.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 5 months ago | (#47034555)

I mean how much phosphates are in sewage

Variable, but it's a good quantity. Spreading shit on the fields may offend some idiot's sensibilities, but that doesn't make it an inherently bad idea. We've known how (and approximately why) to do it for millennia.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (3, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 6 months ago | (#46985751)

Desertification is not 'obvious'. Key to global warming is more water vapor feeding back any heat increases. Likely increased average rain with increased temperature.

You seem to be making a common mistake when talking about climate change:
You're confusing global "average rain" with local "average rain."

We know, without a doubt, that climate change will shift weather patterns and create deserts.
We're also seeing signs that climate change is shifting weather patterns and greening existing deserts.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that useless land and useful land switch places in a 1:1 ratio.
That still leaves one big problem: what do you do with all the people and infrastructure that are in the new desert?
It's a problem whose only solutions are extremely expensive.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 6 months ago | (#46986153)

what do you do with all the people and infrastructure that are in the new desert?

Why do the people have to leave? People have been migrating to warmer places for the past century.
It's actually kindof stupid that our cities are on top of some of the most fertile ground.
If Chicago or New York all of a sudden became 10 degrees warmer it would probably boost their
population. The only thing that would have to move north would be the farmers and there is
minimal infrustructure there.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986825)

Lucky for you there is only 1 country in the world.
But we have already seen the problem in your 1 tiny world. New Orleans is already under water and you were too stupid to move it the first time. You already have cities in stupid places, it will only get worse. What if the climate changes and New York ends up with massive frequent flooding and all those extra people?

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 6 months ago | (#46987237)

What if the climate changes and New York ends up with massive frequent flooding and all those extra people?

Sea level rise would be much more catastrophic for NYC than frequent flooding. Much of NYC, especially Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens are below, at, or just a few feet above sea level. Most of the infrastructure (electric, natural gas, telephone/telecom, steam -- yes steam, subways, etc. etc., etc.) is actually underground. During hurricaine Sandy, Significant swaths of NYC were flooded [weather.gov] , leaving hundreds of thousands without power, some for weeks. A general sea level rise of even one meter would put much of NYC (as well as the rest of Long Island) underwater. Once that happens, the next big storm will kill thousands and leave much of the city uninhabitable. So much for NYC as the center of the world. The same is true for many other coastal cities -- Miami, Los Angeles, etc. New Orleans is just the beginning.

And forget about Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and on and on and on.

We're looking at population dislocations from coastal/island areas in the hundreds of millions -- if not more than a billion people. This is going to be really bad. And we aren't doing anything worthwhile about it. I just hope I don't live long enough to see it.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988459)

Leaving aside Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and on, so what your saying is the all of the real urban pest holes in the United States will finally be cleared out once and for all... and the down side is??

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 6 months ago | (#46989171)

Leaving aside Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and on, so what your saying is the all of the real urban pest holes in the United States will finally be cleared out once and for all... and the down side is??

Throughout history, cities have been the engines of commerce, innovation and growth. I'm one of those urban pests (born and raised in a large city), as are fully half of the US population. Are you saying that half the population of the US should be put down as pests?

What I think you're really saying is that you don't like diversity and are somewhat xenophobic. Do you even have a valid passport? Have you ever traveled anywhere? I pity you your small-mindedness.

Also, just for the record, the word "your" is possessive (as in "This is your opinion"). "You're" is a contraction of "you are" (as in "...so what you're saying is..."). It's hard to take your opinion seriously, both because it's hateful and exclusionary, and because you're clearly not as smart as you think you are. That is all.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 6 months ago | (#46991019)

Nah, you just move in with him, rent free I'm sure :)

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

dl_sledding (1624921) | about 6 months ago | (#46991227)

Leaving aside Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and on, so what your saying is the all of the real urban pest holes in the United States will finally be cleared out once and for all... and the down side is??

Throughout history, cities have been the engines of commerce, innovation and growth. I'm one of those urban pests (born and raised in a large city), as are fully half of the US population. Are you saying that half the population of the US should be put down as pests?

What I think you're really saying is that you don't like diversity and are somewhat xenophobic. Do you even have a valid passport? Have you ever traveled anywhere? I pity you your small-mindedness.

Also, just for the record, the word "your" is possessive (as in "This is your opinion"). "You're" is a contraction of "you are" (as in "...so what you're saying is..."). It's hard to take your opinion seriously, both because it's hateful and exclusionary, and because you're clearly not as smart as you think you are. That is all.

His was a douchebag comment, but I do understand what probably fueled it. And yours was a retaliation, based on a stereotype that you hold.

I live in a small rural community (though I was born in Chicago), and the typical reaction from those who live in the city is "Why the fuck would you want to live there???!!!!", like we're some kind of socially and mentally retarded group of subhumans that don't know what they are missing.

My answer is always the same: truth. I live a mile from work: it takes less than 5 minutes for the "commute". I work with people that commute 40 miles and they can make it (even in poor weather) in very much less than an hour. When I get to work, I not only leave the car unlocked, but the keys are in the ignition. The house is unlocked. Always. In the summer, my kids can pretty much do as they please all day; if they get into trouble, someone will let me know and will most likely have corrected them already.

There is safety and security in rural areas that city dwellers cannot even comprehend. We may be farther from broadway shows and expensive restaurants, but life here is not about those kinds of things. We do not miss them (and many of us have moved here from that environment). We make our own entertainment and experiences, usually involving the outdoors and nature, and our friends and neighbors, rather than living as one in the midst of strangers.

We feed you. If it wasn't for us, you would starve. What do you give us in return? Seriously, we can do without all of the "modern conveniences" and tech that is produced by "the engines of commerce, innovation and growth", and still live and survive. Can you do without the food that is produced in rural America? Where are you going to raise cattle and poultry for meat, durum for bread, and all the diversity of fruits and vegetables that you can currently buy in the store?

You yourself call us small-minded and xenophobic. And then, as normal, give a grammer lesson to the "hick", fueling the stereotype that you hold.

Well done.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 6 months ago | (#46991525)

You yourself call us small-minded and xenophobic. And then, as normal, give a grammer lesson to the "hick", fueling the stereotype that you hold. Well done.

Thanks for your thoughts. Just to clarify, I only called that specific AC small-minded and xenophobic. I rather imagined that he is a suburbanite, rather than a rural/exurb dweller. No stereotypes here. As you said, his was a "douchebag comment." My derision was for him alone.

I don't have issues with people who don't live in or don't like cities. I judge people on what they do and what they say, not on where they live. There's a lot to be said for living in rural areas. It's not the sort of life I want, but my preferences apply to me and I don't consider anyone to be "less than" anyone else.

All that said, I'm going to assume (yes, dangerous I know. :) ) that you figured that since I live in a city, that I think anyone who doesn't is an uneducated bumpkin (I think the word you used was "hick"). I know that's not true. The AC I responded to showed his bias and ignorance. I called him on it. That's it. My derision was strictly for him.

Yes, rural areas provide food to urban areas. Thank you. I, for one, appreciate it. I'm not going to argue with you as to the value of cities. History makes a much better argument than I ever could. Feel free to disagree, I won't hold it against you.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

dl_sledding (1624921) | about 5 months ago | (#47010293)

Thanks for the clarification... Sounds like I may have read the situation incorrectly and reacted harshly. I apologize for that.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 5 months ago | (#47010443)

Thanks for the clarification... Sounds like I may have read the situation incorrectly and reacted harshly. I apologize for that.

No worries. It's often difficult to pick up on nuance in a text-based environment like this. I believe we all have something to contribute. Enjoy your day.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

lightBearer (2692183) | about 6 months ago | (#46991889)

I want to say that I agree with a large quantity of what you have to say. As an urban dweller who wants to move out into the countryside, I even empathize with choosing that destination.

On the other hand, you ask what the city has done for you and I have to point out that the lion's share of your farming equipment is the direct result of factories in those cities. Can you till, plant and harvest without the benefits of tractors and combines anymore? Who is keeping those skills alive so that if the urban centers shut down, the countryside can continue operating as it does without petroleum and replacement parts?

I think there's a symbiosis between the rural and the urban that both resent to some degree.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

cwsumner (1303261) | about 6 months ago | (#46994385)

... On the other hand, you ask what the city has done for you and I have to point out that the lion's share of your farming equipment is the direct result of factories in those cities. Can you till, plant and harvest without the benefits of tractors and combines anymore? Who is keeping those skills alive so that if the urban centers shut down, the countryside can continue operating as it does without petroleum and replacement parts? ...

Are the factories actually in the city? I think the buildings that you see are empty and abandoned.
There are factories here, that are working quite well. The workers are from here, not there. The knowledge is here.
If you still have active factories you are lucky... but it may not last.
See you soon, I'll save a place...

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

dl_sledding (1624921) | about 5 months ago | (#47010277)

I want to say that I agree with a large quantity of what you have to say. As an urban dweller who wants to move out into the countryside, I even empathize with choosing that destination.

On the other hand, you ask what the city has done for you and I have to point out that the lion's share of your farming equipment is the direct result of factories in those cities.

Actually, the majority of agricultural manufacturing is in much smaller communities. Even John Deere (one of the largest) is headquartered in Moline, Il, and even if you count the entire metro area of Moline it's under 400,000. Moline itself is under 50k. Most agricultural manufacturing is done in the rural areas, because that's where it's needed. There's a Steiger plant in Fargo, ND, for instance.

Can you till, plant and harvest without the benefits of tractors and combines anymore?

Actually, yes. Not enough to keep the world fed as we do now, but we'll do fine locally.

Who is keeping those skills alive so that if the urban centers shut down, the countryside can continue operating as it does without petroleum and replacement parts?

You do realize that farmers are the largest DIY group in the world, right? And most of those companies were started by farmers? Typically things are fixed, not replaced, and if a replacement is needed most are very good at manufacturing parts on their own or making something else work in place of it. These aren't cars or computers. And petroleum? Also from the rural areas. It's shipped all over the place to be refined, but those are normally not in urban areas either (the NIMBY effect)... In fact there is already one being built in the Bakken and another is being discussed pretty seriously. So, we already have the petroleum.

I am not trying to argue, but just remember that the rural areas can get along a lot better without the urban areas, than vice versa. Urban areas have their place: for instance, high-end science and research is done in universities in the urban areas, medical science is much more available in cities, and seriously, there are many more cultural options available. And that's cool. It just seems that most of the time those of us who have chosen to live in the rural areas are looked down upon from "city folk". And that gets pretty annoying.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

kaatochacha (651922) | about 6 months ago | (#46995015)

Are you saying that half the population of the US should be put down as pests?

