Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Scientist: There is No Ice at the North Pole this Summer
independent.co.uk — It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year. The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic examples of the impact of global warming on the planet
MakiMaki- 1687 diggs
- digg it
- Rich711, on 06/27/2008, -99/+115Great! So exactly how many summers do activists get to make this claim with no effect before we can write off Global Warming as complete *****?
- Grimdotdotdot, on 06/27/2008, -17/+20While Global Warming obviously exists, Rich does have a point about this not being a new story...
- TrevorBradley, on 06/27/2008, -2/+5Well, when it was a new story, the year of prediction was 2100. Then it was 2038. Last year it was 2013.
The submitter is hyping it up too much. Scientists say there's about a 50/50 chance of no ice at the pole, which is different that a complete arctic melt. I don't think anyone's expecting that this year. Still that 2013 date is looking more realistic.
This is a major event outside the realm of a "natural cycle". The ice up there should be thousands of years old, not one year old. - mzaouar, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3Jehova's witnesses predicted it was 2013 :/
- TrevorBradley, on 06/27/2008, -2/+5Well, when it was a new story, the year of prediction was 2100. Then it was 2038. Last year it was 2013.
- aliengoods, on 06/27/2008, -26/+66Agreed. Shouldn't the title be "There MAY be no ice at the North Pole this Summer"? Perhaps I'll write a story predicting record temperatures. It doesn't matter if I'm wrong, as long as enough monkeys agree with me.
When in the hell did global warming become a religion? Always asking for money, trying to tell you what to do, sensationalistic stories loaded with damnation and few facts, and droves of people yelling "Save Yourself!"- expatcatalyst, on 06/27/2008, -15/+10Well said!
- brentfrye, on 06/27/2008, -18/+13Global warming is just like any other mass hysteria event and the reason stories like chicken little were written. People like Al Gore cry the sky is falling based on flimsy science and people follow him like lemmings off a cliff.
- JayWright, on 06/27/2008, -10/+9Dumbass.
- 1sammy, on 06/27/2008, -7/+11I assume you have links to the scientific consensus that global warming is in fact NOT happening?
- GnralHavoc, on 06/27/2008, -14/+4You sir are obviously a Communist and I should take you in front of Congress and question your patriotism.
Global warming is the same thing as the Red Scare for a new generation. - mathewsjw, on 06/27/2008, -5/+3@1sammy
try this one dolt:
www.junkscience.com
there are MANY with science backing exposing global warming as a HOAX, you just have to look. - CARHINO, on 06/27/2008, -3/+2Gnarl, what good wouldcome from taking communists in front of congress? Most members would call them comrades. Mathew the new way of digging is for the left to demand we prove a negative.
- mikeyeah, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Many people tend to agree with the majority of the scientific community when it comes to Global Warming. I could give a ***** what Al Gore says, I listen to scientists.
May Science have mercy on your soul.
- dgaspard, on 06/27/2008, -23/+42I really stopped worrying about global warming when politicians said they can only combat it with $45 trillion dollars. I mean seriously. When I first read that number I thought that news article was from the onion.
- Mustard911, on 06/27/2008, -15/+18So true Rich. Where's the satellite pics?
- SpacePoet, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4There was a whole time lapse film on that page of satellite views.
- norman619, on 06/27/2008, -6/+4The sats have all gone down because of all of the SUV driving we do here in the US. DUH!!!
- theJeebus, on 06/27/2008, -25/+27We still have Antarctica, which BTW is growing.
- SpacePoet, on 06/27/2008, -10/+10Yea, how much is it growing, why is it growing, what effect will that have on the whole thing? Just because you found one anomaly in the climate it does not mean it negates the debate.
- kholburn, on 06/27/2008, -7/+25Umm, no it's not. Land doesn't grow. The ice sheets in Antarctica are melting and breaking up.
How much do they pay you to say stuff like that? - chalkboy, on 06/27/2008, -9/+4A whole continent cooling means nothing. That is just a local weather pattern. BS!
- Badandy127, on 06/27/2008, -4/+4So a whole continent warming means nothing, because it could just be a local weather patter....right by your logic?
- chalkboy, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah it could. That is the point.
- SpacePoet, on 06/27/2008, -5/+16And actually, doing some research on the subject I find that you are wrong. Although there has been an increase in snow fall, which was expected due to more moisture in the air, the south pole is not increasing, it is shrinking, though much slower than the north. Here is one link of many i found that supports this http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=1678441
- leandrotami, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Correction: "We" do NOT have Antarctica. We, inhabitants of the Southern Hemisphere, have Antarctica. And not for long, probably, mostly because of the US and Europe.
- auto98, on 06/27/2008, -24/+35Apparently, the ice has been getting less for the last 6000 years - long before industrialisation
- TenebrousX, on 06/27/2008, -6/+18[citation needed]
- sodade, on 06/27/2008, -8/+6Whoever dugg this down is a ***** idiot. I repeat: [citation needed]
- kholburn, on 06/27/2008, -9/+4Since the garden of Eden perhaps?
- beerock, on 06/27/2008, -5/+3dugg for use of word "Apparently"
Jackass.
- TenebrousX, on 06/27/2008, -6/+18[citation needed]
- proliance, on 06/27/2008, -1/+10http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/boardgame ...
- mutz, on 06/27/2008, -9/+18There's no ice at the north pole? Whooaaaa... Start the drilling for oil!
- Nico_, on 06/27/2008, -22/+12Yeah global waming is total crap!
I mean omg how many times are we gonna listen to these tree hugging liberal hippies with their crap sience? The UN only says there is warming bause its a global conspiracy brought forth by tree hugging hippes! They want to tax your money to fund a new world order. How stupid can you be if you dont know this?
