Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

cancel ×

90 comments

yeah (1)

paulius_g (808556) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516511)

I knew it!

poor (1)

phiberoptik3 (799617) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516548)

poor polar bears ;-(

Re:poor (0)

paulius_g (808556) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516556)

Poor us: More Tsunamies, more health problems, hotter summers, colder winters. When will the world start reacting to the severe climat changes? Earth is warning us and we're ignoring it!

Re:poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11516642)

lol, mod this guy up +5 funny!!

Earth Speaks To Me (4, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516700)

Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and world health is and has been dramatically improving. The median world life expectancy goes up every single year. So, unless the earth is a real person that throws out earthquakes just to be a dick, the earth isn't trying to tell us anything. If you want to argue that the climate is changing, go for it, but arguing that earth quakes have anything to do with global warming is just stupid and ignorant.

Re:Earth Speaks To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11518507)

You know, the idea that global warming could effect* earthquakes, as silly as it sounds, could lead to a few testable hypotheses:
1) Posit that changes in localised temperatures affects rates of water flow, eg. from melting ice, alterations in evaporation, and changes in humidity levels in soil which affects water tables (changes in soil humidity could conceivably alter fluid flow on a regional scale).
2) Posit that this alteration in fluid cycles might affect the lubrication of fault lines. This could alter earthquake patterns :)

Of course, any changes would almost certainly be insignificant in terms of normal faultline mechanics... but it is a possibility :)

*Yes, I meant "effect" as in cause, not "affect". Isn't it sad when one has to clarify the fact that correct English is being used?

PS. Ignore all the above - I'm a biochemist not a geologist. But after having to deal with laypeople putting forward views on DNA, medicine and biotechnology, I feel the need to respond ignorantly in kind!

Re:Earth Speaks To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11518553)

Hah - follow up post. Some evidence (well a paper, as put forward by a couple of geophysicists) that in some cases earthquakes can be linked to global warming cycles... at least where glaciers are involved :)

Here. [csmonitor.com]

Re:Earth Speaks To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11538828)

actually, global warming means different temperatures. You may be familiar with how things shrink and contract when they cool and warm. Wild changes in temperatures would have an effect on earthquakes, however subtle.

Re:Earth Speaks To Me (1)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 9 years ago | (#11548006)

Heh. That is like saying that rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic had an effect on the weight distribution, and therfore affected how fast it sank.

Re:poor (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11516737)

Climate variability is natural. The climate is a complex system which produces unpredictable, and sometimes dramatic, fluctuations from season to season. The so called "severe" changes do not lie outside of the posible range a variablity.

The fact is, we have no idea exactly what impact we are having on the climate, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or uninformed. The only thing we do know with any confidence is that we are having an impact, but what that might be we just don't know.

Re:poor (2, Insightful)

eraserewind (446891) | more than 9 years ago | (#11518478)

How can you possibly claim to be having an impact on something but absolutely no idea what that impact is? Unless you measure something you can't make the first statement, and if you do measure it you can't make the second statement

Re:poor (1)

SQLz (564901) | more than 9 years ago | (#11531584)

If you are not a trained chemist and you mix two chemicals together and they fiz, you know you had an impact, what that impact was, you don't know, all you know is that it fizzed.

You mess with your cars engine and now it makes a noise and you don't know what it is. You know you had an effect but you don't know what is causing the noise.

Same thing here. We know we are having an impact, we just don't know what the long term and short term effect will be on a global scale. We know by satalite that the ozone layer is going away and this is melting the icecaps, we don't know what effect this is going to have on the rest of the planet.

This can't be right... (4, Funny)

Giant Ape Skeleton (638834) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516554)

Rush Limbaugh says The ozone layer is a Liberal Myth.

Re:This can't be right... (1, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516576)

No, he says we have no proof that it was never there to begine with.

You do know that Ozone is created by UV rays ionizing O2 in the upper atmosphere right? Well guess were the LEAST amount of light strikes Earth. Could be be...the poles?

Re:This can't be right... (0, Flamebait)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11517149)

In other words, he says it's a myth. And the people who say it are obviously liberals. So what exactly are you disagreeing with?

Re:This can't be right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11525404)

Claiming the hole in the ozone layer is a myth implies that the phenomenon does not exist. The GP made it clear that Mr. Limbaugh believes that there is "no proof that it was never there to begine [sic] with." That the two are different is GP's disagreement.

Re:This can't be right... (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516732)

Rush is so 90s! Now, the great Liberal Mythbuster is Michael Chrichton [capmag.com] !

No, he says warming is a myth (1)

jasonmicron (807603) | more than 9 years ago | (#11518050)

No, he says that global warming is a liberal myth and goes on about Kyoto.

huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11516586)

Doesn't everyone say that the antartic hole is shinking? So I imagine the artic will evetually shink as well now that these chemicals have been banned for so long.

