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!

Melting Arctic Ice Has Consequences

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the darn-it-I-really-liked-polar-bears dept.

466

OriginalArlen writes to tell us about some compelling global warming coverage in the Washington Post. First there is an article about a study indicating that melting Arctic ice is threatening polar bears with extinction. The article quotes an environmentalist: "This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one." And the polar melting is opening new shipping lanes. The second article details a trip late in October through the Northwest Passage by a Canadian icebreaker. Never before in history could this trip have been accomplished so late in the year; ice would have choked off the passage. Estimates of when the passage might be navigable by commercial shipping range from 2020 to the end of the century. The indigeneous people are not looking forward to this development.

cancel ×

466 comments

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

Welcome to the world of tomorrow, Fry! (1)

vistic (556838) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728519)

"polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've been frozen in arctic ice the past 6 years, were recently thawed out as a result of the melting ice, and have no knowledge of Bush's presidency or how powerful corporations are.

Welcome to the world of 2006!!

Re:Welcome to the world of tomorrow, Fry! (1)

The Lone Man (1017800) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728531)

"polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one." Yes. They can.

Polar bears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728593)

Polar bears ? What did they ever do for us ? Except eat us!!!

Re:Polar bears (1)

DarkAxi0m (928088) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728889)

Thats it! i declare a war on the evil Polar Bears!!!

Re:Polar bears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16729031)

You're either with us or against us! Bring 'em on! Stay the course! We must not let the bears win. The bears hate freedom!

Re:Welcome to the world of tomorrow, Fry! (0)

Thunder_Princes (688516) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729067)

yep, the polar ice cap is melting... in one section and guess what??? GAINING in other sections. yeah weather patterns are changing, leave it to man to think they are the primary reason. so self-impressed we are. get a real picture, not isolated facts.

Re:Welcome to the world of tomorrow, Fry! (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729111)

Got a citation for that "gaining" bit? Sounds like hot air to me but if you have actual evidence, cough it up.

Bush and Global Warming (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728627)

Although Bush has done [epa.gov] much [whitehouse.gov] to harm [ens-newswire.com] the environment, denying anthropogenic global warming is not in his toolbox [sciencemag.org] . I mean, as much as I hate to defend the man, we should be clear about the few things he hasn't done wrong. :)

time to pass Kyoto (0, Redundant)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728543)

Then it is time to sign the Kyoto accords, which actually have some major nations such as China increase greenhouse-gas emissions. Since Kyoto is all about the environment, I can only assume that requiring increased greenhouse-gas emissions is part of a strategy to stop global warming.

Re:time to pass Kyoto (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728597)

Um, how the hell does Kyoto make China increase emissions? Oh wait, you're full of shit here. (And America is still the world's largest polluter.)

Oh wait, are you trolling again? (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728679)

This [asianews.it] details how China and India get to increase greenhouse gasses. In reality, the Kyoto Protocols are all about politics, and not about science. Why else would they be written so a CO2 molecule from the US is evil and one from China or India is good?

Re:Oh wait, are you trolling again? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728765)

Kyoto is a political solution for a global science problem. High CO2 levels is the evil. But the problem is how do you get China and India to sign on, when their argument is that the west has emissions per person of 10-20x what they have? So by allowing China and India to increase a bit, they are hopeful that they will sign on.

But as I indicated elsewhere, Kyoto is flawed due to everybody trying to cheat. The only way past this, is to freeze everybody. If anybody does not want to belong to a kyoto II accord, fine, just do not trade with them. Once a country is excluded from dealing with more than half the world, the others will sign on.

Who's the troll? (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728771)

The one who confuses "get to" with "makes", or the one who calls him on it? The GP clearly emphasized that no one is forcing China to increase its greenhouse gases. The GGP post (yours) implied that increasing greenhouse gases for China was somehow part of the plan of Kyoto. That's silly. No one wants China to increase its greenhouse gases. However, since they have much lower per capita greenhouse emissions than developed nations, Kyoto acknowledges that it would be very difficult for them to acheive modernization without modest increases in greenhouse emissions. No one expects them to increase their per capita emissions beyond ours, however.