Cliamanatology is not even a real sience! Its crap! And even if there was these warmings I dont care! I wanna use my GOD JESUS given right to wear arms, drive huge cars eat huge burgers made of baby seals! I AM GODS MASTERPIECE FFS! GIVE ME EVERYTHING!
If you belive in this stupid ignorant ***** varmings you need to take a shower because you are a dirty hippy! GO PLANT A STUPID TREE! Are we really gonna risk losing money because of ***** sience by ***** golbalists UN?? Dont be fooled watch the documentary about the climate change lie on google videos, made by real scientists working at exxon mobile. They actually know what they are talking about cause they are real scientists unlike goverment lovin liberal treehugging hippie UN who wants to steal you dinnar!!
Mccain 4 lief !!! Lets kill some forigners to teach em democarcy 4 lief!- richbleak, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1Parody FTW
- CARHINO, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2HAVEN'T TRIED SEALBURGERS YET, ARE THEY ANY GOOD? HEARD THEY MAY BE A LITTLE GREASY. MY GIRLFRIEND REALLY LIKES THE WHITE FUR COAT I GOT HER FOR CHRISTMAS.
- rv36116, on 06/27/2008, -13/+16Green is the new terrrrism...
Good luck realizing it before we're all taxed to ***** death.- jameshales, on 06/27/2008, -5/+9Dugg for spelling it like George W. pronounces it.
- Schmich, on 06/27/2008, -3/+2Post buried, it sounded like propaganda but going the other way.In either way it should never have been called Global Warming but more Climate Change. I'm sure both sides are exagerating but what I _hate_ with humanity is how we act once it's too late or very close to it instead of taking precautious and preventive measures.
- CARHINO, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1Yes unfortunately it may be too late to act. We should have realized the left was a danger in the 60's, when they predicted an ice sheet covering most of North America within 20 years. (Interestingly enough many of the same "scientists" who now predict rising sea levels, from the SAME causes.) Or when they predicted massive overpopulation by the 1980s(Ehrlich) Our cities being choked to the point of requiring oxygen tanks to breath(ALGORE). Complete extinction of all birds and reptiles by ddt(Carson, found she faked her results to gain her agenda, wonder if the KKK thanked her and the envirowhackos for causing the deaths of millions of African children since the ddt ban?) Predicted the death of all sealife by 1990 (Ted Danson).
Luckily the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are teaming with life, even species of coral thought to be on the brink of extinction grow on them.
Yes, we should have taken steps 40 years ago to stop the spread of Liberalism, do your part, bitchslap a hippie lib today!!
- CARHINO, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1Yes unfortunately it may be too late to act. We should have realized the left was a danger in the 60's, when they predicted an ice sheet covering most of North America within 20 years. (Interestingly enough many of the same "scientists" who now predict rising sea levels, from the SAME causes.) Or when they predicted massive overpopulation by the 1980s(Ehrlich) Our cities being choked to the point of requiring oxygen tanks to breath(ALGORE). Complete extinction of all birds and reptiles by ddt(Carson, found she faked her results to gain her agenda, wonder if the KKK thanked her and the envirowhackos for causing the deaths of millions of African children since the ddt ban?) Predicted the death of all sealife by 1990 (Ted Danson).
- scamper22, on 06/27/2008, -5/+4it's not if Global Warming is happening or that the arctic ice is melting...it is what can/should we do about it.
I for one don't care at all that the arctic ice is melting. If anything, it is a good thing as it will make shipping easier. BTW... melting arctic ice does not increase sea levels as the ice's volume is already in the water.
Now, I do care if cities start flooding, the air I breathe becomes toxic, the water I drink becomes toxic, land becomes desert...
I do care (in a good way) that Canada's winter gets warmer.
I do care (in a good way) that people in cold countries will not freeze to death as often.
No ice at the North Pole...who gives a crapola.- leandrotami, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Are you being serious? Where do you think all that water is going to? Water that, by the way, was perfectly fresh and could have been used as a reserve in case obtaining water in the future ends up difficult to obtain. And what about the impact on the ecosystem or on the people?
Honestly, looking at someone who doesn't get shocked after witnessing such a global scale event like this one leaves me speechless. - simplysoleil, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4sweetheart, i'm not sure if you're aware, but i'm pretty certain that ice floats? ...so even though the ice's volume doesn't change, the sea level will because it will have new liquid in it - liquid that was once frozen and floating atop it.
wow. i sure do hope all my children will exude your undeniable intelligence. - mikeyeah, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4@scamper
You statement, "BTW... melting arctic ice does not increase sea levels as the ice's volume is already in the water," is wrong. The fresh water from the polar ice would not only raise current ocean levels, but would also have an affect on the ocean's salinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage - scamper22, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1simplysoleil
sweethwart :) you do know that ice takes up more volume than water.
Most of the ice in an iceberg is underneath the water. So think of it this way. The ice under the water, melts and it takes up less space. The ice above the water melts and adds to the water. But the net result is no change in the water level.
Here's a little experiment for you to try.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/blueplanet/ends/furthe ...
Now there's some evidence that the salt water changes this evidence abit, but then the rise in sea levels would be minuscule. Definitely not meters or something.
mikeyeah,
if you're going to post a link, at least have it say something. Please go through that wikipedia entry and show me where it says melting arctic ice would raise sea levels. It says no such thing, because it wouldn't be true.
Now greenland/ ANtarctic ice are other issues alltogether. If those melted...then yet... water levels would rise. - mikeyeah, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2@scamper
3rd paragraph states...
"Greenland's ice sheet contains enough fresh water as ice to raise sea level worldwide by 7 meters (23 ft).[7][8] Models predict a sea-level contribution of about 5 centimeters (2 in) from melting in Greenland during the 21st century.[9] It is also predicted that Greenland will become warm enough by 2100 to begin an almost complete melt during the next 1,000 years or more.[10][11]"
Why don't you at least read the link provided, so you don't continue to make an ass of yourself. - Rich711, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2How are we supposed to sell newspapers and get politicians elected with that attitude?? DOOM!! The end is near!! Global Warming is not a myth, I've seen it... in a movie!