Yes, he is.

What I think you're really saying is that you don't like diversity and are somewhat xenophobic. Do you even have a valid passport? Have you ever traveled anywhere? I pity you your small-mindedness

.
He didn't mention that he'd be putting down any one group, just urban pests. He could be quite multicultural in his culling.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 6 months ago | (#46995295)

Are you saying that half the population of the US should be put down as pests?

Yes, he is.

I see. So I guess that means I'm dealing with a sociopath who has delusions of grandeur, eh? Lovely.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 6 months ago | (#46991003)

They will be moving in with you next...

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about 6 months ago | (#46991503)

I work right on the water, in a location that's indicated on that map to have experienced over 4ft of inundation. Maybe those figures actually represent deviation from normal high tide and not actually inundation. While there was indeed flooding around here it didn't exceed 12" and only affected a few waterfront areas. Go a few hundred feet and there was no flooding at all. The flooding also didn't persist for the duration of the storm, instead receding once the tide went out.

I'm not suggesting that the rising sea level isn't a problem. I'm suggesting that it isn't the urgent issue it keeps being presented as. The rise is so gradual that people will almost certain adapt long before it could turn into a critical problem. As it stands, in a few residential neighborhoods affected by flooding some have moved out and others have taken measures to defend against flooding.

This is the sort of thing we're going to see increasingly around the world, and eventually some of these spots may be completely given up to the sea. However, for the most part it's not going to occur at a frantic pace that would pose a humanitarian nightmare. People will simply adapt or move.

The problem with some aspects of trying to take action now is that it's too soon to even know how we should be responding. It's the typical nonsense I face with management. They're so frantic to get started on a project, to do anything, that we end up wasting an inordinate amount of time and money simply fixing problems caused by rushing. And in many cases the original goals go unfulfilled anyway.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 6 months ago | (#46991703)

I work right on the water, in a location that's indicated on that map to have experienced over 4ft of inundation. Maybe those figures actually represent deviation from normal high tide and not actually inundation. While there was indeed flooding around here it didn't exceed 12" and only affected a few waterfront areas. Go a few hundred feet and there was no flooding at all. The flooding also didn't persist for the duration of the storm, instead receding once the tide went out.

I'm not suggesting that the rising sea level isn't a problem. I'm suggesting that it isn't the urgent issue it keeps being presented as. The rise is so gradual that people will almost certain adapt long before it could turn into a critical problem. As it stands, in a few residential neighborhoods affected by flooding some have moved out and others have taken measures to defend against flooding.

This is the sort of thing we're going to see increasingly around the world, and eventually some of these spots may be completely given up to the sea. However, for the most part it's not going to occur at a frantic pace that would pose a humanitarian nightmare. People will simply adapt or move.

The problem with some aspects of trying to take action now is that it's too soon to even know how we should be responding. It's the typical nonsense I face with management. They're so frantic to get started on a project, to do anything, that we end up wasting an inordinate amount of time and money simply fixing problems caused by rushing. And in many cases the original goals go unfulfilled anyway.

Interesting and valid points. Thank you. I don't believe we should rush into "solutions" until we understand the impact of those solutions. However, as you may recall, hundreds of thousands of people below 42nd street in Manhattan (due to the 14th street ConEd power facility failure) were without power for days, some for more than a week. The Battery Tunnel was closed for days, as were several subway lines whose tunnels below the East River were inundated as well.

As for me, I live at least 100 feet above sea level. During the height of Sandy, I looked at my window and there was water on my window sill! Terrifying stuff! I nearly had an MI. More seriously, many people lost many of their possessions and homes were destroyed. Many elderly/disabled people were trapped in their high-floor apartments for extended periods. Unless we take (considered -- as I said, your point is a good one) action, as sea levels rise, these sorts of problems will just get worse.

The science is telling us that anthropogenic impacts are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. We should try to find ways to reduce our impact, IMHO. What is more, even though these issues aren't immediately threatening, that doesn't mean we should just ignore them.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 5 months ago | (#46999665)

We're rushing into the problem without understanding what we're doing, so there's a certain symmetry in rushing into a solution without understanding it.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46991781)

Certainly they can migrate to Detroit. Nice inland location and lots of available housing at low prices

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 6 months ago | (#46990987)

The problem is the farmers on the desert side would have to move across a continent. It's not like everybody gets up and moves 2 seats down the row...

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 6 months ago | (#46992307)

If this scenerio actually played out and we didn't erupt into mass chaos, I could
foresee a trading system where the USA traded top soil to canada in exchange for
corn and wheat.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 6 months ago | (#46986277)

For the sake of argument, let's assume that useless land and useful land switch places in a 1:1 ratio. That still leaves one big problem: what do you do with all the people and infrastructure that are in the new desert? It's a problem whose only solutions are extremely expensive.

Well if all of the populated areas suddenly become deserts solar suddenly becomes more viable as you don't have the issue with transmission lines over long distances.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46998783)

You do realise solar power comes from the sun right? not from the desert.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 5 months ago | (#46999003)

You do realise solar power comes from the sun right? not from the desert.

You do realize that clouds and rain will hamper solar panel power output and that deserts have very little rain or clouds, right?

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

gtall (79522) | about 6 months ago | (#46987931)

Also, melting the polar ice caps is probably not a good idea since Greenland and Antarctica melting would raise sea levels by several feet. 11 million people in Bangladesh will move to India rather than wade around in salt water. Miami will be underwater along with a good amount of Florida. In general, there will be a lot less dry land. Since most of the biggest cities are actually ocean ports, they probably be underwater as well.

One commonly overlooked fact is that most of Antarctica is below sea level. The ice sits atop the continent. Currently, the increased wind speed around the Antarctic is causing warm water to upwell near the continent which is unfreezing the bond between the land and ice. If that truly melts, finding arable land will be the least of our worries.

However, have no fear. Climate change is a myth perpetrated by 95% of climate scientists because they don't like humanity or at least not as much as we have. And even if climate change is not a myth, humans have nothing to do with it. Dumping tons of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere won't harm anything; it has been proven that human dumped CO2 doesn't observe physical laws. This isn't the rising sea level you are looking for.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 6 months ago | (#46988609)

From what I've seen a lot of people in Bangladesh already spend much of their time wading around in salt water. If the sea level rises enough, it might actually push them onto dry land.

Of greater concern is that if Florida goes undersea from south of Sea World, you Northerners will be overrun with returning retirees!

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 6 months ago | (#46986189)

In general, we should expect less rainfall at lower latitudes and more rainfall at higher latitudes. Canada will get wetter while California gets drier.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986287)

In general, we should expect less rainfall at lower latitudes and more rainfall at higher latitudes. Canada will get wetter while California gets drier.

Good. Most of us who are not in California wish it would just go away. I can live with it becoming an inhospitable desert. I was hoping for a major quake event to split it off into an island so we can disown it, but that doesn't seem likely.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46995101)

You forget.
Californians will go somewhere.
Probably your front porch.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986761)

Fuck you, a lot of places will become deserts that aren't now. And many places will be underwater. Just because it may be helpful to your backyard don't be suck a dick.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (2)

dywolf (2673597) | about 6 months ago | (#46988595)

Tundra is not marginal.

Yes it is.
You seem to lack a basic understanding of what it is. Permafrost has been frozen for many thousands of years. The biological processes (re: bacteria) that break down organic materials into nutrients that make for fertile soil are not active and present. They take time to occur and spread and actually create thick deep rich soil, the kind you need for farming.

  Tundra will become forest, .

No, it wont.
Or rather, it's not a given, and even if it DID occur, you're talking about a process that will take several centuries on its own. Not exactly something we can just wait for realistically.

forest will become fertile farmland..

Again, no.
Your understanding of agriculture, soil health, forestry, etc is ...basically nonexistent.
In fact, strike "basically". It is nonexistent.

Desertification is not 'obvious'. .

Yes it is. It's happening before our eyes.

Key to global warming is more water vapor feeding back any heat increases. Likely increased average rain with increased temperature.

Ah, the old "more rain = good".
First off, its not more rain period.
Many area will get less rain, as they get pushed to the opposite extreme. Death Valley wont suddenly find itself pushed to wetness. In fact the opposite: Death Valley type conditions and dryness will cover a larger area in similar circumstances (rain shadows more severe, etc).

In other areas, they will get more rain. But more rain isnt automatically good. Too much rain too quickly doesnt soak in, but causes flash floods, erosion, and mudslides, stripping good soil off the surface, and clogging streams and rivers with sediment. This process expands river deltas, which are fertile, but leaves the interior with less arable land.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

Reziac (43301) | about 6 months ago | (#46992133)

"...thick deep rich soil, the kind you need for farming."

That describes the ideal situation, but as the world IS, that ideal exists mainly in riverbottoms and some formerly-glaciated areas, and not much anywhere else. Everywhere else, we use modern farming methods to improve production from soils our ancestors would have regarded with dismay. I'd make an educated guess (being an ag type myself) that probably 3/4ths of present-day cropland was naturally less than good, let alone great, prior to being put under the plow.

Further, the notion that we need to turn the tundra into purely cropland is itself ingenuous. It would be more efficient and more productive to turn it into grassland for seasonal grazing, as there are plenty of grasses that thrive in acid soil, and protein availability is the real boundary on human health (calories alone don't do it). More protein means more healthy people.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 6 months ago | (#46985575)

I suppose if you have enough compost to cover Canada and such.

Who needs compost when you can just drill/frack more natural gas and turn that into fertilizer?

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 6 months ago | (#46986207)

It is literally seeping out of the melting permafrost so there should be no shortage. Here is a fun video of someone setting the air on fire after poking a hole in the ice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 6 months ago | (#46985727)

I suppose if you have enough compost to cover Canada and such.

You can have every politician on the North (and South) American Continents. It would be a pretty good start.

Maybe lawyers as a phase II project.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 6 months ago | (#46988617)

I suppose if you have enough compost to cover Canada and such.

You can have every politician on the North (and South) American Continents. It would be a pretty good start.

Maybe lawyers as a phase II project.

This isn't compost, it's toxic waste!

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

knightghost (861069) | about 6 months ago | (#46985879)

Tundra soil is not particularly fertile

Nor is current farmland. Crops are grown with fertilizer produced by oil and natural gas. Replacing those will be the problem.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986163)

One only needs to visit current agricultural areas which were not under ice during the last ice age to see how much of the soil the ice took with it.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986387)

...enough compost to cover Canada...

Just dredge the dung heap in Ottawa.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 6 months ago | (#46986577)

Desertification is not obvious. Reports are that the models show that some areas turn into deserts, and others into jungles. So you might need to switch from wheat to rice or sugar cane. Or you might need to go into date palms.