Having said that, the Kyoto Protocol IS flawed. Pointing that out whenever a discussion of global warming comes up is as useful as pointing out that Mark Foley is a pervert whenever discussing whether to vote for Republican candidate X. It seems to be a new flavor of Godwin's law. (As with Godwin's law, there are a few discussions where it's relevant, but not very many - and when it is relevant, having brought it up over and over again lessens its power as an argument.)

Re:Who's the troll? (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728813)

"implied that increasing greenhouse gases for China was somehow part of the plan of Kyoto"

It is.

"No one wants China to increase its greenhouse gases."

Except if they sign Kyoto.

"Kyoto acknowledges that it would be very difficult for them to acheive modernization without modest increases in greenhouse emissions"

That's hogwash. They just wanted to be let off easy, and got what they wanted.

"No one expects them to increase their per capita emissions beyond ours, however."

I have no doubt that they can happily meet Kyoto requirements and inrease their per capita emissions to something just short of ours.

"Having said that, the Kyoto Protocol IS flawed"

Yes. I'm in favor of the idea, but want something based on science instead of something that comes across as something designed to hamper some economies and boost others. Re-write it so it includes reductions for all. No increase. Reductions for all.

Re:Who's the troll? (1)

Random Destruction (866027) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728907)

Yes. I'm in favor of the idea, but want something based on science instead of something that comes across as something designed to hamper some economies and boost others. Re-write it so it includes reductions for all. No increase. Reductions for all.

That sure sounds to me like it would hamper non-developed countries, while doing little to the US, etc. Why should the US get to have much higher per capita emissions just because they got polluting earlier in the game? That my friend is the hogwash.

Re:Who's the troll? (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728971)

That was a very clean way of adding a point that wasn't made in an attempt to bolster your own position and discredit your opposition. You should work on the staff of a congressman. Pick one, they all enjoy using such a skill.

Re:Who's the troll? (2, Interesting)

kimvette (919543) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729079)

Simple.

The US has entrenched technology that will take decades if not centuries to phase out; coal and oil fired power plants, internal combustion engines for automobiles, oil, natural gas, and coal heat for homes, and so forth.

China has a great opportunity to go electric across the board from the get-go, using nuclear power and solar power. Their infrastructure is still immature, and as such there is no huge investment in existing power to speak of. I'm sure that the folks working in agriculture are still using wood, peat, or coal for heat, and have not spent thousands on oil-fired central heating systems for their homes; why not go electric from the beginning? Then emissions controls can be centralized, and their choice for petrol-vs.-nuke-vs.-wind can be made now. What's more, if so-called environmentalists who really are all about "NIMBY" can't block this development like they can here with their bleeding heart "think of the children" whining. (sorry about that last comment, I'm just really bitter about so-called environmentalist dropping the cape wind project in Nantucket Sound, especially that drunkard Ted Kennedy who claims to be an environmentalist)

Re:time to pass Kyoto (1)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728737)

It doesn't, but it puts no restrictions on China because they are classed as a developing nation, even though they are the second largest producer of carbon emissions. Their emission levels are also increasing about three times as fast as in the US.

Re:time to pass Kyoto (1)

AgNO3 (878843) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728925)

Are you on Crack? USA largest polluter in the world? Yeah when you look at numbers like per person polution. When you look at total polution out put china and India both top the US by a large margin May I suggest you at least google pollution. (or visit mexico city)

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID =9509 [zmag.org]
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5058 [yale.edu]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China [wikipedia.org]
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/20 06/jun/science/tw_chineseair.html [acs.org]

but maybe this one is the most recent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,16051 46,00.html [guardian.co.uk]

 

Re:time to pass Kyoto (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729025)

Are you on Crack? USA largest polluter in the world? Yeah when you look at numbers like per person polution. When you look at total polution out put china and India both top the US by a large margin May I suggest you at least google pollution. (or visit mexico city)
The USA is the largest CO2 emitter in the world, either by per person [wikipedia.org] or by absolute numbers [wikipedia.org] . Pollution != CO2 output.

You can thank environmentalists (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729117)

That LA air is getting cleaner and that we no longer have air quality like that. In fact we used to to! But we wised up. Now we need to find practicle ways to get others to see the light.