- simplysoleil, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1@scamper
sweetheart, learn how to spell sweetheart.
=]
- leandrotami, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Are you being serious? Where do you think all that water is going to? Water that, by the way, was perfectly fresh and could have been used as a reserve in case obtaining water in the future ends up difficult to obtain. And what about the impact on the ecosystem or on the people?
- scoottie, on 06/27/2008, -3/+14
- IVillageIdiot, on 06/27/2008, -4/+3We only have to listen to this for one summer in every four.
When the election is over in November, this will die back down and we won't see it again for another four years (unless there are important mid-terms whose key demographic are the youth who haven't seen these kinds of tricks before), then it will be trotted back out to scare the pee-pee out of the young, the old, and the naive.
It's a cycle, ironically enough, just like winter, summer, spring, and fall where the Earth gets generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer, and generally cooler and then generally warmer.
And it continues that way for the last couple of eons.....
- Grimdotdotdot, on 06/27/2008, -17/+20While Global Warming obviously exists, Rich does have a point about this not being a new story...
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 06/27/2008, -57/+36"It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year... making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water."
This only means one thing: global warming is a "myth". Right?
We have such a gorgeous planet. Take a mental snapshot and hold onto it, for your children will never see it outside of the bedtime stories you tell them.
'There once was this beautiful place called the North Pole...' will be the first line of many a story in years to come.
Assuming it is not too late: we have 2 choices:
say goodbye to our planet... or whoop-kick some political ass.
P9- danielttt, on 06/27/2008, -27/+32Why don't you just get a grip. Your melodrama is nauseating. I'm sure it impresses you but you're not as Shakespearean as you believe. The earth will still be here next year. It will still hold it's beauty. Take your kids to Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Might make you feel better.
- Angostura, on 06/27/2008, -9/+10Melodramatic? There isn't going to be any ice at the North Pole this year. How did you get so blasé about the planet that you don't think this is worth impassioned comment?
- rohcky, on 06/27/2008, -8/+10George Carlin said it best in one of his standups. Nothing we do is going to destroy the earth. Everything that we are doing will only destroy our civilization. Once we're gone, the earth will revert back to normal and some new organism will take over.
Humans are so self important that they think they have so much effect on nature. - socket, on 06/27/2008, -7/+8I assure you that our increase of 1 degree in global temperatures over the last 60 years isn't the cause of the ice going away. Never mind that 1 degree could or could not be caused by mankind. Please carry on with the retarded panic and melodramatic nonsense.
- thirdeyeopen666, on 06/27/2008, -2/+5Whew. Thank god we've got socket's assurance.
- rezonq3, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2rohcky, I have a friend who once told me: "We are just a case of the fleas to the Earth. Once She's ready, She'll have a good scratch!"
- danielttt, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1The agony of these clowns is a hoot. Their running looney because they believe the north pole is melting.....What are they doing about it....These brainiacs are arguing with me on this forum. Damn, I hate to tell them, but I don't have any control over what's going on at either pole. They'd be better to start fillin their ice buckets and heading north. All together now....you can make a difference.
- rohcky, on 06/27/2008, -8/+10George Carlin said it best in one of his standups. Nothing we do is going to destroy the earth. Everything that we are doing will only destroy our civilization. Once we're gone, the earth will revert back to normal and some new organism will take over.
- MrErr, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3"I'm sure it impresses you but you're not as Shakespearean as you believe. The earth will still be here next year. It will still hold it's beauty. Take your kids to Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Might make you feel better." .. talk about being untheatrical!
- danielttt, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1"Warning, the content of this article may be inacurate..." That's the most troublesome thing to you global warming nazi's, isn't it....What are you gonna do if you don't have the realists to Hate...or worse yet...they all turn out to be amazingly right....The earth's gonna be OK.. As I said before...Get a grip, it'll be alright.
All of you ought to go to a park... somewhere quiet....by the way....it's still pretty freakin cold at the north pole water's still gonna freeze with no problem...Just trying to help...
- Angostura, on 06/27/2008, -9/+10Melodramatic? There isn't going to be any ice at the North Pole this year. How did you get so blasé about the planet that you don't think this is worth impassioned comment?
- vat0r, on 06/27/2008, -15/+19Seriously man. Quit being a political tool. Sure, humans have an impact on the climate but if you just take a moment and look back into history you will see that Earth's climate goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. All I'm saying is that trying to stop global warming is about as possible as reversing the direction the Earth spins.
Both political parties have realized the power behind this issue and they manipulate the public to further their agendas.- niczar, on 06/27/2008, -6/+9You're right, dinosaurs have experienced global warming, and they aren't complaining about it. For some reason.
- LordPhilMil, on 06/27/2008, -4/+6And it was caused by all those inefficient Power plants they ran back then too...
- norman619, on 06/27/2008, -4/+2Actually they experienced global COOLING. The planet was a hell of a lot warmer back them. Not to mention the atmosphere was MUCH thicker as well. Dinosaurs would have a hard time breathing in our current atmosphere. It would be like us climbing o the top of the highest mountain peaks. But don't let reality and scientific facts get in the way of your rant of ignorance. I'm sure there are plenty of monkeys here with your mindset.
- niczar, on 06/27/2008, -6/+9You're right, dinosaurs have experienced global warming, and they aren't complaining about it. For some reason.
- GoatMonkey2112, on 06/27/2008, -9/+9So, you must go to the North Pole a lot to be able to take mental pictures, right? I've never been there, so an *actual* picture will have to work like it does for everyone else.