OTOH, desertification CAN be handled, if you have enough energy. (Check out the California central valley. Used to be a desert.) But you need enough energy to move water around, and possibly to desalinate it. (YARG!!!) Jungles, though, are more difficult to deal with. It's better to adapt to it than to fight it. Mangroves, tropical fruits, rice, sugar cane, etc.

As for tundra soil not being particularly fertile....I have my doubts about that. I think the problem is the weather that causes you to have tundra in the first place, particularly permafrost. Tundra is reported to belch alarming amounts of methane when it gets warm and moist, and to me this sounds like a very fertile soil....though quite plausibly one that's deficient in minerals. But you probably can't just plow it. It probably needs to be aerated as well. And you would need to select the correct crops...I can't really say what they would be. (Jungle soil, however, is QUITE poor, because of the heavy flow of water that washes away all the nutrients.)

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#46988021)

Processes that enrich soil; adding rock dust from glacial recession, adding organic matter from waste, introducing red worms to this environment; 1 year.
Plenty of rock dust out there, way too much organic material goes to the dump. Wherever man lives, there is plenty of compostable material just going to waste dumps. Make a beginning, the end wont be that far.

And make your own rock dust & farm indoors (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 6 months ago | (#46995913)

http://remineralize.org/ [remineralize.org]
"Better soil, better food, better planet.... We see a future of thriving farms and gardens producing healthy, nutrient-dense food in great abundance. We see exuberant forests returned to a state of grandeur not seen in centuries, silently sequestering the carbon dioxide that so threatens our planet today. We see a stable climate and a cleaner, healthier environment. We see all of this being possible through the simple and effective process of soil remineralization."

Indoor agriculture is also becoming more feasible with LED lighting -- and perhaps someday soon hot or cold fusion power. Example (but from a vendor of related technology, so no-doubt biased):
http://www.terraspheresystems.... [terraspheresystems.com]
"One such indoor farm opened in September in Vancouver, growing lettuce and spinach inside an 8,000-square-foot warehouse using a hydroponic system that replaces dirt and weather with peat moss plugs and circulated water. High-efficiency LED lighting hits plants grown on stacked shelves. ... Despommier says a stacked hydroponic operation might yield about 64 heads of lettuce per square foot annually, compared to about three heads at a traditional outside farm. ... Cityscape CEO Mike Yohay predicts that by eliminating transportation costs and fertilizer, a 10,000-square-foot greenhouse could produce $500,000 in profit and 20 to 30 tons of food a year for local supermarkets and corporate cafeterias."

Re:And make your own rock dust & farm indoors (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#46997615)

+1 informative

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988323)

Tundra soil is not particularly fertile and the processes that enrich soil can take hundreds if not thousands of years.

Yeah it took thousands of years to make California one of the most productive farming areas in the world. California is mostly desert, or at least very arid btw.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46985287)

Then you may want to read this article [theguardian.com] , for example.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985517)

I own two sections of corn land that is on the edge and will fail if I can't get water. Where are YOU gonna get the money to pay ME to move my operation 100 miles to the north. This isn't gonna be free, folks.

umm no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985569)

Nobody is going to pay you to move your operation. Your business will fail, and we can finally stop churning out absurd amounts of corn. Probably a good result since most of it just feeds livestock.

Re:umm no. (1)

radiumsoup (741987) | about 6 months ago | (#46985859)

but, damnit, where will my Quarter Pounder come from if they stop making more due to lack of feed?

wait... Quarter Pounders do come from livestock, right?

Re:umm no. (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46986035)

Of course they do!

Experts have estimated that as much as 2-3%, by weight, of the hambuger patty may be composed of 100% Real Beef!

Re:umm no. (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 6 months ago | (#46989785)

They'll just grow it in a vat instead.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985485)

There's a modelling that claims that. Most it like Sterns has been proved to be nonsense.

There is hard economic evidence that we have wasted trillions of dollars (mostly by Europeans) achieving very little other than appearing morally superior and that it will be more cost effective to look for a longer term solutions of cheaper carbon free energy.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46985585)

I think you should also read this article [theguardian.com] on the cost of global warming. It's costing us now, and will only cost us more as it warms.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986313)

How many times are you going to post that article in this thread? We saw it already. If I had mod points left (just spent the last one before I saw your spam) I'd mod this as redundant.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46986385)

I'm only posting these comments to clear up misinformation. If people wouldn't post misinformation, there would be no need for me to clear it up, would there?

Don't you see how ironic is it that this whole thread started with someone urging everyone to stop talking about climate change, and that in itself started a whole conversation about climate change? If you don't want to talk about it, just don't bring it up! Just don't look! Just don't look!

Just externalize the cost. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985643)

It won't be expensive, I'll just make my children pay for it like they are currently paying to sustain my early retirement age and current standard of living.

Fuck You Got Mine,

-- The Baby Boomer Generation

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

kenwd0elq (985465) | about 6 months ago | (#46986125)

It would probably be much less expensive to remedy a few degrees warmer - thus INCREASING the growing season in North America - than a few degrees COLDER, which might make a whole lot of people very hungry. AND cold. But neither is especially likely.

The warmist view is based almost entirely on computer models which cannot predict the present based on the past. I would be strongly opposed to betting a few trillion dollars worth of economic growth on a computer model's forecast for 20 years hence.

50 years ago, there were no "reputable" scientists who accepted either continental drift OR the out-of-this-world concept (literally!) that an astronomical impact might have caused the mass extinctions of 65 billion years ago. Both are now generally accepted. Earth scientists today are trying to explain the Younger Dryas as anything OTHER than an impact event.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986337)

Good points, and not only that but a few hundred years ago the 'consensus' was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Beware of scientific consensus without actual facts to back it.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987631)

> Beware of scientific consensus without actual facts to back it.

But those scientists had two sets of visual observations lasting tens of centuries that the sun and moon did revolve around the earth. Their theory was statistically correct, for a given frame of reference.

Climate scientists are also statistically correct, for a given frame of reference. One which takes the last 10^5 years of data as being more significant than all the other data we have about cyclic and dynamic phenomena on earth. If we used all of our available data, and not just two sets of observations about GHG and temperature, the last 400 years might not appear as more than noise.

On the other hand, if we did climate science like the other system sciences, we wouldn't pretend to know or say anything meaningful about a dynamic complex system using only two variables.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (0)

kenh (9056) | about 6 months ago | (#46986197)

Define "significantly warmer" - a degree a century is hard to get worked up about...

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#46989139)

There's evidence that we could spend some money now to reduce the warming, thereby reducing the total cost.

Cite?

Is there some study that attempts to quantify the costs of emission controls and weigh them against estimates of the cost of dealing with rising seas and changing weather patterns? I've been looking for that for some time and haven't seen it. I'd be particularly interested to see what portion of the cost of climate change is now inevitable. Granted that such a study would have to be wildly speculative, but careful, intelligent, informed speculation can be useful.

However, I suspect that there is no such research and your claims of evidence are wishful thinking.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46992203)

Assuming that preservation of the species along with a gradual increase in the overall quality of living is generally desirable, we will want to avert the worst effects of climate change. Averting the worst effects of climate change now will cost quantifiable value (N). Putting this cost off until a later date will necessarily cost quantifiable value (N), multiplied by inflation (I), plus unquantifiable economic damage (E) necessary to induce change, magnified by the diminishing returns (D) of inertia in the form of runaway systems.

So, we can spend $N now, or wait to spend $( ( N * I ) + E ) ^ D. Let's call this second value $X. Assuming, rationally, I think, that all of these variables are non-zero, it follows that $X > $N.

Therefore, the money spent now to avert the worst effects of climate change will necessarily be less than the money spent later to avert those same effects. It's simple arithmetic.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#46992853)

Averting the worst effects of climate change now will cost quantifiable value (N). Putting this cost off until a later date will necessarily cost quantifiable value (N), multiplied...

You're assuming that the cost of changing our emissions profile in the future is the same as the cost of doing it today, plus inflation. This assumes that our technological ability to maintain our standard of living with lower emissions will not change, which is clearly false. In fact what's almost certainly the case is that -- looking only at the cost of changing our emissions profile -- changing slowly and in particular deferring much of the change until the time that it's forced by increasing fossil fuel costs will be much less expensive than forcing the change fast, now.

In fact, I think there's a very reasonable argument that developing technologies will eventually make non carbon-emitting power generation technologies cheaper than fossil fuels. We seem to be headed that way fairly quickly; it's already the case that in many parts of the developed world you can switch to PV power generation and save money vs buying coal-generated electricity. My electric vehicle costs far less to operate than my gasoline-powered vehicle. Assuming that trend continues, the eventual cost of the transition to cleaner technology is zero, because it'll save us money vs using fossil fuels. Pushing that changeover faster than dictated by natural economic effects will add cost, slowing short-term economic growth. The mechanics of compound growth mean that we're unlikely to regain that lost ground.

Actually, there's another assumption implicit in your statement, which is that we even have to change our emissions profile! Specifically, you're assuming that it's impossible to achieve a new equilibrium which includes high levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I think geologic history indicates that this is clearly false. The earth has found many equilibria over it's long history. It's not an unstable system. If it were it would have run away in one direction or another, never to return. In fact through ice ages and warm periods the overall temperature of the earth has actually remained within a fairly narrow range.

I suspect that the cost of reducing our emissions is less than the cost of dealing with climate change (actually, I suspect that we're already going to have to deal with a lot of it, but we can probably reduce the future impact), but simplistic arguments like yours don't help.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46996191)

Your first argument removes the external pressure of environmental damage, while your second argument removes human involvement altogether. I don't think there is any question as to whether Earth itself will survive; it's our own well-being which is in question.

You should probably avoid describing the positions of others as "simplistic" when your own statements entirely misrepresent the alternative point of view.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#46997891)

Your first argument removes the external pressure of environmental damage, while your second argument removes human involvement altogether.

But you can't actually counter the arguments, or you would have. So instead you attack their political impact (which you mischaracterize). Nice.

I don't think there is any question as to whether Earth itself will survive; it's our own well-being which is in question.

I don't think there's any question that humanity will survive just fine, either. All that is in question is which choice will have the lowest economic impact on us, and therefore best allow us to continue improving our standard of living (globally, not just in the wealthy countries).

You should probably avoid describing the positions of others as "simplistic" when your own statements entirely misrepresent the alternative point of view.