China is huge because it has a huge population. Ditto for India. Can you imagine how bad it would be if thay all approached the US's production of pollution per capita. Your article references just makes the case for global agreements that much stronger.

Re:time to pass Kyoto (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728629)

The free market economy approach first used by Poppa Bush in America for other pollutions has been successful, but it has worked very poorly WRT Kyoto. As it is, they are all trying to cheat past the accords and point fingers elsewhere. Instead, each nation (including China, India, etc) should sign a new accord to state that they will hold steady at current levels of emissions and will then decrease over a period of time. The simple answer is that all nations have it in their ability to increase energy via alternative as well as nukes. This will lower emissions. More importantly, this will bring to bear on ALL of industry to move away from oil based transportation to electrical based (which can then be powered via other mechanisms).

Re:time to pass Kyoto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728721)

Since Kyoto is all about the environment

Uh, no. Kyoto is all about politics and money. Nations (North America) can still fully comply with Kyoto without reducing their emissions, they simply have to buy ($$$) emissions credits from other nations (Europe). The EU wrote the rules to extract money from the US, but the US didn't buy it.

Re:time to pass Kyoto (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728965)

More likely, the money would end up in undeveloped countries as most EU countries would be buying the credits as well.

Re:time to pass Kyoto (1)

mrpeebles (853978) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728935)

To be fair, though, we (meaning the West) have already pumped a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as part of the industrialization of countries. The idea that we have already gotten to do this, and are now rich enough and have enough infrastructure to be able to start spending some money on being industrial in a cleaner way, while many less developed countries still need to spend invest a lot of money in the initial infrastructure that are needed to be industrial at all, is not outrageous. Of course, the details are always what matter, and I don't know the exact details of the Kyoto treaty, but it is wrong to dismiss it as being clearly unfair (rather than simply not in the US's interests) because China's greenhouse emission is treated differently than the US's is (which, I think, is what you are implying with your post.)

They don't have to emit more greehouse gasses (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729063)

They can sell carbon credits to the USA, etc.

Hyperbole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728549)

The indigeneous people are not looking forward to this development.

Why?

Re:Hyperbole? (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728569)

Wal-Mart greeters are more dangerous than a hungry polar bear.

huh??? (2, Funny)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728613)

"Wal-Mart greeters are more dangerous than a hungry polar bear."

I know they are usually huge and white, but other than that....?

Re:huh??? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728785)

And they wear a happy face button. That's scary!

Re:Hyperbole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728571)

Would you like passenger ships passing close to you all year round? Not to mention the fact that noise from them passing through would scare away animals they rely on for food.

How dare they! (1)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728559)

How dare they question the Holy Religion of America, as revealed by our Almighty God the Dollar!

Repeat after me: There is no global warming!

And even if there is, it's not caused by humans!

And even if it is, there's no need to do anything about it!

Re: How dare they! (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728701)

And even if there is, it's not caused by humans!

Ok, so...there have been past dramatic climate changes on the earth that have happend and were certainly not caused by humans.

I think an open minded person would have to say there are only two or three ways to go here. It is getting hotter, as it has done in the past, and people aren't causing it. It is getting hotter and people are the cause of it. It is getting hotter and it partly a normal cycle of the earth, and people do play some part in it, as well.

Given that the earth has had dramatic climate changes well before people could have possibly had anything to do with it...why is that anyone who believes this could be the case here must be some type of moronic fool?

Transporter_ii

Re: How dare they! (3, Interesting)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728841)

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-09-13 -hottest-summer_x.htm [usatoday.com]

The USA sweated this year through its hottest summer in 70 years, with temperatures not seen since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, according to a government report.

From June 1 to Aug. 31, as summer is defined by the National Climatic Data Center, the continental USA had an average temperature of 74.5 degrees, based on readings from hundreds of weather stations nationwide. It was the second-hottest summer temperature the government has recorded since it started keeping track in 1895. The only one warmer -- by about two-tenths of a degree -- was in 1936.

Ok, seriously, what made it so hot back in 1936? Was it just a natural occurrence, or was it man made way back then?

Transporter_ii

Poor practices of landowners (2, Informative)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728913)

The poor practices of landowners [wikipedia.org] led the way to the dust bowl, and to the local increases in temperatures here in the US.