Re:huh? (1)

KinkifyTheNation (823618) | more than 9 years ago | (#11517073)

The hole won't just shrink right away. If anything it should get much worse before the ozone layer can start healing its self again.

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11517623)

No, no, no... The Antarctic ozone hole has already been getting smaller in the last couple years... It just hasn't been on the front page of the New York Times, unlike that later-retracted story about 'No ice at the north pole, for the first time ever!'.

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11517640)

And here's some environmentalist-type who actually looked it up, with a source or two.

http://www.gutlesspacifist.com/gp/archives/00250 9.html.

Of course (1)

Tau Zero (75868) | more than 9 years ago | (#11520136)

Ozone depletion depends not only on the concentration of chlorine and such, but also on the weather. The weather determines how cold the polar stratosphere will get, how many clouds will form and consequently how many catalytic ice-crystal surfaces will be available to decompose ozone (catalysis in free air is very slow).

One of the problems is that the stratosphere is warmed by the absorption of UV light by ozone; depleting the ozone reduces the warming and lengthens the period when conditions cause further depletion.

Re:huh? (1)

theapodan (737488) | more than 9 years ago | (#11518267)

The ozone hole shows seasonal effects from increased solar influence. Some folks have been saying that the overall trends over multiple years can be due to solar activity varying over years.

So any shrinking trends, over any small time period (less than 5, maybe) are not as important as the radical increasing trend thats been there for the last 25 or so.

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11525102)

So any increasing trends, over any small time period (less than 24, maybe) are not as important as the radical cyclical trend that's been happening for the last three millenia or so, but that were not even remotely detectable by Copernicus or Gallileo's highly advanced telescopes, neither by Aristotle's keen eyes.

Hmm, this could be a good thing (3, Funny)

JFitzsimmons (764599) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516632)

Maybe after everyone else has died from skin cancer, geeks will inherit the earth. That 'outside' thing was always overrated anyway.

Re:Hmm, this could be a good thing (2, Insightful)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516934)

"Maybe after everyone else has died from skin cancer, geeks will inherit the earth. That 'outside' thing was always overrated anyway."

Yeah but until it becomes fashionable for femmes to become geeks, we'll be the last great generation.

Re:Hmm, this could be a good thing (1)

battlesharrp (821973) | more than 9 years ago | (#11544189)

It wouldn't be any fun if it were fashionable for us to be geeks. If the world ends, and there aren't enough female geeks to go around... well, the demand for cloning will rise, and it's not like we aren't equipped to deal with that.

Umm.. What? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11516638)

The entire country has been covered with snow this winter. So much for global warming!

Re:Umm.. What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11516779)

This is true. Most of the global warming models predict that we should be seeing milder winters. Of course the models don't really capture the chaotic nature of the climate, so we really cannot say if the current cold snap is in contridiction to global warming or supports it. This is why many people now prefer the term "climate change" to "global warming". Of course the climate is always changing, so it is not easy to know what changes are due to us anyways.

Umm.. What? Times Two (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11517035)

So the models that the quiche eaters use to predict global warming are not accurate enough to predict changes in out chaotic climate??? Oooookayyyyy.....

Re:Umm.. What? Times Two (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11518198)

It's one thing to predict a general trend. It's another to predict the particular day-to-day details of weather around the world.

Think of it this way. Lots of people invest in the stock market because it's a good long-term investment, right? But that doesn't mean that your investment portfolio might go up or down tomorrow.

Re:Umm.. What? (1)

KinkifyTheNation (823618) | more than 9 years ago | (#11517164)

Which country are you referring to? It hasn't snowed here in Nebraska in a couple weeks.

Re:Umm.. What? (3, Insightful)

NockPoint (722613) | more than 9 years ago | (#11517252)

What country?

Where I live (Northwest USA), the ski areas are closed down this winter due to lack of snow. Guess what: local weather varies a lot more than global average temperature. Global warming means global, not local. Your backyard will vary a lot, and that variation tells us very little about the global trend.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snowsports/2 002157838_skiworkers22.html [nwsource.com]

Re:Umm.. What? (1)

Dmitri_Yuriescu (841670) | more than 9 years ago | (#11519106)

Perhaps 'Global Warming' should be renamed to 'Global Chaos', because more than an being an increase in thermal energy I guess it's an increase in entropy. Yes, it will raise global average temperatures, but more than that increase energy levels and thereby cause more extreme weather events.

hmm. (-1, Troll)

thhamm (764787) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516661)

know the facts. or move along.

doesn't matter (3, Insightful)

Madcapjack (635982) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516671)

It doesn't matter what scientists say. All the conservative ideologues *know* that scientists are environmentalist whackos.