I didn't make any representations about the alternative point of view.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#46985235)

Why do you think it wills top at a couple of degrees? AS long as we keep spewing more green house gases, more energy will be trapped. Once we completely overwhelm the system,. then the human species, at best, will be living in mud huts eating grubs.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985667)

It won't even be that much. Temperatures have increased 0.2 deg C in the past 150 years. Temperatures have not risen in 17 years. We're still over 1 deg C cooler than during the medieval warm period. The medieval warm period was so conducive to agriculture that human populations exploded and there was an "almost renaissance" in the Holy Roman Empire in modern day northern Germany. Unfortunately that all ended when the larger populations proved effective at spreading plague. On top of all that, climatologists at MIT are predicting we're already a few years into a 50 year cooling period.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46985853)

There's so much misinformation in your post it hurts. It's warmed 0.7 degrees Celsius [wikipedia.org] in the past 134 years. It is currently warmer now [wikipedia.org] than any time in the past 2000 years. In the past 17 years Earth has warmed [skepticalscience.com] by about 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade. And there's no sign of cooling or even temperatures leveling off.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (1)

plover (150551) | about 6 months ago | (#46985967)

You missed the part where Slashdot delayed his post. Check the date. He originally wrote it in 1836.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986101)

Everything in your post is factually incorrect at best and maliciously misleading at worst. There's been only 0.2 degrees of net warming since 1940. That's far less than 0.2/decade.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (2)

Layzej (1976930) | about 6 months ago | (#46986381)

Nope. Not even close. Closer to 1C since 1940: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... [woodfortrees.org] . Where on Earth did you get 0.2C since 1940? That's just crazy! We've had almost 0.2C warming during the "pause" of the last 17 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]

ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986457)

Not even close - around 1C since 1840 - try again: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987495)

Who the hell doesn't even bother to label their axes? All I can say about that graph is that line sure is moving up and down

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (2)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46986695)

In this graph from NOAA [ucar.edu] you can see there's been far more than 0.2 degrees warming since 1940. It looks to be about 0.5 degrees Celsius since 1940. In fact, it's warmed 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1970.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988541)

"It is currently warmer now [wikipedia.org] than any time in the past 2000 years". This is simply not the case. The cliamte proxy method sited in your Wiki post is simply not reliable. The article sites the discredited, and totally made up so-called "hockey stick" graph of climate history. As a matter of fact 1934 was the warmest year on record, hardly 2000 years ago.
Likewise actual temperature measurements contradict your claim of earth warming in the last 17 years. Temperature increase ceased in the late 1990s. there has been no temperature increase since then. Look it up. NOAA records bear that out.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 6 months ago | (#46986239)

It has raised almost 0.2C in the last 17 years - a period you claim that we've seen no warming: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988669)

This is not a agenda free site.
Amazing that they don't seem to know that the reason there is a process to estimate terrestrial temperature using tress is because a solar astronomer named A. E. Douglass wanted sun spot data for periods from before modern times when sun spot data was recorded. He worked out that because sun spot activity effected climate, which resulted in larger tree rings for years with high sun spot activity, that he could use old growth trees to determine sunspot activity for earlier periods.
Later in the 1990s climate change supports started using his data, which he had already proved was linked to sunspot activity to support AGW. How did he prove his theory? He used the scientific method. He compared periods of known correlation and then predicted future activity. When his prediction came true he then used what he had learned to map previous sunspots periods. So climate is linked to sun spot activity. You can even see it now. the early 2000s was a low sunspot activity period, and there was no average temperature rise. The 1930s were high sunspot activity periods. The 1930s were warmer than the 1990s'
Climate scientist could learn a lot from A.E. Douglass, since their methods seem to be ignore data that doesn't fit the hypothesis, create models that don't really match predictions, and blame people who then don't believe you.

Re: Climate change is for pussies. (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 5 months ago | (#47001035)

Let's see how well sunspot activity correlates to climate: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/b... [woodfortrees.org]

Pretty good prior to 1980 or so, but wildly divergent since (temps up while sunspots down). I wonder why?

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

gtall (79522) | about 6 months ago | (#46987945)

More to the point, we have no idea what feedback loops will open up or open wider due to changing the global climate's local stability point; the latter is what we think of as the current climate. Methane release due to higher global temperatures is a positive feedback loop.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

Berkyjay (1225604) | about 6 months ago | (#46985243)

If this was a purely technical problem to be solved with no issues gathering the resources to solve it then no. But this is much much more than a technical problem. The big issue is going to be political and finding the will to divert trillions of dollars to adapting to the change in climate while people will need food and new homes. Of course there will be wars to fight because of all this and that isn't cheap either. Are we smart enough to adapt? Absolutely. Do we have the will and foresight to adapt on our own rather than being forced to before billions die? Probably not.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

iamacat (583406) | about 6 months ago | (#46985269)

Temperature? Peace of cake! Nasty insect born diseases and drastically reduced supply of food and fresh water? There will be a much less than 6 billion of us left after it all goes down.

Re:Climate change is for pussies. (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 6 months ago | (#46986393)

Temperature? Peace of cake! Nasty insect born diseases and drastically reduced supply of food and fresh water? There will be a much less than 6 billion of us left after it all goes down.

Meh, so we will have to reevaluate the toxicity of DDT [straightdope.com] again.

Global Warming, of course. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985137)

Er.. I mean Climate Disruption.. yeah, that's it.

Re:Global Warming, of course. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985233)

Yeah, about that.... Sorry, I left the fridge door open. My bad. Here, I'm turning up the heat to compensate.


God.

Re:Global Warming, of course. (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46986059)

science fail.

Re:Global Warming, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987377)

science fail.

Humour fail.

Re:Global Warming, of course. (1, Troll)

bobbied (2522392) | about 6 months ago | (#46985251)

Er.. I mean Climate Disruption.. yeah, that's it.

I just refer to it as "Global Warming (or Name du joure)" now. They've had to change the name so often in their attempts to keep getting reactions from the sheep that I'm loosing track of what it's been called. Maybe if they start getting the dire predictions right..... Like having more droughts, floods, tornadoes or something....

Sort of like communist, liberal, progressive, democrat etc.. (Yes, I know I repeat myself.. ) (grin)

Re:Global Warming, of course. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985439)

They changed the name because the general public is too stupid to understand that an increase in average global temperature doesn't mean that every area on Earth will experience an increase in temperature. Too many people making foolish statements like "This winter is colder than last year's, how's that for 'global warming'??!"

Re:Global Warming, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985973)

no, they changed the name because the virtual name-tennis match between the "impending Texas glaciers" of the 70's and the "impending Antarctic swampland" of the 90's was too much to keep people interested - when the scientific community can't agree on their predictions of doom and gloom, they look like Chicken Little, and they are in danger of causing people to stop paying attention (and, even worse, then they stop donating or calling their congresscritter to pass another law for more funding). A nice, strategically generic name like "climate change" makes it easy to include a lot of data (too much conflicting data, really, but for some in the climate prediction industry, that's just fine by them) and it's flexible enough to allow sea changes to the predictions (pardon the pun) without bursting the bubble. Everyone can get nice and lathered up about the impending crisis of the day, and no matter what the data is, they will always be able to support the claim, because it's juuuust ambiguous enough to allow ALL data to fall within the generic term chosen. And viola, you have a permanent taxpayer-funded industry.

Re: Global Warming, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986481)

"Climate prediction industry?" Are you talking about weather.com, or those fat cat academics earning millions by purposefully misleading people? Wait, they're doing neither of those...

Re: Global Warming, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987191)

Politics is an industry. It doesn't produce anything but hot air but there is a profit to be made by making tax money move around.

Re:Global Warming, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986001)

They changed the name ...

And we know they changed the name because absolutely no one uses the term 'Global Warming' any more ... no wait ... I mean absolutely on one uses the term 'Climate Change' any more ... no that's not right either. I'm sorry, I'm giving up. My conservative brain simply can't cope with the idea of the same thing having multiple names and still remaining the same thing ...

I'm just so glad that pointing out name changes saves me from having to engage in all the difficult evidence and math and sciency stuff ...

Re:Global Warming, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986411)

They changed the name because the general public is too stupid to understand that an increase in average global temperature doesn't mean that every area on Earth will experience an increase in temperature. Too many people making foolish statements like "This winter is colder than last year's, how's that for 'global warming'??!"

Ahhh, yes. The standard "progressive" belief that the "general public" is literally "too stupid" to know what's best.

And isn't great that they have you self-proclaimed "smart progressives" to take care of them?

FYI, that's called "sarcasm".

And sorry, I don't pretend to know what's best for someone else, much less "the general public". Though given they voted a 1/2 term Senator with NO executive experience to be President by falling for vapid self-congratulatory phrases like "We are the ones we've been waiting for!", "Yes we can!", and "Hope and change!". Who could have seen his feckless policies leading to a "reset" in relations with Russia to, oh, about Cuban Missile Crisis days. And we do wonder what the Syrian government thinks of his "red lines". (Think? Nah, we KNOW the most popular toilet paper in Damascus today has red lines all over it...)

Hmm, maybe you're right. The general public sure is pretty stupid....

Oh, I'll save you the trouble: "It'sBOOOOOSH'S fault!!!!!

Re:Global Warming, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46991777)

And people like you are why we can't have open, honest discussions about it; instead, being forced to rename the phenomenon every decade or so because "it's hot outside lol globalwarming!" has become so pervasive. Protip: the globe is still warming, which has always been known to cause disruptions in the climate. Pretending that we're not talking about the same thing is just plain intellectual dishonesty, and nobody here is stupid enough to believe that you're unaware of that... so do us all a favor and go troll elsewhere.

Re:Global Warming, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987703)

But of course it's perfectly fine for scientists to say "This summer is hotter than last year's! Global warming! Ooga, booga."

Re:Global Warming, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988799)

an increase in average global temperature doesn't mean that every area on Earth will experience an increase in temperature.

Um, yes it does- that's how averages work. For the average to go up, the individual measurements must all go up,
OR
Some must go UP more than others go DOWN. But it makes no sense for temps to go DOWN at all, if you're putting more energy into a system (or, letting less energy escape).

  If I have a frying pan on the stove with it's cooking surface at a certain temperature, and put a lid on it, the lid keeps in the heat (like CO2 and the greenhouse effect, etc). This makes the frying pan hold more heat, and if you took a bunch of temperature readings, the average would go up. But the temp won't go DOWN anywhere on the frying pan. I don't end up with part of the frying pan at freezing temps, and another part more than twice as hot to average out.

captcha: alters

Re:Global Warming, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46989997)

They're not too stupid. They've just heard the snake oil pitch before. Too many people making foolish statements like "Record number of hurricanes this year? Global warming! Oh, what's that? Record LOW number of hurricanes this year? GLOBAL WARMING! If we don't give all of your money to Al Gore and the UN right now, we'll all be dead!"