- vat0r, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Here's a mental picture for you:
You-Gun-Suicide
- vat0r, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Here's a mental picture for you:
- thcobbs, on 06/27/2008, -9/+4OH MY GOD! THE SKY IS FALLING.....
WE DON'T HAVE ICE AT THE NORTH POLE!
Its not like its never happened before. It didn't ruin the planet. We'll survive. Now, go complain about something that matters.- LokitheComplex, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5It probably should have said "recorded history."
- Angostura, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Ruin the planet? Possibly not. Seriously change existing ecosystems? Yes. Drive huges numbers of advanced species extinct? Yes. Irrevocably change our civilisation and possibly destroy it? Yes.
Now. Define "something that matters" which you would like me to complain about. Oh, that's right - universal healthcare provision.
Twerp. - thcobbs, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1I'll define it as something that matters when it really is our fault.... Otherwise, we've just got to do our best to beat out Darwinism.
- gryphon50, on 06/27/2008, -2/+8you are a voice crying in the wilderness. These idiots have some sort of personal stake in NOT believing in global warming, no matter what the evidence is. It's kind of like Creationism, no amount of evidence can convince them otherwise.
- MrErr, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Just so you know, u dugg your comment up. i am a creationist and believe that we are causing global warming.
- MrErr, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4I think rising gas prices actually help the cause of slowing global warming.
- danielttt, on 06/27/2008, -27/+32Why don't you just get a grip. Your melodrama is nauseating. I'm sure it impresses you but you're not as Shakespearean as you believe. The earth will still be here next year. It will still hold it's beauty. Take your kids to Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Might make you feel better.
- meltlight, on 06/27/2008, -18/+145it's OK. Russia claimed the north pole for themselves last year so it's their problem.
- zyklon, on 06/27/2008, -0/+16Yeah, but Canada cracked on them for being too "15th century" making the claim. Canada's only mad because they claimed it while creating Nunavut, and Russia's impeding on their "land". Maybe it's Canada's problem too?
- mrcpu, on 06/27/2008, -10/+14a) The North Pole and Santa's workshop belong to Canada
b) Global warming is everybody's problem!
:-)- thcobbs, on 06/27/2008, -6/+9c.) Global Warming is making working conditions much better for those poor oppressed elves!
- leandrotami, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Ha, no Christmas this year after Santa's Workshop finally sinks...
- Rudegar, on 06/27/2008, -6/+6they dont want ice for their vodka they want the oil on the buttom
lack of ice would make it easier to drill out really - megamod, on 06/27/2008, -13/+1in Russia Norrrth Pople melt you, ya?
- pjr12345, on 06/27/2008, -95/+276Let's examine the first sentence of this shock report:
"It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year."
1) Apparently ice is "on course" to disappear. Therefore it must still be there.
2) "Unthinkable"? Really? says who?
3) Since the very first successful human expedition to the North Pole occurred in 1909, at best we're dealing with less than one hundred years of history. After that, an airplane flew over it in 1926. The remaining visits to the North Pole occurred in 1958, 1969, and 1977. That means that actual known human visits to the North Pole have occurred only during the past 100 years, and there have only been a handful of them. It has not been until the age of spy satellites that any consistent information about the Pole could be known, and that is probably less than 30 years, and no more than 50.
The very first sentence of this "article" demonstrates it to be an agenda driven, piece of fear-mongering propaganda.- randf, on 06/27/2008, -31/+17green damn you, you...rational-nonhysterical-nonhumancentric, thinking person you...green damn you to global warming hell!
now go get hysterical, key a hummer, and cry in your soy-milk latte in a recycled cup with the rest of them!- laughandsing, on 06/27/2008, -7/+8Was that supposed to be funny?
- angryredplanet, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2The whole "Global Warming is a religion" lynch-chant is getting old, particularly when it's clearly based in ad hominem and it's essence is contrary to any observed evidence.
The last sentence made me take offence to you so if you're trying to win admiration or generate some kind of anti-global-warming kinship, you have failed.
- thefloss, on 06/27/2008, -7/+31"The remaining visits to the North Pole occurred in 1958, 1969, and 1977"
Actually, Jeremey Clarkson and the boys from Top Gear drove there recently.- Goblin, on 06/27/2008, -2/+20Well, they only drove to the location of magnetic north pole and even that was based on where it was several years ago (since magnetic north wanders about a bit), which leaves them several hundred miles shy of the "real" north pole.
- megamod, on 06/27/2008, -4/+8lol...you nooby, that would count as "until the age of spy satellites that any consistent information about the Pole could be known". He was just trying to counter their argument that "for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year"
- br0ken1128, on 06/27/2008, -18/+46Personally I think it's irresponsible to assume the best (that it's not true) .. rather than yelling at each other about whether or not global warming exists, lets just assume the worst and do something to at least improve the air we breathe.. if it truly is NOT as big of an issue as we're lead to believe, it very well could become an issue at some point, so let's be responsible.
- FREETHINKER2008, on 06/27/2008, -15/+7It's about time someone made some sense.
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -16/+18People would much rather be skeptical and deny anything that will inconvenience them into making any slight alteration in their lifestyle.
"I'm not going to do anything differently until someone proves beyond what people have already proven in regards to global warming. I will also latch onto any shred of news, even from oil execs and those officially/obviously paid off by oil execs that tells me global warming is made up by Al Gore"- samoscratch, on 06/27/2008, -8/+7^
Ding Ding Ding - borealiz, on 06/27/2008, -4/+5yes, no. Yes, people are in denial. No, the research evidence mandates radical, not slight, alterations in our lifestyle. Such disruption (voluntary or not) will be traumatic. So, the deeper the anticipated trauma, the stronger the denial.
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -3/+4borealiz: the problem is that even slight alteration goes a long way to helping the whole. But people bitch and moan about any change at all.