Re:doesn't matter (1)

thhamm (764787) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516731)

i dont think. articles. in this manner. are helpful. especially. not to. science.

Re:doesn't matter (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516873)

No, it's the environmentalist whackos that are being taken too seriously. Meanwhile, TRUE science is being swept under the rug in favor for media media hype and ratings.

Re:doesn't matter (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11517244)

No, it's the greedy corporate interests that are being taken too seriously! Meanwhile, TRUE science is being swept under the rug in favor of profits and votes.

Re:doesn't matter (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11518128)

So whose fault is it? Corporations, or the people that pay for their goods and services?

Rather then harp on the cold-hearted motivations of corporations; why not educate the very people who empower them?

If you're an environmentalist, why fight momentum (such as the oil industry) when you would be for more effective in redirection. For example, take your engineering skills and apply them in the oil industry allow this industry to be more clean an efficient. Putting up political roadblocks is only going to piss people off and get your agenda nowhere fast.

Re:doesn't matter (2)

LoveTruthBeauty (828199) | more than 9 years ago | (#11520076)

The idea that it must be either corporations or consumers to blame is too black and white. Most things are grey. I'd say its not only consumers and corporations to blame, but it is also the fault of voters, leaders, teachers and individuals.

I agree with you that education is a noble goal. However, what you call 'harp[ing] on the cold-hearted motivations of corporations' could also be seen as 'educating the readers of this public forum'. Are you really saying that environmentalists should compromise their core beliefs because the oil industry has momentum? I suspect you don't believe the planet needs protecting, or you don't know the true impact of the oil industry.

While you can make burning fossil fuels less polluting, you can never make it 'clean'. More importantly, you can never eliminate the CO2 emissions, which are looking increasingly like they will cause us even more strife than all the more toxic pollutants released by burning coal and oil.

When the internal combustion engine was invented, nobody had any idea that there would soon be a billion or so of these engines dragging a tonne or two of steel around, day in, day out, all over the globe. There was no planning. There was no consideration of the consequences, no environmental impact statements, no projections nor even basic investigation of what might happen if that much fossil fuel gets burned over a such short timespan. Our love affair with oil is an experiment on a global scale!

Now some people are trying to get the message out that there are consequences, and they may be catastrophic. It could well be too late. Anyone who has ever owned a car is now completely addicted. They are just too convenient. Our cities are literally designed to require them. Our economies run on oil. If the oil stopped flowing tomorrow there would be worldwide chaos, starvation and despair. It could literally end civilisation. Farmers couldn't farm, which is irrelevant, because they couldn't get their produce to market, which is also irrelevant because the produce couldn't get from the market to the consumer. There would be famine on a massive scale, followed immediately by chaos.

Given our reliance on oil, it is not surprising that there is so much resistance to even considering and investigating the consequences of such widespread and massive use. Unfortunately our current dependence on fossil fuels does not mean that it is wise. Is it in our best interests to continue down this path?

If incontrovertible and unanimously accepted evidence came in tomorrow that global warming was real and was going to cause floods, droughts, storms, and sea levels to rise enough to make all our coastal cities look like Aceh, how long do you think it would take for us to stop our greenhouse emissions? We can't just shut down all the coal fired powerstations and go back donkeys for transport overnight. Even if we could, the CO2 is already in the atmosphere - it wont go away overnight. An orderly technological transition will take decades at best. If we need to, can we do it fast enough? Is 'fingers crossed' the smart approach?

Re:doesn't matter (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11520252)

Jeez dude, get a clue. I was making fun of kneejerk rightwing assholes by posing as the (almost identical) kneejerk leftwing asshole.

Reform the OIL INDUSTRY? HAHAHAHAHA! (1)

Tau Zero (75868) | more than 9 years ago | (#11520308)

... take your engineering skills and apply them in the oil industry allow this industry to be more clean an efficient.
This leaves the following issues hanging:
  • Emissions from the users of the petroleum products.
  • Emissions from the producers of the crude oil (e.g. leaking natural gas)
  • Political/terrorist problems caused by the religious/philosophical tendencies of the suppliers of the crude oil

You can get rid of all of those at once by engineering things so that they no longer need oil, or need a much smaller amount. No amount of re-engineering a refinery is going to cut the emissions from the H2 Hummer it feeds, but you could slash both refinery and vehicular emissions (and OPEC volume) by going to plug-in hybrid vehicles [ieee.org] .

Putting up political roadblocks is only going to piss people off and get your agenda nowhere fast.
Yeah, like putting up roadblocks to DDT and phosphate detergents pissed people off by saving the American Bald Eagle and dozens of lakes from turning into disgusting masses of overgrown, stinking rotting algae. We still kill bugs and get our stuff clean, so where's the roadblock?