Re:Poor practices of landowners (2, Informative)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729119)

They may have made the Dustbowl worse, but the temperatures were not caused by the Dustbowl. All the way to the Arctic the temperatures of the late 1930s were the highest of the 20th Century.

I think you're confusing cause and effect.

Re: How dare they! (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728851)

It's hard to make out what you are trying to say in your last line.

Are you saying that only a moronic fool would believe that people
are the problem, or are part of the problem because there have been
dramatic climatic changes in the past?

If so, that seems to be ignoring that we might be part of the problem.
Climatic changes happened in the past without human input does not mean
*necessarily* that *this* set of changes do not have a human component.
Shouldnt we find out?

Also, lets say, for argument, that people are not any part of the
problem at all. If there is a climatic change coming, shouldnt we
figure out what the impact on people will be? If there is, and the
impact is one that people will not survive, then we should know that,
and prepare ( including moving people into space, modifying earth's
climate deliberately, ???? ).

Re: How dare they! (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728869)

Given that the earth has had dramatic climate changes well before people could have possibly had anything to do with it...why is that anyone who believes this could be the case here must be some type of moronic fool?

Anyone who can't grasp the concept of rate of change is rather likely to be a moronic fool.

Re: How dare they! (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728875)

Given that the earth has had dramatic climate changes well before people could have possibly had anything to do with it...why is that anyone who believes this could be the case here must be some type of moronic fool?

I think an open minded person would have to say there are only two or three ways to go here. The person is some type of "moronic fool" who doesn't understand the science despite their best efforts. The person is actually a shill whose livelihood depends on him and/or others not understanding it. The person hasn't read up on the climate science and has been exposed to misinformation from the likes of ExxonMobil. Personally, I usually prefer to go with the last option on most people.

As for climate changes that have gone on in the past, it's true, they have. However, if you started eating some food and noticed that it was making you ill, would you say "I think an open minded person would have to say there are only two or three ways to go here. People have died from natural causes in the past, so perhaps I'm just getting sick from natural causes. Maybe I'm getting sick from natural causes and this food is just a factor in it. Maybe this food is killing me." Would you still have that blasé approach after someone told you that there was poison in it?

Well, scientists have know for many decades that:

  • CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
  • The levels of CO2 have been drastically increased due to human activities. (We're now at levels approximately 100 ppmv higher than the last 800,000 years. The max and min over that range only differed by about 100 ppmv!)
  • Absorbing infrared radiation leads to a higher thermal equilbrium point.
So, much like in the example I mentioned, the doctors have detected the poison that's "killing us". (I use quotes because that could be considered an exaggeration.) The fact that "people have died before" does not make the poison any less "lethal".

Re: How dare they! (1)

geobeck (924637) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728975)

You're right: the Earth has experienced dramatic climate change in the past. But every time it has experienced dramatic climate change, it has also experienced mass extinctions.

And considering how close most of the world's population lives to the ocean coasts, and how much we rely on a relatively small number of dwindling species for survival, can we really say that we're not going to be on the extinction list this time around?

Re: How dare they! (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728977)

Ok, so...there have been past dramatic climate changes on the earth that have happend and were certainly not caused by humans.
...
Given that the earth has had dramatic climate changes well before people could have possibly had anything to do with it...why is that anyone who believes this could be the case here must be some type of moronic fool?
You have to look at the scale of the change. In the last 600'000 years the CO2 levels never exceeded a certain threshold. We are now over that threshold roughly 2-3x. Temperature change strongly correlates with CO2 levels, and while correlation doesn't mean causation, it is reasonably certain to assume that such correlation will be true in the future aswell since the previous half million years of data about temperature correlates the CO2 levels so closely.

So my question is, given strong correlation and that CO2 levels are 2-3x higher NOW than they were previously, what kind of change in temperature would you diagnose?

shipping and oil drilling (1)

mzweng (315862) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728573)

The official line of the US government may be that nothing is happening up there, but let me tell you, they're surveying the crap out of the Arctic Ocean right now, making sure the US's Exclusive Economic Zone is defined and that they have proper control of oil and gas up there...