Impotence? Use snake oil! Erection lasting for more than 4 hours? Use MORE snake oil!

Re:Global Warming, of course. (1)

kaatochacha (651922) | about 6 months ago | (#46995175)

Wait, you left out the term "Joe Six-Pack". Without that reference, I'm completely lost.

Re:Global Warming, of course. (-1, Troll)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 6 months ago | (#46985313)

Er.. I mean Climate Disruption.. yeah, that's it.

LA LA LA LA Can't hear you! LA LA LA LA

Re:Global Warming, of course. (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 6 months ago | (#46987243)

It doesn't matter what you call it, the physical effects are real and will have to be dealt with one way or another.

well of course (0)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 6 months ago | (#46985147)

I was Fred Flinstone and all those fuckers in bedrock burning that brontosaurus oil!

Re:well of course (2)

Tablizer (95088) | about 6 months ago | (#46985497)

[It] was Fred Flinstone and all those f*ckers in bedrock burning that brontosaurus oil!

Bill O'rockly on Foxosaurus News says that theory is a bunch of brontosaurus droppings.

Re:well of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986899)

Diane Feinstone, Barock O'Boulda, and Harry Reed disagree. BTW, Harry Reed has a normal name because he's a dinosaur.

Re:well of course (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 6 months ago | (#46991971)

Harry Reed has a normal name because he's a dinosaur.

How did they name turtles?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

No Hummers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985171)

Pre-industrial society ... nice and cold!

Lack of (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985191)

Global Warming

imagine what we will *know* tomorrow... (1)

NeroTransmitter (1928480) | about 6 months ago | (#46985215)

you almost need a score sheet for all of the times science disproves itself. but, i guess that means it's working

Re:imagine what we will *know* tomorrow... (2)

Urkki (668283) | about 6 months ago | (#46987155)

The science is working, if the scientific knowledge keeps enabling new revolutionary technologies (genetic engineering, nanotechnology, metamaterials, energy storage technology, quantum computers...) like it has been doing for as long as scientific method has been applies in large scale (radio, electricity, plastics, advanced alloys, computers, telecom, crude genetic engineering, satellites...).

That's a pretty good benchmark really. Just being able to read opinions of all the anti-science people proves science works, because if it didn't, they'd be restricted to climbing on shoebox and shouting.

It was the Long Night. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985249)

Oh my sweet summer child What do you know of fear? Fear is for the winter, my little lord, when the snows fall a hundred feet deep and the ice wind comes howling out of the north, when the sun hides it face for years at a time, and little children are born and live and die all in darkness while the direwolves grow gaunt and hungry, and the white walkers move through the woods.

The Others Thousands and thousands of years ago, a winter fell that was cold and hard and endless beyond all memory of man. There came a night that lasted a generation, and kings shivered and died in their castles even as the swineherds in their hovels. Women smothered their children rather than see them starve, and cried, and felt their tears freeze on their cheeks.

In that darkness, the Others came for the first time They were cold things, dead things, that hated iron and fire and the touch of the sun, and every creature with hot blood in its veins. They swept over holdfasts and cities and kingdoms, felled heroes and armies by the score, riding pale dead horses, and leading hosts of the slain. All the swords of men could not stay their advance, and even maidens and suckling babes, found no pity in them. They hunted the maids through the frozen forests, and fed their dead servants on the flesh of human children.

Now these were the days before the Andals came, and long before the women fled across the narrow sea from the cities of the Rhoyne, and the hundred kingdoms of those times were the kingdoms of the First Men, who had taken those lands from the children of the forest. Yet here and there in the fastness of the woods, the children still lived in their wooden cities and hollow hills, and the faces in the trees kept watch. So as cold and death filled the earth, the last hero determined to seek out the children, in the hopes that their ancient magics could win back what the armies of men had lost. He set out into the dead lands with a sword, a horse, a dog and a dozen companions. For years he searched until he despaired of ever finding the children of the forest in their secret cities. One by one his friends died, and his horse, and finally even his dog, and his sword froze so hard the blade snapped when he tried to use it. And the Others smelled the hot blood in him and came silent on his trail, stalking him with packs of pale white spiders big as hounds...

Damn Cave Men not burning enough Trees! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985273)

Come on, it was because the cavemen where not burning enough of the rainforest to keep the world warm. It was their OWN fault.

Re:Damn Cave Men not burning enough Trees! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 6 months ago | (#46985537)

It's possible man's increased hunting efficiency reduced the population of grazing animals such that grass and brush growth increased, triggering side-effects of some kind.

Re:Damn Cave Men not burning enough Trees! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46989117)

Highly doubtful. The amount of biomass reduction to cause a substantive drop in CO2 would be very large. Considering world population at the time was likely under ten million, one would have to concoct a major fantasy scenario to come up with humans being the cause of global climate change.

~MyLongNickname

Winter is coming! (0)

Radical Moderate (563286) | about 6 months ago | (#46985301)

Sorry, had to be said. And speaking of GoT, has anyone worked out a model of their solar system? Sure, I could use teh Google, but what fun would that be?

Re:Winter is coming! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46991183)

It's a traditional Dyson Sphere consisting of interlocking rings, each of which hosts a separate species of humanoids. The Walkers are invading from another of the rings, and were last time stopped by the builders of the rings, who have since gone missing. The extended "winters" are caused by a ring overlaps and solar malfunctions that are a direct result of the builders' absence -- no one is around to maintain the system any longer.

Oh yeah... spoiler alert.

What Caused a 1300-Year Deep Freeze? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985315)

Cold weather.

My invoice is in the mail.

Re:What Caused a 1300-Year Deep Freeze? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985723)

nigger=you

Re:What Caused a 1300-Year Deep Freeze? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986887)

nigga nigga nigga nigga nigga nigga nigga, 99.44% nigga

Re:What Caused a 1300-Year Deep Freeze? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988047)

Actually I'm Caucasian. That means white you stupid uneducated inbred.

The prevailing theory... (4, Informative)

Layzej (1976930) | about 6 months ago | (#46985397)

"The prevailing theory is that the Younger Dryas was caused by significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic "Conveyor", which circulates warm tropical waters northward, in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America. Geological evidence for such an event is thus far lacking. The global climate would then have become locked into the new state until freezing removed the fresh water "lid" from the north Atlantic Ocean. An alternative theory suggests instead that the jet stream shifted northward in response to the changing topographic forcing of the melting North American ice sheet, bringing more rain to the North Atlantic which freshened the ocean surface enough to slow the thermohaline circulation. There is also some evidence that a solar flare may have been responsible for the megafaunal extinction, though it cannot explain the apparent variability in the extinction across all continents." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y... [wikipedia.org]

Re:The prevailing theory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985531)

Here we have yet another press release by a minor scientist acting like he has personally discovered The Higgs Boson. It's news value is questionable.

What he has done is question the dates Firestone uses for the theory, that most people don't believe anyway. And in these cases the redating turns out to be just as biased as the original dating it claims to contradict. These debates are not uncommon, they are about dating errors that feed into theories that can't be conclusively proved or disproved anyway. Eventually you might enough independent dates to get a more accurate dates for the sites, that often turn out to be completely different from previous conflicting dates.

Such debates are a staple of geology, climatology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology etc. They go on for decades until something conclusive turns up, something just become accepted as true and unquestionable (whether it is or not) or people die or get bored and move on to something else.

Not exactly a new theory (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 6 months ago | (#46986167)

I remember hearing Wally Broecker talk about the ice dam + flooding hypothesis back in the mid-1990s (or possibly earlier).

Re:The prevailing theory... (2)

lazy genes (741633) | about 6 months ago | (#46986717)

I developed a computer model that showed that the polar vortex could be pulled and held at a lower latitude. My model showed that gravitational pull from the moon can move the polar vortex in a predictable way. Another important part of my model showed that sea surface temperature can cause the same effect. My conclusion is that excess carbon is producing more algae and limiting photons to release energy on the sea surface causing sea surface temperatures to rise. The warm air will take the path of least resistance and push the polar vortex off the pole. This happened a few times last winter. I first observed this pattern several years ago and wrote about it on Slashdot. The bottom line is we are doomed.

Re:The prevailing theory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987901)

You all believe the lies??? The universe is only 4000 years old, it says so in the bible.
How can you believe this dribble. 12800 years ago god hadn't even conceived of our universe, let alone created it!

Re:The prevailing theory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46991835)

citation please on the 4000 years, chapter and verse would be nice

Put this in perspective (1, Informative)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 6 months ago | (#46985431)

It's interesting that this comes on the same day that low-information journalists are panicked because "the melt that has started could eventually add 4 to 12 feet to current sea levels. [detroitnews.com] "

Apparently they're not aware that this is trivial compared to what nature dishes out. During the Last Glacial Maximum (only ~23,000 years ago), sea level was 400 feet lower than it is today.

Every species that's alive today, including polar bears, managed to survive that massive 400-ft increase in sea level.

In fact, every species that's alive today has managed to survive dozens of glacial advances and glacial retreats -- each one of which caused massive fluctuations in sea level.

The low-information voters and low-information journalists also seem unaware that the natural and normal state of the earth is to not have any polar ice caps whatsoever. The only reason Earth currently has polar ice caps is because the Quaternary glaciation (i.e., the most recent ice age) is not completely over; we are still emerging from it.

Re:Put this in perspective (4, Insightful)

Livius (318358) | about 6 months ago | (#46985469)

No-one is suggesting the human species won't survive.

Large numbers of individual humans might not.

Re:Put this in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986947)

No-one is suggesting the human species won't survive.

Large numbers of individual humans might not.

100 years from now? I would say that's a great possibility that nearly everyone alive today will die. I doubt climate changes will have any affect on that, especially sea level changes.

Re:Put this in perspective (2)

ildon (413912) | about 6 months ago | (#46987233)

Don't be ridiculous. They'll survive just fine. Their property holdings may not. It's not going to flood overnight. There will be ample warning.

Re:Put this in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987421)

They'll just have to find some new land to settle. It's ridiculous to think that large numbers of people could die from complications involving land. If there is ample warning that some place is not going to be great to live in, all the people move from there and are welcomed by their neighbors. It's the way that the world has always worked. Everyone will survive!

Also, I'm sure that everyone will be fairly compensated for their lost property holdings, especially the poor, since their friendly neighbors know the poor ain't got much more than those property holdings, so they'll be extra generous.