Re:Reform the OIL INDUSTRY? HAHAHAHAHA! (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11521703)

Companies like Shell and Exxon will NOT and NEVER will go away anytime soon. If anything, they will reinvest their capitol on a hydrogen based infrastructure or even bio-fuels. Either way, the world still demands energy packed into something delivered in a nice package.

The fact is, nothing yield more energy per unit like hydrocarbons. It's breaking those bonds into CO2 and H2O that provide the energy. Also, it's the cheapest and most effective way to store energy.

Shell and Exxon can disappear (1)

Tau Zero (75868) | more than 9 years ago | (#11522325)

Industrial giants have gone bust before. US Steel? A shadow of its former self. HP? Once a powerhouse, it spun off its instrument division (its former heart and soul) in order to become a shrinking maker of computers. Railroads used to be hugely popular (and profitable) for moving both passengers and freight; now look at them. Changes in technology and teh resulting competition did them in.

Shell and Exxon-Mobil are probably too big to survive the coming changes. If we get something like the artificial-photosynthesis systems which produce hydrogen straight from sunlight and water, changes could come very fast. A company which has bonds outstanding and suddenly has falling income from its major operations plus devaluation of its major assets (petroleum reserves) could be forced to liquidate. A quick look at Exxon-Mobil's balance sheet [yahoo.com] doesn't show a lot of debt that could precipitate such a crisis, but in the runup to a collapse that would be likely to change.

The fact is, nothing yield more energy per unit like hydrocarbons.
There, I'll agree with you. However, alcohols are well within a factor of 2, and we don't necessarily have to get either of them from fossil sources. If we get artificial photosynthesis, you'll be able to turn any old stream of CO2 into methanol; just add hydrogen.

Re:Shell and Exxon can disappear (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11523988)

Shell and Exxon will not only survive, they will lead the changes once they pour all of their R&D into these new hydrogen producing technologies. Their shareholders will demand it once the wells start running dry and before it reaches $80 a berrel. After all, who would invest in a starup company with no previous history? At least the oil companies and all the gas stations can convert to E85 fuel and/or hydrogen. You cant start rebuilding fuel stations, pipelines, and refineries all over again. It's just not cost/effective.

Re:Shell and Exxon can disappear (1)

Tau Zero (75868) | more than 9 years ago | (#11526016)

Shell and Exxon will not only survive, they will lead the changes once they pour all of their R&D into these new hydrogen producing technologies.
You make several assumptions:
  1. They will be able to catch up, after others have established market positions and have patent portfolios.
  2. That they will have the money for R&D once the oil business starts fading.
  3. That hydrogen is the key; maybe it's electricity, in which case the utility companies will eat the oil companies' lunches.

There are just too many ways for big, slow companies to be outmaneuvered when the technologies underlying markets are superceded. There are many ways for their managements to miss important trends even when they are paying attention (Microsoft and the Internet is one example). You're making a poor case.

Their shareholders will demand it once the wells start running dry and before it reaches $80 a berrel.
Their shareholders will be selling, and if the oil giants have neither the revenue to support R&D nor the stock price to borrow against, they'll shrink as the market for their product shrinks.
After all, who would invest in a starup company with no previous history?
If you're charging a plug-in hybrid car and want to be zero-emission about it, are you going to buy an old Arco solar panel because it came from an oil company and they know (knew) cars, or are you going to get the latest production from Kyocera? Are you not going to buy wind power because Jacobs and Bergey never dealt with the automobile market?

The point I'm making is that energy in any given form (e.g. electricity) is fungible. Even somewhat different forms (biodiesel vs. petroleum diesel) are close enough to be nearly interchangeable. As long as your output meets specs, it's a commodity on the market. If you've got a more efficient system, your startup can put the established guy out of business.

At least the oil companies and all the gas stations can convert to E85 fuel and/or hydrogen.
Plug-in hybrids can replace 80% or more of all motor fuel with electricity, using the wasted off-peak capacity of the network at night. You have to convert... nothing but the vehicles. The electric utilities are in position to eat the oil companies' lunch, if they'd only get their act together with Detroit.

Re:Shell and Exxon can disappear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11526086)

If we get something like the artificial-photosynthesis systems which produce hydrogen straight from sunlight and water, changes could come very fast.

What have you been smoking, and where can I get some?

Re:doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11518641)

Well, if scientists predictions had come true, we'd all be dead now. I remember the 80s, everyone thought the human race would have been wiped out by now because of AIDS.

Could somebody tell me... (3, Interesting)

FuturePastNow (836765) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516793)

how the thinning ozone layer affects weather patterns? I understand that increased UV causes skin cancer and all that, but what does it have to do with the weather?

Re:Could somebody tell me... (-1, Offtopic)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516855)

how the thinning ozone layer affects weather patterns?