"I live in America, land of the free, home of bald eagles and apple pies and no one is going to tell me when I can and can't have my bathroom light on. God damnit, if I have to turn my bathroom light off when I'm not using it, then the green fascist communist dictator overlord scientists conservatives liberals democrat republicans have already won!" - borealiz, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1hey marx2k ::
climate scientists such as Hansen, et al have said we need to radically reorder our society's energy use. (I'm not against slight alterations, except that they allow people to buy green indulgences and feel good) There is a tipping point out there beyond which the climate won't be able to self-regulate at a temperature that allows for human society (at best). We don't know where that point is, but if we remain satisfied with slight alterations that aren't sufficient for us to avoid that point -- bad news, we fry.
The emotional volatililty of GW deniers (ordinary folks, not the shills) tells me people are unconsciously aware that extensive alterations are needed and that they are (justifiedly) scared at what they might have to sacrifice. To be morally consistent, admitting the need for small alteration leads to admitting the need for profound alterations (given the looming, yet invisible tipping point), so denial gives comfort by avoiding that sequence of thought altogether. - marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0I agree. And what I am saying is that a little is better than none. Of course, more > little > none
- borealiz, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0yes. But my point is that climate scientists are implying (or stating in some cases) that "little" won't be enough -- making little = none, if we pass the tipping point.
So, to look at "little" in terms of cultural action, one distinction might be : if doing a little fosters wider public willingness to do more, then it's good. If doing little fosters complacency (by assuaging motivating guilt) and leads to less action, then it's bad.
If you accept that then useful questions come up : Do green marketing nodes such as treehugger.com lead to catastrophically insufficient action by instilling complacency in the people who believe GW is real?
- samoscratch, on 06/27/2008, -8/+7^
- utnow, on 06/27/2008, -3/+5The reason this is a bad position is because of something else that was also mentioned earlier... it's *really really* expensive to go this route. It would be on par with owning a run-down crackhouse with low mortgage payments so you can afford your 45 trillion dollar ionic breeze air purifier... just in case.
Not all of us want to bankrupt our countries because of white-guilt and a guess.- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -8/+2if (youtThink(globalWarming == whiteGuilt)) {
you = idiotFactory.makeAnotherIdiot("utnow");
} else {
me.setSarcasmMeter.broken(true);
} - pjr12345, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I love the extremists' use of language to undermine their opponents. Facts may not support them, but they're determined to win. For example, "GW deniers". As if the religion of global warming is factual, then those who don't believe are infidels.
From now on, let's call the global warming alarmists "chicken littles", or perhaps we can simply stick with the term "whackos".
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -8/+2if (youtThink(globalWarming == whiteGuilt)) {
- djepik, on 06/27/2008, -1/+6Say that again when they carbon-tax your gas.
- Sverre, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1I'm looking forward to it.
- pjpark, on 06/27/2008, -4/+5No, "improving the air we breathe" is not the issue because carbon dioxide makes up about 38 thousandths of a percent of our atmosphere. Some people may begin to notice the affects of carbon dioxide at levels above 1% (in a crowded room for a long time, for example). The air you exhale contains about 5% carbon dioxide. The only way to get people excited about the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increasing by about 2 thousandths of a percent is to play on people's fears and superstitions about climate change.
- buba1243, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Really have you been to a big city lately? Try living in Dallas some day when you can't see the sky scrappers 15 miles down the street when the smog is really bad.
- KillingHours, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0Henh... come to Houston sometime and watch the morning sunrise. Still doesn't mean the globe is slowing melting into oblivion.
- reisrocks, on 06/27/2008, -1/+6also known as the walking talking encyclopedia
- Rudegar, on 06/27/2008, -6/+13"1) Apparently ice is "on course" to disappear. Therefore it must still be there."
i think they mean the large connecting of a full icecap rather then whats most likely the case now
of smaller plades and icebergs floating around without being connected- FordSVT1, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Dugg down twice for giving a rational clarification for what the article means?
Dug back up because diggers are idiots....
- FordSVT1, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Dugg down twice for giving a rational clarification for what the article means?
- galore, on 06/27/2008, -14/+6Oh noes, it's the AGENDA !!!!!!!!!!!
- harlowsmonkeys, on 06/27/2008, -5/+21Wait a minute--you seem to think that it isn't possible to determine the climate of an area for times before humans actually first visited that area!?
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -14/+3Well since the earth is only 6000 years old and flat, it should be REALLY easy.
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1heh, sarcasm is too toned down this morning or something?
- groumpf, on 06/27/2008, -3/+9I totally agree here, especially when the ground is made of ice... It is actually pretty easy to note when that large chunk of ice last melted, by simply measuring its thickness... It is an approximate process, yes. Though, much less approximate than the "check if it's there when you get to the pole" approach advocated by pjr12345.
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -14/+3Well since the earth is only 6000 years old and flat, it should be REALLY easy.
- nbyn, on 06/27/2008, -9/+15Come on! You should know on Digg "agenda driven" and "fear-mongering" are tags reserved for Fox News and McCain Operatives.
- bsmang, on 06/27/2008, -14/+7Don't be a dick.
- utnow, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Vagina's rule!
- OrangeTide, on 06/27/2008, -9/+14if people aren't trying to scare us with the threat of "terrorist attacks" or "drugs" or "cell phone radiation", they are trying to scare us with "human caused global warming".