Almost.. a good thing! (1)

feranick (858651) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728653)

With temperatures increasing and ice melting in the Arctic, drilling in Alaska will be way easier than it is now, in less harsh conditions. I am sure the current administration is thinking to reconsider their position on Global warming. Not only it exists, but it may be a good thing!!!!

Current administration (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728709)

The current administration does not deny anthropogenic global warming [ens-newswire.com] . Many other conservative think tanks do, but not the Bush administration.

Re:Almost.. a good thing! (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729055)

I know you were sarcastic, but the statement is actually not true for two reasons:

Transportation is on the permafrost, only problem is that the frost is not really perma now, if you get my drift. Cars, houses, etc "sink". Pipelines have the same problem, making it a maintenance nightmare.

Re:shipping and oil drilling (1)

JymmyZ (655273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728883)

And the Canadian Government is also beginning to assert sovereignty in the area, making sure they have rights over the shipping lanes and oil/mineral rights in soon-to-be contentious regions.

Like I didn't already know this. (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728583)

Just like the governments of the world didn't already know this. NOBODY GIVES A SHIT, don't you know? Its so far into the future nobody cares, nobody thinks of the children so stop posting all this shit on slashdot. I gladly await our deserved destruction.

Re:Like I didn't already know this. (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728711)

Well, excuse us for disturbing your complacent nihilism. But you must have noticed by now that most Slashdotters still suffer from the illusion that their lives matter!

Re:Like I didn't already know this. (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729101)

Its so far into the future nobody cares
Like um 20 years? If your five minute attention span can't handle events that far in the future you might want to reconsider visiting a website for geeks.

Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728595)

No more polar bears roaming the streets of Helsinki?

Darn.

John Kerry will be speaking to the polar bears (1)

VampireByte (447578) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729033)

You polar bears better study hard or you'll end up in Iraq.

This gives the phrase... (3, Funny)

thewiz (24994) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728607)

"Baked Alaska" a whole new meaning.

Hey now.... This isnt fair!!!!!!!!!! (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728625)

I mean, didn't we send those polar bears the memo about global warming? Oh wait... it wasn't congressionally approved.... =P

Re:Hey now.... This isnt fair!!!!!!!!!! (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728669)

No, it's just hidden somewhere in the TPS reports, didn't you get the memo?

Political Bullshit (4, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728631)

On both sides.

This has been presented before, and debunked before. This study [ncpa.org] shows that while ice is thinning in some parts of the arctic, it is thickening in others and the temperature change isn't uniform.

It also shows that the majority of polar bear populations are steady, with an equal number on the increase and decrease.

That shipping lane has been there before, and guess what -- there were polar bears around back then. Amazingly enough, polar bears aren't the hot-house flowers these people are making them out to be.

The climate is changing, that is for certain. The only thing more certain is that politicos and people who want gov't grants are going to exaggerate and hype every little anomaly beyond belief in order to garner attention and eventually money. What they hell ever happened to science for the sake of actual knowledge?

Re:Political Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728697)

Funny, that you would believe a study published by a group run by Governor Pete du Pont. Hmm, an American Governor, think he'd want people to believe that global warming isn't affecting ice levels because "it's getting thicker elsewhere,"?

Read up on it a little more and you'll see that the articles debunking it not being a problem are published by sources far more credible.

Re:Political Bullshit (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728839)

Funny, that you would believe a study published by a group run by Governor Pete du Pont.

Funny, that you would imply that the study is unreliable just because you don't like governor du Pont for some reason.

-jcr

Re:Political Bullshit (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728705)

i couldn't agree more. the maths behind c02 and global warming do not provide enough warming to have a significant impact. yet these environmentalist continue to spew the same bullshit, trying to hide their real agenda behind enviromental concerns. The earth is warming yes, but we are not the cause of it.

Re:Political Bullshit (1)

OriginalArlen (726444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728871)

the maths behind c02 and global warming do not provide enough warming to have a significant impact.
Arrant nonsense [www.ipcc.ch] . Try reading something on the topic rather than getting your science from the side of a cereal packet.

Re:Political Bullshit (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728735)

but damn it! an environmentalist said it was as smoking gun! bush cant deny that wikiality!