No, they can't. Why not? Because Michael is an idiot. He'll post the most blatantly incorrect crap if it supports his agenda. The article says that the weather is driving the thinning of the ozone, not that the thinning ozone is affecting the weather.

Re:Could somebody tell me... (0, Offtopic)

dhakbar (783117) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516941)

This isn't a troll.

Michael has supported damiangerous' point, time and time again. He's deleted entire threads that were critical of his idiocy, and he's banned some people from ever being able to moderate. Michael is an idiot of the greatest degree, and to state this is not to troll or to lay flamebait.

Re:Could somebody tell me... (2, Insightful)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 9 years ago | (#11516980)

It doesn't. Makes one wonder, if Michael isn't maybe hired by the right to post easily disproved myths, which only discredit the green faction as wackos, which will believe in anything.

Maybe one should do that to the right-wingers.

Oh, they are doing it themselves.
Brace yourself for:
"No consent"
"Not provable"
"Global Cooling"
"Little Ice Age"
"Sun fluctuations"
"Earth has been warmer"
"Earth has been cooler"
Corrolar: "We are in an Ice Age"
"We puny humans have no influence in comparison to the might of earth"
"We mighty humans will handle any problem earth will throw at us"

Re:Could somebody tell me... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11517008)

lol... you're a fucking idiot.

You should have been at Auschwitz.

Re:Could somebody tell me... (1)

ccmay (116316) | more than 9 years ago | (#11517860)

"Earth has been warmer"
"Earth has been cooler"

Surely you are not implying that this is a myth?

Both of these statements are true, to a much higher degree of certainty than the existence of anthropogenic global warming at present.

-ccm

Re:Could somebody tell me... (1)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 9 years ago | (#11519247)

> Surely you are not implying that this is a myth?

No, but the suggested implications for the current Global Climate Change are.

Re:Could somebody tell me... (1)

jgardn (539054) | more than 9 years ago | (#11518950)

Brace yourself for:
"No consent"
"Not provable"
"Global Cooling"
"Little Ice Age"
"Sun fluctuations"
"Earth has been warmer"
"Earth has been cooler"
Corrolar: "We are in an Ice Age"
"We puny humans have no influence in comparison to the might of earth"
"We mighty humans will handle any problem earth will throw at us"


Hummm, I'm trying to find how this is derogatory to those conservative-minded people who believe in conservative ideals like the scientific method.

Other than the "No consent" argument, which I don't quite understand the meaning of, all of these arguments are scientifically valid.

I'm still trying to discover what the scientific basis for global warming, or in particular, the human causes of global warming are. No study yet has given proof positive. Instead, we are presented with theories and contradictory results and inconclusive studies. The so-called scientists responsible for proving that humans are causing global cooling rush to TV cameras and the UN before their paper has even been peer-reviewed by someone who disagrees with them. In fact, those who disagree are labelled "conservative", "right-wing ideologues", and "religious wackos". Rather than dispute valid evidence, they attack ad hominem.

This is not science, folks. This is politics. It always has been about reducing your freedom to live your life, and not about saving the planet.

Re:Could somebody tell me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11519145)

You know, I read a lot of this conservative psudoscience on jerrypournelle.com, and I think: Ugh. The objective fact is that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming. The objective fact is that we are putting more CO2 in the air. No amount of conservative hand waving changes this.

Re:Could somebody tell me... (0)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 9 years ago | (#11519233)

It seems my argumentation was to subtil, I have to remember that sarcasm doesn't work over the web.

I wanted to point out that I am majorly dissapointed at inflammatory posts especially from "my" side (the "tree-huggers"), which take up arguments, which are easily disproved, and let the opponents paint us as irrational, fanatical panic-mongers.

My later suggestion, that right-wingers (which, btw, I consider only a subset of the otherwise respectable group of conservatives) are doing it themselves, was an attempt to show such a contraproductive argumentation can be found on the other side, too.

This should be considered as a warning to both sides to base their position on flawed arguments, as it will help the opponent more than oneself.

> The so-called scientists responsible for proving that humans are causing global cooling rush to TV cameras

Thanks for making my point clear. Which brings us to Myth number 1, since Chrichtons "State of Fear":
"Global Cooling" [realclimate.org]

> Other than the "No consent" argument, which I don't quite understand the meaning of, all of these arguments are scientifically valid.

"No consent": The idea that there is no scientific consent among climatologists on a) the existance of global climate change or b) that human influence it. Untrue [realclimate.org]

"Not provable": The models cannot be verified, unless it already happened. Ignores the fact that we can resimulate the past. Therfor the models are "provable" [realclimate.org] , in the sense that one can validate their quality.