There is nothing that your hybrid car will do to reverse the effects, so deal with it. Because it still runs on ***** gasoline, and we all still eat beef. (methane is worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas)- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -13/+2"and we all still eat beef"
Speak for yourself, rottencolon- MisterEX, on 06/27/2008, -1/+8"You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac El Dorado convertible. Hot pink! With whale-skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights! Yeah! And I'm gonna drive around in that baby at 115 MPH, getting one mile per gallon, suckin' down Quarter-Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonalds in the old-fashioned non-biodegradable Styrofoam container and when I'm done suckin' down those grease-ball burgers, I'm gonna wipe my mouth with the American flag, and I'm gonna toss the Styrofoam containers right out the side, and there ain't a goddamn thing anybody can do about it. You know why? Because we got the bombs. That's why! Two words! Nuclear *****' weapons, okay? Russia, Germany, Romania, they can have all the democracy they want. They can have a big democracy cake and walk right through the middle of Tiananmen Square and it won't make a lickin' difference cause we got the bombs, okay?" -Dennis Leary
- danielsamuels, on 06/27/2008, -5/+3@MisterEX: You're an *****.
- heliox, on 06/27/2008, -1/+6For quoting Denis Leary?
- Midtowner, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1That's the name of the song.
- danielsamuels, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Wow, that reference went right over some people's heads.. Midtowner, you are correct.
- urthwalker, on 06/27/2008, -5/+6Running on gas doesn't mean all cars are equal. A Hybrid engine burning a gallon to move 50 miles is inarguably more efficient than one that goes 12. Better yet, my European car which gets 60+ and all I have to sacrifice is my ability to drive over 85mph.
Moreover, it would cost 7billion to convert EVERY car on American roads to a hybrid engine - that's about, what ... a few weeks in Iraq?- hexydes, on 06/27/2008, -3/+4Yes, until the environmental crowd starts bitching about how hybrids haven't solved the problem, and we need to do something else radical.
The problem with global warming is, even if it does exist (which no, there is not a consensus), what do you propose to do? If it really was just turning off lights and driving a bit less, then I don't think anyone would have a problem. However, the environmental crowd doesn't even have a plan, they just bitch about global warming, without offering a REAL plan (just radical solutions like "no more cars", "tax companies to death", "join the Kyoto treaty that punishes the US but not other countries", etc) People are resistant to change because you've made no practical suggestions as to what needs to change, just that you need billions and billions of their dollars to do it.
Come up with a definitive plan on how to stop global warming, and then maybe people will listen to you. If you simply sit there and yell at them about what they're doing, but don't tell them what to do alternatively, eventually they're just going to tune you out. - eggsovereasy, on 06/27/2008, -0/+6Ok, according to the US Bureau of Transit Statistics in 2006 there were, 250,851,833 registered passenger vehicles in the US. If we could convert every single car to be a hybrid for $7B then it would cost about $27.90 each. Even if you include only cars (135,399,945) it would cost only $51.67 each. Maybe I am a moron, but this seems absurdly low. If you can tell me where I can go get a hybrid engine in my car for fifty bucks I will go do it tomorrow and that's a promise.
I would expect this conversion to cost closer to $10,000 a car at the cost of $1,353,999,450,000 just to do the cars, add in trucks, suv's, buses, etc and it gets to $2,508,518,330,000.
I don't know where you got this ***** "fact".
Cars in US: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transport ...
- hexydes, on 06/27/2008, -3/+4Yes, until the environmental crowd starts bitching about how hybrids haven't solved the problem, and we need to do something else radical.
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -13/+2"and we all still eat beef"
- wastelander, on 06/27/2008, -10/+19What the heck is this "agenda" supposed to be? A conspiracy to increase ratings for the weather channel?
Or do you just assume climatologists are all on the payroll of the "big bicycle" lobby?- proliance, on 06/27/2008, -13/+10Are you unaware of the people who are making millions of $ scaring us into donating our hard earned money or govts. who want to tax us into a depression?
- amoro99, on 06/27/2008, -6/+7Now THAT'S some fear-mongering
- borealiz, on 06/27/2008, -4/+7are you unaware of the people making millions drilling and selling gas, coal, natural gas, and nukes to us? And they're all subsidized now. This is not hypothetical.
- auto98, on 06/27/2008, -10/+4the ranks of "climatologists" have swelled a hundredfold since first ozone depletion then GW showed up as theory - the thing they are protecting is their very existence, without a climatological "disaster" pending they have no use, and thus no job.
- amoro99, on 06/27/2008, -3/+6So things like planning for droughts, floods, long term shifts in sea currents, that sort of stuff, would be useless without climate change? Hardly.
- auto98, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1amoro - no, but then most of that was covered for years under the heading "meteorology" - I'm not saying they are ALL useless, just those that use GW as the base for their job instead of as you say stuff that might actually be helpful.
- TheTSArt, on 06/27/2008, -5/+2Just look at what they are trying to do to people over in England with Carbon Credits. That's America next. Global Warming is about amassing power.
- proliance, on 06/27/2008, -13/+10Are you unaware of the people who are making millions of $ scaring us into donating our hard earned money or govts. who want to tax us into a depression?
- thedogfatherx, on 06/27/2008, -6/+2Welcome to Digg.
- urthwalker, on 06/27/2008, -1/+16Duh...core samples?? Oh, I forgot - Satan put them there to confuse us!
- djepik, on 06/27/2008, -6/+2Oh you're right. Core samples from 100,000 years ago will tell you that in the winter of 94,304 BC there was a little more ice than normal... BS
- FordSVT1, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Uhhhh, yeah?
Careful, that magic computer you're working on that uses magic, fake electrons might stop working if you sneeze too hard, idiot. - djepik, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Dude what does that even mean.
I hate to quote wikipedia but:
"The length of the record depends on the depth of the ice core and varies from a few years up to 800 kyr for the EPICA core. The time resolution (i.e. the shortest time period which can be accurately distinguished) depends on the amount of annual snowfall, and reduces with depth as the ice compacts under the weight of layers accumulating on top of it. Upper layers of ice in a core correspond to a single year or sometimes a single season. Deeper into the ice the layers thin and annual layers become indistinguishable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
This is where I would retort with an equally ridiculous insult as your fake electrons one, but I just can't think of anything that stupid.