Compensated for lost property? (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#46999435)

I'm sure that everyone will be fairly compensated for their lost property holdings, especially the poor

Aren't you quite the fearmonger? The poor don't own oceanfront property. The Occupy Wall Street crowd ought to love global warming, because it will greatly reduce inequality: the oceanfront properties owned by the 1% will become worthless, and the more mundane properties owned by the 99% will gain value.

I'm not holding my breath, though. Al Gore himself bought oceanfront property in recent years, which shows pretty conclusively that he doesn't believe his own predictions.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 6 months ago | (#46988045)

Try to find higher ground on an island that's completely submerged.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | about 6 months ago | (#46988229)

Fortunately there is this invention called a boat noun \bt\
: a small vehicle that is used for traveling on water
: a vehicle of any size that is used for traveling on water

You are going to need (1)

Marrow (195242) | about 6 months ago | (#46989149)

a bigger boat.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

gsslay (807818) | about 6 months ago | (#46988381)

Flooded land = reduction in available resources. Some places are going to lose out big time. Do you think the people losing out are just going to shuffle over, and the people next to them will make room? Plenty resources for everyone! That's is so not going to happen. Flooded country is going to look at unflooded country and decide its time they shared. Unflooded country is going to think hell no, we're not taking 10 million immigrants.

What will happen is upheaval, famine and, yes, war. Same way that humans always handle situations with limited resources.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#46989223)

On the other hand, warmed land = increase in available resources, as much land which is presently too cold to be much occupied becomes more pleasant. And, frankly, it's not like humans actually occupy a huge percentage of the available land mass.

What will happen is significant shift in wealth tied to real estate. Owners of large swaths of less-valuable interior land will get rich, while owners of coastal land lose their shirts.

It's certainly likely that in some parts of the world these changes will lead to violence, but I see no reason to expect that regions which already have good systems for non-violent resolution of civil conflict should go that way. It will stress them, but it'll also happen slowly enough to be manageable.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

gsslay (807818) | about 6 months ago | (#46991287)

So its just a case of "we're going to be alright, the regions that aren't were probably going to be fighting about something sooner or later anyway, so meh, whatcha gonna do?"

You should read some history. It's not uncommon for those who end up in a war zone to imagine "it could never happen here". All wars are about allocation of resources (Plenty are dressed up to be about other things, but the truth is they're not.) As soon as you have sudden scarcity of key resources, especially when they are unevenly distributed, you'll have war. Wars tend to escalate.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

JWW (79176) | about 6 months ago | (#46989639)

Population density in from the coastlines is much lower than it is on the coastlines. So yes as oceans rise there will be places for people to move to.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Zordak (123132) | about 6 months ago | (#46990991)

What will happen is upheaval, famine and, yes, war. Same way that humans always handle situations with limited resources.

As opposed to the last 100 years of utopia and global cooperation we have enjoyed.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

gsslay (807818) | about 6 months ago | (#46991111)

So that's ok then. Look forward to more of the same, just on a global scale never seen before. How bad could it be?

Increase in available resources (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#46999487)

There are vast tracts of land in Canada, Alaska and Siberia where you can't grow food because it's too cold (and few people want to live there). Global warming will result in a net increase in food resources and desirable real estate.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 5 months ago | (#47001595)

No. The impacts will be felt during floods. The seas will rise gradually but the impacts will be felt suddenly.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

God Of Atheism (1003892) | about 6 months ago | (#46987625)

Sorry for nitpicking, but: No one is suggesting that the human species will be extinct from seawater rise.

However, there are many indications that the human species will most likely not survive. First of all, and completely off-topic, there is the expected heat-death of the universe. If there are descendants of humans still alive when that becomes immediate, they will most likely no longer be humans due to further evolution. But more on-topic, global heating might itself be a direct cause of extinction if it continues a lot and earth becomes Venus-like. But the most likely cause of extinction is the destruction of ecosystems worldwide, especially oceanic ecosystems at the bottom of the food-chain due to acidification.

Re:Put this in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988433)

However, there are many indications that the human species will most likely not survive. First of all, and completely off-topic, there is the expected heat-death of the universe.

We'll just merge with Universal AC and live in Hyperspace. And in the end, we'll have time to ask The Last Question. (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html)

Yes, let's put this in perspective (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46985479)

Well, it's really the rate of sea level rise that's the issue. Adding 4 to 12 feet to current sea levels "eventually" over 10000 years is no problem. Adding 4 to 12 feet to current sea levels "eventually" in the 2100s is a different matter entirely.

Re:Yes, let's put this in perspective (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 6 months ago | (#46985639)

Are you accusing polar bears of being slow learners! How dare ya!

Re:Yes, let's put this in perspective (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 6 months ago | (#46989571)

Over the last 12,000 years sea level has risen 400'.

Rate of sea level rise (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#46999153)

I'm glad you brought up the rate of sea level rise. Here's a NOAA dataset [wordpress.com] that begins in 1855, when humans had had hardly any impact on atmospheric CO2 levels.

The slope of the line then was 2.77 mm/year, and the slope of the line in 2010 was unchanged, 2.77 mm/year. The only thing that's anthropogenic is the fear mongering.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46985867)

In fact, every species that's alive today...

Don't mean to be rude, but that's a daft thing to say.

natural and normal state of the earth...

No longer applies.

Re:Put this in perspective (2, Informative)

Layzej (1976930) | about 6 months ago | (#46986089)

During the Last Glacial Maximum (only ~23,000 years ago), sea level was 400 feet lower than it is today.

Good thing they didn't have any coastal cities 23,000 years ago. That would have sucked.

In fact, every species that's alive today has managed to survive dozens of glacial advances and glacial retreats

What about the species that aren't alive today? How did they do?

Re:Put this in perspective (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#46987905)

Good thing they didn't have any coastal cities 23,000 years ago. That would have sucked.

There were plenty of coastal cities, well, villages in most cases due to lower overall population.

The main point however is that ... cities do die over time due to environmental changes, this is in no way 'new' or unique to modern society.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Megane (129182) | about 6 months ago | (#46988017)

What I have heard of so far in terms of likely submerged human settlements is the Black Sea before the Mediterranean spilled into it (possibly the origin of the Noah story), and land to the east of England.

Re:Put this in perspective (2)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 6 months ago | (#46988665)

What I have heard of so far in terms of likely submerged human settlements is the Black Sea before the Mediterranean spilled into it (possibly the origin of the Noah story), and land to the east of England.

Also quite a few indigenous villages now underwater around the coast of Florida.

Re:Put this in perspective (2)

niado (1650369) | about 6 months ago | (#46988837)

What I have heard of so far in terms of likely submerged human settlements is the Black Sea before the Mediterranean spilled into it (possibly the origin of the Noah story), and land to the east of England.

Partial list of submerged human activity:

Doggerland [wikipedia.org] was a rather large land area containing a not-insignificant amount of human activity, which now lies under the north sea.

Sundaland [wikipedia.org] is another large landmass that is now submerged, with an unknown but suspected to be significant quantity of past human activity.

Coquer Cave [wikipedia.org] off the coast of France is an interesting site, containing paleolithic cave paintings that can only be reached by diving.

The Black Sea is hypothesized [wikipedia.org] to have expanded in the past, covering an unknown quantity of human archaeological material. The extent and suddenness of the expansion are currently subject to debate.

The original peopling of the Americas has been hypothesized to have been impacted by a coastal migration route, but much of the archaeological evidence (if it exists) for this hypothesis is currently under water. [wikipedia.org]

Beringia [wikipedia.org] itself, suspected to be the cradle of the Native American peoples, is now partially submerged under the Bering strait.

Mod parent up (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#46999585)

Fascinating overview of lands that have been submerged by non-anthropogenic global warming!

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 6 months ago | (#46988041)

The main point however is that ... cities do die over time due to environmental changes

Wait - the GP's point is that we should expect massive impacts from anthropogenic climate change? Including losing entire cities? Seems like we should do something about that.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 6 months ago | (#46988971)

Good thing they didn't have any coastal cities 23,000 years ago

Now we know what happened to Atlantis!

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

CmdrTamale (3528239) | about 6 months ago | (#46994609)

What about the species that aren't alive today? How did they do?

They were delicious. At least some of them, to some of their consumers.
--
If we'd listened to all the people who'd said it couldn't be done there'd be no fusion power stations or cities on the moon.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

delt0r (999393) | about 5 months ago | (#46998765)

The biggest threat to most species is either over exploitation or habitat removal. Global warming is way down the list. But you put it on grants anyway. You get funding that way.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 5 months ago | (#46998947)

the climate change described in this article coincides with a massive extinction event.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

delt0r (999393) | about 5 months ago | (#46999467)

Continent sized sheets of Ice does that. Warming not so much. Right now its us doing things that are not AGW that's eliminating species.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 5 months ago | (#46999651)

Of the five mass extinctions to have ever occurred in the past 600 million years, four were associated with global warming.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#46999663)

Hard to tell whether your points are serious or an attempt at humor.

See nialdo's post below for lots of good information about human settlements that were inundated by that 400-ft sea level increase.

As for species that weren't able to adapt to non-anthropogenic climate change... they did terribly, of course. By definition.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 5 months ago | (#47001067)

Gotcha. So climate change is something we ought to be concerned about.

Re:Put this in perspective (2, Insightful)

Capsaicin (412918) | about 6 months ago | (#46986107)

Apparently they're not aware that this is trivial compared to what nature dishes out. During the Last Glacial Maximum (only ~23,000 years ago), sea level was 400 feet lower than it is today.

So the billions of inhabitants of the world's major cities would have been much further away from the coast back then? I wonder how they got their fish?

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

steelfood (895457) | about 6 months ago | (#46991719)

I wonder how they got their fish?

Long range snipe-fishing.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Vegan Cyclist (1650427) | about 6 months ago | (#46991851)

There were major cities 23,000 years ago?

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Capsaicin (412918) | about 6 months ago | (#46995523)

Haven't had our morning coffee?

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Vegan Cyclist (1650427) | about 6 months ago | (#46996805)

I have to assume you were trying to make a joke, apologies for missing whatever reference you were making...

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Capsaicin (412918) | about 6 months ago | (#46996891)

whatever reference you were making...

Put it this way, if New York, Tokyo, London and the host of other major cities that lie close enough to the coast to be inundated by a possible 4m rise in sea levels did not exist 23,000 years ago, then the "perspective" OP sought to put the matter in, is hardly germane to the "worrisome outcomes" (to quote linked story) a 4m rise in sea-levels might have on humanity, is it? "I wonder how they got their fish," otoh, was a joke.

I have to assume ...