"Sun fluctuations": The idea that the sun is the source of all heat and warmth, and therefor the major cause for the Climate Change (note: capital letters). Untrue [realclimate.org]

"Earth has been warmer"
"Earth has been cooler"
Corrolar: "We are in an Ice Age"
"Little Ice Age": Essentially the same argument. Climate has changed and will change. Ignores the various scales in which those things have happened and their relevance for the current climate. The "Little Ice Age" and the Warm period in the Middle Ages was a regional effect [realclimate.org] , not a global one [realclimate.org] . And concerning the global ice ages and warm periods. They are happening over time-frames of millenia. Not decades, like the current change. And, when someone should bother to have a look, we are currently supposed at the beginning of a war period plateau .

"We puny humans have no influence in comparison to the might of earth": I find humility a positive streak, however when it paired with
"We mighty humans will handle any problem earth will throw at us""
it seems nothing more a flag of convienience than real humility. And sadly the first is wrong, and the latter is only provable by trying, which some people would rather avert.

Let me pick up:
ad hominem: The suggestion, that personal agendas are responsible for the outcome of climatologic research.

And now let me add:
"Butterfly Effect": Shows that the writer has only cursive knowledge about Chaos-Theory and modelling, as Chaos only puts a limit to the accuracy to the predictions and the task of modeling is to also predict the accuracy.

> who believe in conservative ideals like the scientific method.

Well, I was trying to be derogatory to right-wingers, which I don't equate to be the same as conservative, but a subset. Similar to Michael, except with a different philosophy.

Scientific method can hardly be claimed as an uniquely conservative ideal. At most, it could be claimed an ideal originating in the liberal stream during The Enlightenent (E.g Kant). But even that is quite far-fetched, especially considering what conservatve and liberal meant then and now.

Now, that I have helped my opponents, some bad arguments "my" side should avoid:
-Ozone layer affects climate
-El Niño is a sign of climate change
-A certain drought is
-A certain flood is
-More hurricanes are
-As a kid we had real winters
-As a kid we had real summers
-Citing the most disastrous predicition as outcome
-Point of no return [realclimate.org]

> This is politics. It always has been about reducing your freedom to live your life, and not about saving the planet.

Thanks for putting yourself in the "right-wing ideologues" corner. The right-wing argumentativ equivalent of "Blood for Oil", "They are trying to take our freedom".
If anything there is a sign for dogmatism, the suggestion that the other side has less ulterior motives than oneself certainly is.

Re:Could somebody tell me... (2, Informative)

Miriku chan (168612) | more than 9 years ago | (#11517184)

increase in passing radiation means increase in energy in the layer. this energy has to be released through things like faster winds and changes to the pressure zones. those changes then will screw up normal style movement of air currents and water currents.

more or less.

Re:Could somebody tell me... (3, Informative)

agnana (854595) | more than 9 years ago | (#11517418)

True, but although the ozone hole does pass through shortwave radiation, it actually results in less absorption of longwave radiation. So in fact the ozone hole results in cooling rather than warming (stratospheric ozone is a greenhouse gas). The main impact of ozone thinning is likely to be on the location of the jet stream. Reference to this is Shindell and Schmidt, Geophys. Res. Lett, Sept. 25, 2004.

RTFA! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11516916)

The article does not say that severe weather causes ozone thinning. In fact, it says the opposite: the severe weather increases ozone thinning. The only result of ozone thinning that is mentioned is increased UV rays, and thus an increased risk of skin cancer.

Re:RTFA! (1)

Hal XP (807364) | more than 9 years ago | (#11518827)

Linus better not be on vacation!

Alarmist _science_ (1, Funny)

grozzie2 (698656) | more than 9 years ago | (#11517441)

The rest of the world would probably take all these alarmists a lot more seriously, if they would just get together, and all tell a co-ordinated story. But, let me quote from tfm

=====
The stratosphere, where the ozone layer lies, has seen its coldest winter for 50 years; there have also been an unusually large number of clouds.
=====

There is a simple cure for this ozone problem, lets just heat the planet up a little bit. umm, wait, that'll piss off all the global warming types.

Dunno who to believe anymore, think I'll just head out and shoot a spotted owl, I've heard they roast up pretty tasty....

If only... (1)

Tau Zero (75868) | more than 9 years ago | (#11520591)

Warming the troposphere raises the tropopause, which means that the stratosphere (the zone which is not mixed by convection, and can thus support ozone) gets thinner and colder. This gives less room for ozone and more clouds etc. to catalyze its destruction.

If you really wanted to be funny, you'd suggest fighting warming and ozone depletion with sulfur emissions (which make reflective clouds) and NOx and HC emissions (to replace stratospheric ozone with ground-level ozone, aka smog).

Re:If only... (1)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11540790)

Not only that, but increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (which normally goes along with tropospheric warming) decreases the rate at which heat from the ground reaches the stratosphere, so the stratosphere actually gets colder above and beyond the effect of just raising the tropopause.