Which is why he hasn't (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728947)

Who knows? Maybe that's the reason he hasn't denied it [ens-newswire.com] .

Re:Political Bullshit (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728789)

and the temperature change isn't uniform.
You know, that is why it is called global warming, not local warming on a global scale.

Re:Political Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728791)

So all other studies are "political bullshit" but your study from a very questionable source isn't?

Haha.

Re:Political Bullshit (1)

OriginalArlen (726444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728853)

You are mistaken. Greatly amplified warming in the Arctic is a pretty unanimous conclusion from decent GCMs (climate models). That the Arctic has seen an increase in average temperatures of around five degrees Celsius in, in fact, uncontroversial. One random story from a quick google: here [sciencedaily.com] . RealClimate.org also has very good science, albeit way over the heads of, say, mainstream TV news in terms of complexity and detail.

Re:Political Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16729059)


If there's anything more certain than what you said, it's that somehow any report about said climate change will be used to condemn a specific politician on the internet.

Re:Political Bullshit (1)

Rufty (37223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729095)

Amazingly enough, polar bears aren't the hot-house flowers ...
1. Polar bears lack petals.
2. Polar bears don't live in houses.
Therefore, I feel it safe to conclude that polar bears are seldom, if ever, mistaken for "hot-house flowers".*

* Except in certain coffee-shops in Amsterdam, but since these shops aren't often visited by bears, it's not much of a problem.

Send warming up north! (1)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728651)

OriginalArlen writes to tell us about some compelling global warming coverage in the Washington Post.

Send some of that global warming up here to Canada will ya? It is fracking cold up here at this time of year. Could use it right about now. Natural gas/taxes are lower when it is warmer too.

This is like the 3rd article here on this subject. (1)

HardSide (746961) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728659)

I beleive this is like the 3rd article on /. that covers the global warming problem, yet I don't remember reading a solution for the the problem yet. So what are the solutions?

How about the Kyoto protocols? (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728713)

"I beleive this is like the 3rd article on /. that covers the global warming problem, yet I don't remember reading a solution for the the problem yet. So what are the solutions?"

How about the Kyoto protocols? [asianews.it] . A dandy solution. To stop global warming caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, the protocols have countries like India and China increase such emissions. That should solve the problem, right?

So here you've said it much more blatantly (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729001)

Are you actually claiming that China and India would be in violoation of the Kyoto protocols if they decreased their emissions? Or, are you simply complaining that they're not forced to decrease them? There is a difference, you know. It reminds me of the time when an apartment complex claimed that the city was forcing them to raise the rates of their lowest priced units, when the reality was that the city was allowing them to raise the rates. A letter from the apartment complex actually blamed the city for the increased rates.

Again, as I said elsewhere, the Kyoto protocols are flawed. Misrepresenting them does not help explain why they're flawed..

Re:So here you've said it much more blatantly (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729107)

" It reminds me of the time when an apartment complex claimed that the city was forcing them to raise the rates of their lowest priced units, when the reality was that the city was allowing them to raise the rates."

I would not be surprised if that apartment complex owner was forced to pay excessive property taxes, which do have an effect of forcing the rates to go higher.

Re:This is like the 3rd article here on this subje (1)

lionheart1327 (841404) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728879)

That's because the only solution that the wackos spouting this want is for everybody to get rid of their cars and electricity and go live in the woods like bears. The way that humanity was supposed to.

What to do about this? (1)

CompMD (522020) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728687)

Some of us are trying to figure out what to do about this. Questions like "how long do we have?" and "how much ice is there" and even "how fast is the ice melting" are all questions that researchers at the Center for the Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets (CReSIS) [ku.edu] are trying to answer. They've done a huge amount of work and have even more coming. Not all of us Americans are backwards and ignorant of our environment.

CReSIS has "done a huge amount of work" - So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16729093)

So what, big deal, anyone can do a huge amount of work, what has CReSIS learned? I want to know so I can start buying up real estate that is worthless now but will be primo waterfront property in the future. Like you said, not all of us Americans are ignorant.

If you haven't seen in yet, you owe it to yourself (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728741)

...to go watch The Inconvenient Truth [wikipedia.org] .