I find it a useful habit of thought, when confronted by a statement which no person of equal intelligence and erudition to myself could seriously make, to work upon the presumption (rebuttable as always) of ironic intent. You don't need to apologise, nor even adopt this habit of thought. It's merely a suggestion.

Cities won't be inundated (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#46999785)

Look at the NOAA dataset that begins in 1855 [wordpress.com] , when humans had had hardly any impact on atmospheric CO2 levels.

The slope of the line then was 2.77 mm/year, and the slope of the line in 2010 was unchanged, 2.77 mm/year. I predict the trend will continue: 100 yrs from now it will still be 2.77 mm/yr (or 0.9 feet per century), regardless of CO2 levels. That's not a significant threat to the major cities.

Re:Cities won't be inundated (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 5 months ago | (#47001139)

NOAA? You can go right to the source. Here is what they say: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/f... [noaa.gov]

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

Re:Cities won't be inundated (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 5 months ago | (#47001239)

The University of Colorado shows that sea level rose 2 cm between 1870 and 1930. In the following 60 year period it rose 4 cm. So it looks like it is doubling about every 60 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]

12ft sea level rise (1)

Capsaicin (412918) | about 5 months ago | (#47005743)

The slope of the line then was 2.77 mm/year, and the slope of the line in 2010 was unchanged, 2.77 mm/year. I predict the trend will continue: 100 yrs

Irrelevant on so many levels.

Firstly, and fundamentally, the question here is not what will happen. The question is whether the sea levels "During the Last Glacial Maximum" put into perspective the "worrisome outcomes" a 4-12 ft rise in sea level would have, such that anyone reporting on a probable 4-12ft sea level rise within the next millennium without mentioning sea levels during the last glacial maximum might reasonably be suspected of being ignorant thereof.

Secondly, even if we were concerned with actual outcomes predicted by the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet you are dealing with the wrong time period. The relevant period is most likely 200-500 and possibly up to 1000 years.

Thirdly your "analysis" has entirely failed to incorporate the very subject, namely the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet and the predicted 4-12ft rise in sea levels this is estimated to cause. A 12ft sea-level rise will not inundate any city?! Really?

Finally your extrapolation, even without taking into consideration the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet, flies in the face of accepted science (for which see Layzej's responses). OK that's not, (having ignored your fundamental lack of relevance), strictly an irrelevance, it's just ...

Sigh ... the very reason I framed my original comment an ironic snipe, was to avoid engagement with impertinent nitwits ....

Re:Put this in perspective (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46986115)

Then there's the low-information posters that seem unaware of just how much time, effort, and money, it would require to move the infrastructure for more than half of the worlds population.

But why let facts get in the way of us feeling important eh?

Re:Put this in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986395)

People have been leaving the rust belt in droves since the 70's. Some specific areas had HUGE declines in short periods of time.

Re:Put this in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987125)

Oh thank god. For a minute there I was worried that the ocean would rise at every city simultaneously.

Either "The rust belt" didn't have 150 million people out of Americas 300 million, or perhaps your example of one (relatively small) region, in one (moderately large) country moving a large (? droves? is that a large percentage) population over 50 years doesn't quite match the example of over 50% of the population of the planet moving in the same time frame.

Re:Put this in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987227)

How much would it cost for a city like Detroit to move? Oh wait.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

drainbramage (588291) | about 6 months ago | (#46989029)

Beautiful.

! half the world's population (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#46999827)

Look at the NOAA dataset that begins in 1855 [wordpress.com] , when humans had had hardly any impact on atmospheric CO2 levels.

The slope of the line then was 2.77 mm/year, and the slope of the line in 2010 was unchanged, 2.77 mm/year. I predict the trend will continue: 100 yrs from now it will still be 2.77 mm/yr (or 0.9 feet per century), regardless of CO2 levels. That's not going to cause a significant number of people to move..

Re:! half the world's population (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#47006723)

You're either a statistican or a marketer.

Nice way to cherry pick your graphs to prove your false point. Next time try something with anywhere from 100-2000 years more data. Then you'll see the nice flat line that was there before, oh, about 1855.

Nice flat line? (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#47022435)

During the last 23,000 years, sea level rose 400 feet. I won't cast aspersions by calling you a marketer, but how can you, with a straight face, call that a "nice flat line"?!

Re:Nice flat line? (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#47023353)

Oh, I'm sorry, are.you now changing your story from equal increases every year?

Sure took you/a long time/to come up with anything to not admit you're cherry picking your/facts. Try and be a little more snappier with the response next time, makes/you/look less like a weaseling douche.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 6 months ago | (#46986175)

The low-information voters and low-information journalists

Some of the reporters are probably dupes, but don't think for a minute that the owners and their cohorts, who own the seaside mansions, aren't going to do everything in their power to take money from the working poor to protect their investments. External (or existential) threat is the universal motivator and government action is the universal solution.

Yeah, we're in an upswing. That's what everybody who studies the glaciation cycles has known for decades. Are humans bumping it along? Perhaps, but it's going that way whether humans do so or not, so get used to it. But maybe we'll all chip in for another seawall to get Mr. Burns through for his lifetime. Our grandkids can build his grandkids an even bigger seawall.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

fermion (181285) | about 6 months ago | (#46986191)

It will not be horrible. Even at 12 feet the US will not lose much. Except that in the US for much of NYC, and some parts of New Jersey that provide food and foodstuffs. And Miami and much of Florida. All the shipping and refining on the Gulf Coast including BASF and Dow plants. Not to mention Sacramento and other bits of California. And I would not care but people who live in the luxury homes in the US are so entitled. Look at when we asked them to pay more for flood insurance. They said, no thank you, we will enjoy out governement handout, if we buy insurance at all. Because we know that the government will increase the deficiet so we can rebuild our luxury homes at taxpayer expense. So it is likely to bankrupt the US in the long run because as the flooding becomes more severe, instead of condemning the land and moving people elsewhere, we will just pay them over and over again for the privileged of having them live in a flood zone. Also, our favorite guy living in Palm Beach won't even have a home. I am sure he will file a claim for free money. Might even have to move a place where he has to pay taxes.

Re:Put this in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986883)

Don't forget that most of Mississippi, Louisiana, and those other swampy states would be under water (for the most part) with a rise of 12 feet. Also, with all that extra weight of water on the continental plates, they will sink a bit which will increase the rise in sea level.
Worse case, remember that most of the inland of the USA was under water at one point (shallow inland sea), most of the interior of Australia too.

Not that bad (1)

Dareth (47614) | about 6 months ago | (#46992027)

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3049/

Check out the elevation map. South Louisiana would be in trouble. Central Louisiana would become the new coast. North Louisiana would be just fine.

Re:Put this in perspective (2)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 6 months ago | (#46987157)

And luckily, everybody in the world lives in the US.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

gsslay (807818) | about 6 months ago | (#46988405)

How nice for rising sea levels to only affect the US.

Wait.. you mean there are other places?

Re:Put this in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46991763)

Even at 12 feet the US will not lose much If we talk about, Europe, for example, the predictions are much more dire, but not because of sea level rise. Much of Europe live in much more northern reaches of the world than are possible in North America due to the ocean currents bring warm air from the tropics. Some models indicate that with the addition of fresh cold water from the melting ice, these current could be significantly disrupted. Without these current Northern Europe could look like much of Canada, which forms a huge part of North American but is sparsely populated.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 6 months ago | (#46988805)

ACtually we'd lose a fair bit.
What's the %, something liek 15% of the US population lives near the coasts?
along with many of our most productive and economically important cities?
something like a quarter of Louisiana would go away, along with a fair bit of Florida.
San Franciso bay would increase in size by like 20%, and if it got much higher potentially even spilling into the central valley (and they complain about lower production right now... :P).

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 6 months ago | (#46988983)

something like a quarter of Louisiana would go away, along with a fair bit of Florida.

So there's some good news at least.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

anagama (611277) | about 6 months ago | (#46989595)

except if the people don't drown, they move to you.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

zildgulf (1116981) | about 6 months ago | (#46989953)

That may be true in the NYC area but Central and Southern Florida is nothing more than big flat sandbar. We would lose most of Southern Florida if the sea level rose 12 feet. Miami would likely be abandoned. The same for New Orleans which most of the city is already below sea-level due to the gradual rise of the sea-level over centuries.

At this point much of the US could polderize their land like the Dutch have but other countries don't have those resources. Most of Bangladesh's population would be gone, through increased deaths by starvation and migration into India, if a 12 ft increase in sea level happens, no matter how slow the pace. Most island nations would be gone or significantly reduced in land area in that scenario. Even China would have problems with the swelling of the Yellow River flooding farms and villages. People can move but if you flood farms you lose food. It would be more of an economic disaster than a survival problem since such flooding will create tens of millions of refugees being a charge on the remaining economic system.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#46999889)

I for one am not in favor of subsidized flood insurance. If you want to live near the water, assume the full risk.

But look at the NOAA dataset that begins in 1855 [wordpress.com] , when humans had had hardly any impact on atmospheric CO2 levels.

The slope of the line then was 2.77 mm/year, and the slope of the line in 2010 was unchanged, 2.77 mm/year (or 0.9 feet per century).

Now do you still think NYC will be inundated anytime soon?

Re:Put this in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47000477)

No [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#46986515)

The low-information voters and low-information journalists also seem unaware that the natural and normal state of the earth

Pray tell, 4 digit "high minded" fool. Whence is apt to take the reins of this big blue space ship? Sentience is a game changer, fucko.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

anagama (611277) | about 6 months ago | (#46989677)

Seven digit fool, you need to spend a little time in a dictionary because what you wrote, makes no sense.

[From what/where] is [likely/suitable] to take [control] of [earth].

You need a noun in there, and "whence" is not a noun.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#46999949)

Aww, Vortex, I friended you a while ago because your posts are generally smart. Too bad this one was an exception.

Anyway, I'm trying to spread some actual data: the NOAA dataset that begins in 1855 [wordpress.com] , when humans had had hardly any impact on atmospheric CO2 levels.

The slope of the line then was 2.77 mm/year, and the slope of the line in 2010 was unchanged, 2.77 mm/year (or 0.9 feet per century). So there's nothing anthropogenic about this.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about 6 months ago | (#46987259)

Apparently they're not aware that this is trivial compared to what nature dishes out. During the Last Glacial Maximum (only ~23,000 years ago), sea level was 400 feet lower than it is today.

Apparently, zombie wingers mindlessly repeating this talking point are not aware that rapid changes in climate closely correlate with mass extinction events. And apparently think it's going to be as easy for 7 billion people to move around to adjust to said changing climate tomorrow as it was for 700 million people to do it ~23,000 years ago.