It's like putting better insulation on a house. The inside of the house gets warmer, but the outside gets colder as less heat gets leaked out.

He who smelt it (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11517601)

I was under the impression that the US was doing pretty well when it came to phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals, which leads me to ask: who farted?

Re:He who smelt it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11554506)

The quantity of ozone depleting chemicals smuggled in the US (fluorocarbons) is second only to cocaine.

polar bears (1)

twoes00 (839980) | more than 9 years ago | (#11517881)

What about the polar bears?!? Has anyone thought of the polar bears?!??

The heck with 'em (3, Funny)

Tau Zero (75868) | more than 9 years ago | (#11520617)

You can always make more polar bears. Just take Cartesian bears and put them through a coördinate transform.

Re:polar bears (1)

Thuktun (221615) | more than 9 years ago | (#11541388)

What about the polar bears?!? Has anyone thought of the polar bears?!??

Let them eat cak^H^H^Hpenguin.

I thought we gave up CFC... (1, Insightful)

jgardn (539054) | more than 9 years ago | (#11518933)

Didn't we already give up CFCs and thus saved the ozone layer? What gives? Why is the ozone layer still opening if we gave up using CFCs?

For those of you who don't know, CFCs are an all-around useful chemical. Not only is it completely harmless to human (save asphyxiation), it retards all kinds of fires instantly. The Navy used to use it on all of their ships to put out fires instantly. Guess what? Since it was deployed. hardly anyone got injured due to fire. Nowadays, fires on our Navy vessels are too common.

CFCs are also extremelty useful as a refrigerant. No other chemical has approached CFCs in this realm. All the newcomers are much more expensive to manufacture, and quite dangerous in their own right.

CFCs are also very heavy. They don't float up to the upper atmosphere as some scientists thought. Instead, they stay down here on the surface of the earth where they cause no harm.

Maybe we should re-examine why we got rid of DDT. Did the condor ever come back after we abolished using it? Insect-borne viruses and diseases sure have. Nothing would've saved so many lives from malaria in the tsunami-stricken region like a good dousing of DDT.

They're catalysts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11537627)

We already knew the CFCs would continue hanging around in the upper atmosphere for decades to come. They're catalysts. They are not used up in the ozone destroying reaction... they merely help it to happen, then reform to cause more damage.

Moreover, we have not stopped using CFCs. Consumer products do not use CFCs, including aerosols and refrigerators. There are still manufacturing processes that use them.

I can't comment on CFC dispersal. Given your other two fundamental misunderstandings, I can't take your word on CFCs remaining in the lower atmosphere. I would ask what you suppose is causing the ozone hole, then.... natural fluctuations strike again, eh?

Re:I thought we gave up CFC... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11538823)

Maybe we should re-examine why we got rid of DDT
no, it persists in the environment and causes animals to give birth to thin eggs - it we were to start using that stuff again, there would simply be no birds. There is good reason to not use it.

We have birds today... (1)

jgardn (539054) | more than 9 years ago | (#11563406)

If this is true, why do we have birds today? We used DDT very, very heavily back in the days.

I looked up the DDT scare and it was claimed it threatened one species of bird that was on the verge of extinction. Even then it wasn't proven that it was the cause. After all, every chicken rancher know that birds need calcium to build a good eggshell. If they don't have enough, the shell is weak. Perhaps the birds near the city had a hard time finding calcium? Oh no, that would only make too much sense! Let's ban DDT instead!

Re:I thought we gave up CFC... (1)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11540851)

Here's three good reasons why the hole is still there:

1 - CFCs are very long lived, and it takes decades for CFCs to leave the atmosphere once released.

2 - Other countries are still producing CFCs, though many are phasing it out.

3 - There are still legacy appliances and manufacturing processes that use them.

Using CFCs again would just make things worse, and no ozone would mean a lot more than just having to wear sunblock in the middle of winter, and plants (which we depend on for food) and animals are also effected by UV radiation.

CFC makes it worse how? (1)

jgardn (539054) | more than 9 years ago | (#11563437)

CFC makes it worse, how?

(1) Refrigerators and air conditioners would be a lot more efficient and cheaper too. They would be safer as well.

(2) Places where fire is dangerous can install the fire extinguishers that use CFCs, saving hundreds if not thousands of lives. If such a system were installed in the World Trade Center, the building would not have burned and it would not have collapsed. Of course, if they had finished the installation of asbestos, it would not have fallen either, but government strikes again, and now thousands are dead because of it!