Part of the documentary deals with the disappearing/melting ice on the polar ice caps and at Greenland.

Blame San Fransisco mayor Gavin Newsom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728749)

Blame Newsom for the loss of the polar bears. He started issuing gay marriage certificates outside of the law in early 2004. He could have waited until Kerry was elected to do this, but in his own hubris he did not.

This in turn activated the "value base voters" into action. There was a large church in Ohio that installed a phone bank in the basement and made 300,000 "get out the vote" calls to people to vote for Bush.

Kerry lost Ohio by 100,000 votes. Kerry most likely would have signed the kyoto treaty that would have curbed global warming.

So from this, you can see how gay marriage did indeed kill the polar bears.

Re:Blame San Fransisco mayor Gavin Newsom (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728835)

Kerry lost Ohio by 100,000 votes. Kerry most likely would have signed the kyoto treaty that would have curbed global warming.

Presidents don't put treaties into practise. Bill Clinton already signed the Kyoto protocols, but without Congress agreeing to it, it was just for show. Kerry wouldn't have been able to do anything climate-wise if he were president with a Republican-majority Congress.

Re:Blame San Fransisco mayor Gavin Newsom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16729007)

Well, many republicans owe their existance to the coattails of the president. Not only that but it was this administration that killed kyoto, not congress not passing it.

Hmmm.... (1)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728779)

I think mass extinction from water tables rising would be a bigger concern... just a thought. -Rob

Sounds good. (2, Funny)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728805)

So .. less man-killing polar bears... and more new trade routes.

Hell, I might go set a few gallons of crude oil on fire just to help out the cause!

Not so fast. (1)

Qwavel (733416) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728911)

"Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one."

Wanna bet?

Science is not Public Policy (1)

pdq332 (849982) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728915)

"This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one." Just because a scientific study says one thing or another about nature doesn't mean that it says anything at all about public policy. Maybe if environmentalists would stop playing for complete control over our lives and learn how to compromise, some rational discussion could ensue about how science applies to policy. Admitting that the Kyoto protocols are somewhere between a complete failure and a con job would be a start. Environmentalists tried to foist a treaty on us that would (a) cost us somewhere in the trillions of dollars, (b) have no noticeable effect on global warming (ie- less than a tenth of a degree Celsius reduction over the next century), and (c) let some of the worlds biggest polluters continue to poison the atmosphere (ie- China). Doesn't the fact that they pushed it so hard for so long means that it is environmentalists who are ignoring science? Or perhaps science speaks only to the left side of the issues?

Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728929)

another reason for you liberals to hate yourselves.

Ice Caps (1)

olliec420 (1023207) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728933)

What happens when ice melts in a glass of water? The level stays the same.

Re:Ice Caps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728983)

Nobody is worried about glasses of water. The problem is when big shelves of ice supported by land melt and join the ocean. Thats when the sea level can rise.

Re:Ice Caps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16729009)

actually it doesn't.

Oooh! Analogies involving ice water! (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729091)

Here's another one! What happens to the temperature of the water if you put a pot of ice water over a flame?



(Answer: the average temperature barely changes until all the ice melts. Then, it skyrockets! Luckily, we're not in a pot of ice water over a flame. Of course, neither are we in a glass of ice.)

Recent thoughts by Will Steger.... (1)

skogs (628589) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728955)

I recently had the pleasure of attending a conference in Minnesota where Will Steger gave a talk. Some of the pencil necked may not know it, but his outward personna is that of the explorer that has crossed both poles by dogsled...the long way. Not the short trips across, just to say it was done, but the long way.

Actually, Steger impresses me as a scientist first, with unsurpassed real leadership and planning ability for the great outdoors. He made the comment that in the future he will not be remembered in history books for being "The first man to cross ...." but rather he will be noted as "The last man to cross ..." as those locations no longer exist.

Of his sharing, he talked about his trip across antarctica - the long way naturally. Those ice shelves that have fallen off and gone into the sea? Yeah...those were bigger than the state of Minnesota. Thats a pretty big hunk of ice. And now that the large part is gone, the warm air/water can now lap up farther inland and is melting those ice shelfs at an incredible rate. The long journey he took across antarctica doesn't exist anymore...its melted into the sea - HUNDREDS OF MILES OF IT.