- FordSVT1, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Uhhhh, yeah?
- jorisb, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4I'm not sure if they even take core samples from the north pole, it's a floating ice sheet. There's no telling where it was a 1000 years ago.
Also the bottom is in contact with saltwater, so it's always melting from the bottom up. It's not nearly as thick as antarctic or greenland ice sheets.
- djepik, on 06/27/2008, -6/+2Oh you're right. Core samples from 100,000 years ago will tell you that in the winter of 94,304 BC there was a little more ice than normal... BS
- minorthreat, on 06/27/2008, -0/+14"Since the very first successful human expedition to the North Pole occurred in 1909, at best we're dealing with less than one hundred years of history."
I'm by no means a "global-warming hippy", but come on....
So when scientist drill into the ice in Antarctica to determine the CO2 levels of the earths atmosphere 100,000 years ago. You don't think they attempted to do something likewise with the ice on the north pole to get a rough estimate of age? Really, you don't think we have a way to determine ice levels prior to 1909?- dcshiderly, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0Yes, it would have nothing to do with the massive volcanic activity beneath the Arctic Ocean. Nope, not at all.
- minorthreat, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1is your comment even relevant to my post? I was just saying there are ways to determine if ice existed before 1909, which it obviously did. Volcanos under the ocean? Where's your link?
- minorthreat, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1is your comment even relevant to my post? I was just saying there are ways to determine if ice existed before 1909, which it obviously did. Volcanos under the ocean? Where's your link?
- Shiggie, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1maybe they did not do this because the ice is melting in the first place.
- dcshiderly, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0Yes, it would have nothing to do with the massive volcanic activity beneath the Arctic Ocean. Nope, not at all.
- ElAssoWipo, on 06/27/2008, -2/+18Hate to point it out to you, but the north pole has been inhabited for 3,000 years.
And having been to Kuujjuaq (most northern village in Quebec) only a month ago, it's true.
The permafrost melted. Their houses are falling appart. - amoro99, on 06/27/2008, -6/+11"The very first sentence of this "article" demonstrates it to be an agenda driven, piece of fear-mongering propaganda."
For the purpose of what exactly? You think these scientists actually believe we can stop the climate change? The article states that it's the first time in human history that there's no ice at the North Pole. I say that is amazing. And when the ostriches claim that humans couldn't possibly have any affect on the globe, you may now point squarely at this. Even if there is some ice there this summer, clearly it's only a few summers away.
I guess now the ostrich's talking points will shift from "NO WAY" to "SO WHAT". Sad.- Specializedone, on 06/28/2008, -1/+0"And when the ostriches claim that humans couldn't possibly have any affect on the globe, you may now point squarely at this."
The only thing that the northpole not being covered in ice is indicative of is that the Earth's climate is warming. I dont know any scientist that claims this not to be true. I do know plenty who argue that were jumping to conclusions saying that we are solely responsible for this shift in climate.
- Specializedone, on 06/28/2008, -1/+0"And when the ostriches claim that humans couldn't possibly have any affect on the globe, you may now point squarely at this."
- warriorscot, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4I have to point out that the lack of ice at the poles would only happen if the pack ice had retreated that far and since you dont usually get holes at one spot you would not have to actually visit the pole to confirm ice.
- DiggasWAttitude, on 06/27/2008, -3/+4Congratulations. That was the single stupidest comment to ever get 130+ diggs. You're blinding me with science. "How can humans no what the sun is if theyv never stud on it?"
And I thought digg was full of science nerds. - bignetbuy, on 06/27/2008, -3/+4You arrogant prick. There were expeditions in 1948, 1959 and 1968. Those were just additional US missions that you conveniently "forgot." Those don't include missions by other countries -- you know, the other 192+ countries in the world who conduct scientific research.
It is unthinkable to many because reaching the North Pole used to require nuclear-powered ice breakers but will soon require just a sailboat to reach the top of the earth. The ice caps used to be measured in hundreds of feet...are now measured in tens or even just feet.
Take off your damned conspiracy hat.- Hopesteroni, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1How can a ice breaker of maybe 15,000 tons displacement break ice that is (as you say) hundreds of feet thick?
It can't.
How can a submarine surface at the North pole, breaking through the ice, if it is really that thick?
It can't.
I think you need to look at your estimates of ice thickness at the pole.
- Hopesteroni, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1How can a ice breaker of maybe 15,000 tons displacement break ice that is (as you say) hundreds of feet thick?
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2It demonstrates main stream media - don't blame the science for the journalism
- Spoomeister, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2I can't believe you're reducing legitimate concern about a potentially huge crisis to a glorified "pics, or it didn't happen".
- djepik, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2I think by "glorified pics or it didn't happen" you mean "evidence" and if that's so bad, then shoot me for being a conspiracist.
I really don't think it's all that bad to ask for some evidence before sending the world's economy down the gutter.
- djepik, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2I think by "glorified pics or it didn't happen" you mean "evidence" and if that's so bad, then shoot me for being a conspiracist.
- KillingHours, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Ahh you liberal "we're all going to burn" hippies make me laugh. "The sky is falling" comes to mind.
Let me help point out all the stupidity and show the rest of the audience just how ignorant and uneducated you types really are. I'll present my questions and when you can answer them... you will have proved the "global warming" scam to be "truth" instead of communism. (which it is) However... you won't be able to answer the questions and you will try to attack me in any other way you possibly can as a way to save face. Rest assured... I have thick skin and could care less what you say or think of me. I'm going to prove a point though.
First and foremost, As with EVERYTHING on planet earth... there are billions of variables that go into an equation in order to produce a result. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. So.. with that being said.