500MB Northern Hemisphere Plot (1)

lazy genes (741633) | more than 9 years ago | (#11521557)

Gravitational pull on large cold air masses can be seen using this tool.During full and new moon events, large cold upper air masses move away from the pole .They are pulled down in the direction of the equator.Because they move in the direction of least resistance, they travel over the land and not the warmer oceans.During the other phases of the moon they return to the arctic and revolve around the pole in a counter clockwise motion.kinda like the musical chairs game.I have been observing this event over the last 6 years.The system stalled this year leaving a large cold air mass over the north east part of the contenent.It has also allowed warmer ocean air to slide in behind it.I think this is what they are missing in their observations.I think The stalling was caused by a unbalance of temp,mass and gravatational pull on large cold hi pressure systems. http://www.weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_nhem_50 0p.html This link may help if you are interested. I think humans contribute to the ozone problem.But a clearer understanding of climatology and weather is possible. The same equations observed in the arctic upper air ciculation patterns, can be reversed to define tropical weather patterns near the equator.These patterns occur between new and full moons and deal with warm air masses moving over the oceans.The only difference is that cold air masses roll and warm air form funnels.These are only my observations.I would like to know if they are correct?Use the moon for your outhouse,quit pissing on my planet you corporate slugs.

Why can't they add man-made ozone? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 9 years ago | (#11531994)

If this gas is SO important and we already use it to purify water. Why can't we make a shit load of it and send it up to the stratosphere?

Re:Why can't they add man-made ozone? (1)

bcattwoo (737354) | more than 9 years ago | (#11532405)

If this gas is SO important and we already use it to purify water. Why can't we make a shit load of it and send it up to the stratosphere?

How do you propose to get it up there? It is not very healthy at ground level so a ground level release won't work. It is so reactive that I doubt releasing it at even a few thousand feet would end up in enough reaching the stratosphere to make a difference anyway. I don't think we will be seeing any 100,000 ft high smokestacks in the near future either. Even if there was an easy way to get it up there I suspect it would take a prohibitively large amount to really make a difference.

Re:Why can't they add man-made ozone? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 9 years ago | (#11540503)

I guess weather balloons don't count. And if they can't reach that high I'm sure a fly-by with the space Shuttle dragging a long hose would work.

Remember, if it's SO important, they could find a way to deliver the Ozone.
After all, we did land on the moon 25 years ago, right?

Re:Why can't they add man-made ozone? (1)

TechnoLuddite (854235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11540970)

Actually, the manufacture of the ozone would be supremely easy. The delivery of it would be difficult, not only for reasons mentioned, but for making sure it doesn't get released near the surface. Remember, ozone isn't exactly what people like to breathe ... I lived in Southern California for a number of years, and one of the key air quality alerts was the ozone alert.

I actually had a discussion with my scientist father on this, and he said it was definitely doable. Perhaps an orbital or suborbital with LOX tanks, perhaps something along the lines of the ones mentioned above, but eminently doable. The problem was not, he felt, lack of need or technical difficulty, but one more based on politics. Since it's a worldwide problem, it's more a question of who wants to take the burden of the solution, with no immediate financial or political returns. Even in "green" states or countries, it's not exactly viewed as the best way to get re-elected.

This will probably be addressed when it reaches crisis levels ... by the stage that we're able to recover from it, one would hope. Who knows ... with the private attempts at spaceflight, we may even have a private solution to this, before we have a government solution...

Re:Why can't they add man-made ozone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11538840)

We are the Ones Who Know Better, and really smart, smarties (don't you see my degrees on the wall behind me?). Surely, you are not suggesting that we come up with something based on simplicity?

We refuse to even converse about it...we open minded Ones.

Re:Why can't they add man-made ozone? (1)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11540911)

Even in the stratosphere, ozone is fairly short lived. It is destroyed in the process of absorbing UV radiation, and is regenerated rapidly.

The only reason that CFCs are such a big problem is that they can destroy about 100,000 ozone molecules before they finally leave the environment a few decades later. A pound of CFCs will destroy tens of tons of ozone in the course of its life, so even if ozone was long-lasting, it would take a crazy amount of ozone to replace what CFCs destroy.

Re:Why can't they add man-made ozone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11554369)

any idea how its regenerated? perhaps theres a way to catalyse and speed up the reaction somewhat :)

My vacation is ruined! (1)

readin (838620) | more than 9 years ago | (#11536088)

No sunbathing at the north pole this year.

SUV lady (1)

BigDogCH (760290) | more than 9 years ago | (#11539497)

I have to say, these articles do help the everyday sheep learn what the ozone is, and what it does. I will always remember meeting a lady at the gas station. She was driving herself (and only herself) in her huge SUV. She was then commenting on how interesting the front page article about global warming was, and that I "should read it". I would like to point out that I was driving a 40mpg little car at the time (and still have it, 9 years later).

actual numbers and facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11553629)

Ok here are some actual numbers and facts, not hype
The "Ozone Layer" - what's going on?
http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.ht m [junkscience.com]
Sorry I had to burst many of your media driven opinions into the dirt....................
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...