On the Northern side...the polar bears are capable of swimming (don't quote me - examples only) up to 30 miles in the polar seas. They always feed close to land, and when it comes time they jump into the ocean and swim out to the ice...usually only 5-12 miles away. Now the ice shelves they are looking to swim to are over 60 miles away, so untold numbers of bears have plunged into the ocean as they always do...but this time they are simply drowning in it as there 'is no other side'.

He had a picture of a polar bear - you know...the coka-cola bears - that healthy and by bone structure should have weighed over 1200 pounds. It was dead - starved to death. It only weighed 70 pounds.

He had a video too...but didnt' show it as it was a bit gruesome. That hunger factor came in again...this time a full grown and hungry polar bear was eating one of the cubs since there was no other food around. Just picked it up and ate its own baby...which I guess they usually care for during a significant time period.

Pretty icky things from a man that has been there. A man that is more than qualified regardless of his political views to make sound decisions and observations on such matters.

Unfair charges against President Bush (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728991)

I bet neither Clinton or even TR could run away from a Polar bear either. Those fuckers are nasty.

this is just economic change (1)

mrpeebles (853978) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728997)

The polar bears just need to adapt to their changing environment. Instead of roaming around on the ice, looking for people to eat, they should go back to school, and try to find a way to get some of the new jobs with the shipping industry that will presumably be opening up there. We should let the bears know that these guys [pacprod.com] have been successful, and that the rest of them can be too

troolkore (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16729003)

ABOUT HALF OF THe that *BSD 0wned.

people can't read evidence for shit... (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729005)

since they think that because the earth is warming up it is due to something actually on the Earth. As with evidence that supposedly supports evolution, scientists need to take another look and remove their heads from their asses before saying anything else. Just because the Earth is warmer doesn't mean the source is actually on the Earth. We do have a big fireball less than a 100 million miles away that waxes and wanes in heat output (sunspot cycles). Maybe scientists should take a look at that instead.

Why blame Bush? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729013)

I don't like Bush, I didn't vote for him. I don't like the war in Iraq.

But my understanding is that this global warming thing has been known for decades. Besides, what is Bush supposed to do? Tax gasoline up to $20 a gallon?

Re:Why blame Bush? (1)

lionheart1327 (841404) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729115)

This is Slashdot. We always blame Bush.

Maybe the science section should be renamed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16729029)

the pseudo-science section.

50 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16729041)

So.. in 50 years, there will be no Ice in the arctic, no oil in the middle east, and no fish in the oceans... I'm glad I'll most likely be dead by then. I'm also glad I'll probably never have children.

Fine but it is not important. (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729057)

Who has time to worry about it when we have Presidental elections in the next two years. This of course the reason why no one in the industralized democratic world will ever do anything abut it because it will take a long term commitment. Which as you know modern democratic states cannot impliment because they only last a few years and spend most of their time in power pandering to the electorat to get re elected rather than actualy govern.

Medieval warm period? (1)

Brian Stretch (5304) | more than 7 years ago | (#16729069)

What about the medieval warm period? [wikipedia.org] From Climate chaos? Don't believe it [telegraph.co.uk] by Christopher Monckton:

So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So they did...


It's not that we're discounting the possibility of global warming, we're just skeptical of the idea of man-made global warming. Especially when it's elevated to the status of a pseudo-religion.

Mankind will die from its foolishness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16729103)

First of all, let me say this: could such natural changes really occur within a century? Planet-wide changes in mere centuries would be enough to wipe out all life on a planet. The life can't naturally adapt in such a short time. But still, let's even skip that fact completely.

Is it us? Is it natural? Why even care, why ask the damn question at all.

Let's imagine we're on a sinking ship:
- we assume we're responsible and we try to survive the sinking
- we assume it's a normal occurence and we try to survive the sinking

Except that so far all we've done is try to find out why we're sinking. It doesn't matter if it's us or if it's normal. The only really important part is that we're sinking and we need to survive.

Who cares why it's getting hotter, our very survival depends on combatting this. It may seem impossible, but mankind's very survival depends on it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>