Re:Put this in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987483)

> rapid changes in climate closely correlate with mass extinction events

I'm glad that you agree such mass extinction events are a normal part of the Earth's behaviour.

> And apparently think it's going to be as easy for 7 billion people to move around to adjust to said changing climate tomorrow as it was for 700 million people to do it ~23,000 years ago.

*Convenience* is your best reason for conserving the environment in its present condition (or some ideal condition when White man discovered the West)?

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

durrr (1316311) | about 6 months ago | (#46987935)

Good luck convincing 7 billion people to adjust their daily lives because a contested model say they need to do so today.
Pre-emptive climate intervention is also predicted to be much more expensive than the wait-and-see approach, in addition of potentially having little to no effect long term; cutting emissions 20% still means we emit CO2 and concentrations will increase.

Also, we're not seeing rapid changes in climate. We're seeing atmospheric CO2 increase while the climate itself goes its own model-defying way.

Re:Put this in perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46990015)

Pre-emptive intervention is predicted to be more expensive than 'wait-and-see'? Predicted by whom? The folks who insist that we'll *never* need to deal with the consequences of our actions, because *they* will have died of old age by then?

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#47000005)

apparently think it's going to be as easy for 7 billion people to move around to adjust to said changing climate tomorrow as it was for 700 million people to do it ~23,000 years ago.

You're right, it won't be as easy for modern people to move around; thanks to the invention of buses, trains and trucks it will be vastly easier.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

kbg (241421) | about 6 months ago | (#46987887)

Yes every species that is alive today survied, but that doesnt mean they will survive another glacial retreat. In fact many species that are currently not here have died out.

Many more glacial retreats are coming (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#47000057)

Look at this data that correlates well with the cycles of glacial advances and retreats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]

Do you imagine that humankind somehow has the ability to put a stop to that cycle?

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 6 months ago | (#46988069)

"Every species that's alive today, including polar bears, managed to survive that massive 400-ft increase in sea level."

Polar Bears did not have palatial mansions along the shoreline.

And yes, you are right that there are not supposed to be any ice caps. But, you'll never convince alarmists of that. To them it's just propaganda.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

gsslay (807818) | about 6 months ago | (#46988539)

Every species that's alive today, including polar bears, managed to survive that massive 400-ft increase in sea level.

You do realise that entire sentence is tautology? How did the species that aren't alive today manage? Not so good, I'm guessing. But they'd be useless at supporting your argument, so we'll just ignore them.

No-one is saying that this spells the end of humankind. But what it does suggest is a nasty period of upheaval heading our way. And yes, that might even impact on you personally. You might not care about that, maybe you think you'll be dead and gone before it gets really unpleasant. But others would like to not be the generation that screwed everything up for the next 10,000 years.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 5 months ago | (#47000103)

Of course it's a tautology. Why are you so concerned about species that weren't able to adapt to non-anthropogenic climate change? There's nothing humans could have done to save them.

This cycle [wikipedia.org] is going to continue into the future, and if we don't choke off our economic growth, in the future we will have the means to help threatened species.

Re:Put this in perspective (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 6 months ago | (#46988737)

Wow are you stupid. and you (hilariously) use that stupid fox trope of "low information so-and-so"....

during the last glacial maximum the ice sheets were 2 miles thick (or thicker) as far south as California's yosemite valley, and similarly far north in the southern hemisphere.

"all managed to survive" ... not without some losses I assure you.

no, we're not still emerging from the last glaciation.
and no, no polar caps is not the normal state, nor is that really a relevent thing. how do you determine normal? based on average length of with and without? so 3 billion years without, including the billion or so when the earth was cooling after formationa nd still largely covered by magma throws that average off a fair bit.

in short: the only one low on information around here, is you.

Waste of time (5, Informative)

scribble73 (879745) | about 6 months ago | (#46985449)

This headline promises a lot, but delivers nothing. The article just looks briefly at the controversy -- in other words, we still don't know.

This comes from a good Journal, but reading it was a waste of time.

Yes, dear (0)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#46985529)

Those pants make your ass look fat.

If Al Gore-like shamans lived back then... (3, Funny)

mi (197448) | about 6 months ago | (#46985533)

If Al Gore-like shamans lived back then, the insufficient fervor of the rival shamans in keeping the fires going all day and night would've been blamed for the freeze.

Anybody failing to keep their fire going would be shamed and punished — unless they paid tribute (to buy global freezing offset credits) to the right shaman, of course.

AAAAALLLLLL GOOOOORRRRRE! (2)

L. J. Beauregard (111334) | about 6 months ago | (#46986987)

Al Gore

DRINK!

*eyeroll* (1)

L. J. Beauregard (111334) | about 6 months ago | (#46986995)

Don't you Foxbots have anything better to say than AAAAALLLLL GOOOOORRRRRE!?

Re:*eyeroll* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987143)

BENGHAZI!!!

Re:*eyeroll* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988025)

It's more fun than saying Koch Brothers! Koch Brothers! Koch Brothers! Polly want a cracker!

Re:*eyeroll* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988743)

Don't you Foxbots have anything better to say than AAAAALLLLL GOOOOORRRRRE!?

Doubleplusgood duckspeak!!!!

Re:*eyeroll* (0)

mi (197448) | about 5 months ago | (#47000323)

Don't you Foxbots have anything better to say than AAAAALLLLL GOOOOORRRRRE!?

It was not Fox, but Al Gore himself, who made Al Gore the face of the global movement for control masquerading as a virtuous fight against Global Warming, nay, Climate Change [nytimes.com] , no, what's the term du jour, — Climate Disruption [cbslocal.com] yeah, that is it.

That said, the designation is serving Mr. Gore pretty well [nytimes.com] — he is already 50 times richer, then he was during Vice-Presidency [huffingtonpost.com] — so I don't know, what you are complaining about.

Not really much here (5, Informative)

x181 (2677887) | about 6 months ago | (#46985605)

Old Argument (Younger Dryas): We found iridium (rare on earth but abundant in meteorites), nanodiamonds and magnetic particles covering ancient tools and mammoth remains at sites which we believe are around 12,000 years old. Therefore, we believe a cosmic collision caused the 1,300 year deep-freeze.

New Argument: We performed radiocarbon dating on tools found at the 29 sites described in the Old Argument and found that only 3 of the 29 sites were around 12,000 years old. The tools at other sites were much older or younger. Therefore, the deep-freeze was probably not caused by a cosmic collision.

Re:Not really much here (2)

Quinn_Inuit (760445) | about 6 months ago | (#46988215)

Does anyone find it weird that they looked and found 26/29 just happened to be dated incorrectly? I'm assuming that different groups dated the sites originally (depending on who excavated them), and then this group comes in and discovers that they're almost all mis-dated in ways that support their hypothesis. That strikes me as amazingly convenient.

What Caused a 1300-Year Deep Freeze? (2)

MrShaggy (683273) | about 6 months ago | (#46985707)

This was caused by my ex- wife..

Re:What Caused a 1300-Year Deep Freeze? (1)

radiumsoup (741987) | about 6 months ago | (#46986025)

if only you were the first post, we could have avoided a hundred others and a lot of useless debate!

go quicker next time

Re:What Caused a 1300-Year Deep Freeze? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986353)

Going to quick is probably why she's his ex.

Global Dynamo. (1)

dicobalt (1536225) | about 6 months ago | (#46985799)

Because I said so.

Aftereffect of the Human-Robot War (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about 6 months ago | (#46985817)

We had to black out the sky to cut off their access to solar energy. We eventually won and abandoned modern technology, but effects of the blackout on the climate could not be overcome.

.

AGW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986057)

Someone predicted AGW, and the ancient civilization overcorrected, and were wiped out.

Fix the headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986469)

1300-year conflicts with "12,800 years ago"

So you either meant "13000 year deep freeze" in the headline, or the summary should read 1,280 years ago.
In the latter case, you probably meant 734 C.E. so you'd have said that. Therefore, I assume the headline is in error.

Re:Fix the headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46987369)

No, it doesn't conflict. 12,800 years ago there was a deep freeze that lasted 1300 years.

A kind of /. discussion where (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986523)

Non computertech numbskulls play intelligent. It's like seeing baboons attempt speech!

Dinosaurs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986811)

Dinosaurs overreacted to a global warming scare and scavenged so much CO2 into the soil, they cause an almost irreversible global cooling. And that boys and girls is why we have so much oil and coal now.

Elementary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46986867)

Your great^n grandmother's ice-cold vagina

The last Ice Age was coming to an end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988023)

... and it may actually reach that end in the next couple of thousand years.

(You all do know that the ice caps did not exist before the most recent ice age, right? And, that the oceans were correspondingly far deeper, right? And, that Earth's natural, most common historic state is that of a temperate climate pole to pole, right?)

Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988193)

It's amazing how much we don't know and guess at (an educated guess is still a guess).

The article didnt actually say anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988373)

The article said the prevailing explanation is extra-terrestrial in nature, and says that the theory doesn't fit all the evidence, but the article doesn't come right out and claim any alternate theory. Weak article.

The article might as well have been written by an Anonymous Coward posting a scientific paper stating "You're wrong" and "I know more than you so shut-up".

Beta again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988417)

Beta again - for Jeebus's sake, quit putting the stiry in Beta after I choose classic site!
Are you -all really that type of "special" that you have to keep doing this?
Is upper management so determined to truly make the site die or turn into a
smaller ( and less profitable for ad-clicks ) version of the old classic site?

Has anyone there ever decided to actually use their common sense about how things should
appear after a user chooses classic?

Obviously, Retardo Montalban has reproduced in this area....

Eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46988611)

The article in question is basically a "the science does not support an extraterrestrial impact but then concludes that the impact is what caused the events to happen". Huh?

Re:Eh? (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 6 months ago | (#46988781)

My respect for Slashdot moderators has fallen even further....

Did that article actually make sense to anyone? (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 6 months ago | (#46988763)

I've written worse, granted. But the whole article seemed to be dismissing the impact cause, and declaring other causes were not evaluated and seeming to postulate a new understanding. And then, in the end, it really seemed to simply be an article questioning the carbon dating, and pointing to sedimentary record as a preferred method of dating and demonstrating an impact wiped everything out.

Huh...what?

The story needs more salt.. (1)

Bust0ut (1897254) | about 6 months ago | (#46993057)

And some government funding baked in. I just can't wait to eat the gene splicing an/or GMO stuff, mmm, mm, good.

Earth isn't old. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46996175)

The Earth is only 6000 years old. Watch Kent Hovinds movies.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?