1. How much influence does our solar system and/or our universe play into our planets climate?
2. What is the OVERALL TREND of erratic solar behavior and earth's temp?
You can't answer that because you don't know. But instead of working to find answers to those questions and what we should do about it in the future... you "crazies" are willing to sacrifice everything for a cause you know nothing about. The only thing you do know if that the same "media" and "government" that gave you the Iraq war, Gulf war and all the "bad things" you don't like is now telling you that THIS is the problem and you should listen to what we have to say now. Hmm... it's funny to watch the stupid idiots who buy "Global Warming" as the "end all" gobble up everything someone else is telling them without knowing a thing for themselves.
If you had paid attention in school instead of texting your brains away... you would know that... plants use co2 as food and expel oxygen as waste. So in essence... by releasing co2 into the atmosphere... you are feeding the plants that all the vegetarian fruitcakes like to eat. You also encourage the plant life to grow bigger and thicker as there is more abundant food (co2) and can sustain more plant life.
So by reducing the amount of co2 that is in the air... in all actuality... you are reducing the sustainability of the earth and it's capacity to harbor plant life.
But here's the kicker... I love this post from br0ken1128:
"Personally I think it's irresponsible to assume the best (that it's not true) .. rather than yelling at each other about whether or not global warming exists, lets just assume the worst and do something to at least improve the air we breathe.. if it truly is NOT as big of an issue as we're lead to believe, it very well could become an issue at some point, so let's be responsible."
br0ken... I would love to use that same mentality to all the people i meet in life. Personally I think it's "irresponsible" for anyone to look at me the wrong way and rather than yell at them about whether they meant aggression or not... I'll just take action and "assume" the worst and shoot them. (Worst being.. they meant to kill me.) That would last about how long in your utopia???
What you DON'T understand is "taxes" and "carbon credits" and "pay checks" and "bills". What until you understand those things before you start spouting off what you think. Why would you want to throw what little money you do or don't have at a problem you can't prove one way or the other??? I can tell you why... you are a poster child for "ignorance".
Did you ever stop to think down the path of "what if I'm wrong"??? No... you just got caught up in "I'm right and your wrong". Think about this... what if you ARE wrong and you allow the U.N. to setup a tax on everything you do and it comes to light that this was all b.s. and a hoax? What then? You gonna fly to the U.N. and do what? You gonna stop paying your taxes and what? Think about what you are asking for before you end up as a slave to a power you will have ZERO control over. Maybe you should research the word "FREEDOM".
I challenge ANYONE to answer the two questions I've put before you. Show how much you know. Prove "global warming" as "truth".
-Killing Hours- RungeKutta, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Haha, what are you 12? Awesome essay there kiddo.
Your best quote is "First and foremost, As with EVERYTHING on planet earth... there are billions of variables that go into an equation in order to produce a result. That is a fact that cannot be disputed." I suppose I might as well just toss out my physics books, because they're all arong. I just don't remember equations of a billion or more variables for anything. On top of that, I might as well just forget my entire engineering education because usually I worked with equations of just a few variables. The largest system I did was a project in Linear Algebra with a 15x15 matrix. Oh well, can't argue with facts can I. - relativeLogic, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0@ RungeKutta:
I think what Killing Hours is referring to is non-linear time series statistical inference. In either case, the correlation coefficient squared of any variable Y regressed on N variables x(1), x(2), ..., x(N), will only converge to 1 (ie perfectly modeled) as N goes to infinity. So, although standard OLS regression (via the basic linear algebraic techniques you learned in kindergarten, college or whatever) could be used to analyze such a time series, the explanatory power of such a model would likely be minimal, even with 15 unknowns, and many, many observations. And yes, when it comes to complex systems, you should probably toss out your physics books (which is difficult to say as a Theoretical Physics undergrad myself) and pick up some good texts on Bayesian Inference, Signal Analysis, Financial Time Series etc. - allnone, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2I read the first one and I was exhausted after that. I'll be damned if I read all this new *****.
- Specializedone, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0What he's saying is that the Earth's climate is many times more complex than what any single computer model based on an algorithm can explain, that's it. Unless one can account for all variables when trying to model something, how accurate is said model?
- KillingHours, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0@RungeKutta
Good job "kiddo"... You've proved my point. Without touching on the questions posted... you went straight to attacking me as a person instead of my arguments which are the issue. You just showed the mentality of the "green movement" types. You can not prove your argument so you attack and "try" to disprove the opposing sides arguments by poor attempts at belittling.
Try this slick, Open your "all knowledgeable" physics books and point to what exactly "dark matter" is and how it works. Bet you can't. Guess your physics books don't mean jack in that regard now do they? How many other factors do we NOT know about floating about in space? According to your physics books... explain the universe. Again, you can't because we don't know it all. Same applies with supposed "global warming". We can't prove one way or the other that it is or ISN'T caused by man. All we know is that one gas, out of ALL the gases, that make up our atmosphere comes from our tailpipes and greedy men have it in mind to tax what has been built into everyday life. Imagine if they were going to start taxing all the air you breathe... would you buy into it then? What if they said we were using to much oxygen... would you pay for it then? Or would you want to know if we REALLY were using to much oxygen?
You're are so gullible and like many other people you are being duped into thinking that "we must save our planet" and the only way to save our planet is through taxing the living hell out people and shifting that money into funds and pockets of the wealthy. Why? ... "CONTROL".
As with gas prices today, they can manipulate YOUR behavior via "CONTROL". The price of gas goes up... you do less, you have less to spend. If they setup a fake problem (i.e. Global Warming) and they say.. "Ok... G.W. is going to be bad this year... you now need to pay $50 for every week you drive your car and it might go up to $100 if we see that it's not helping any".... how are you going to prove them wrong? How are you going to stop sending money to the dictators at that point? It will be to late and you finally wake up to what we've all been saying all along... IT'S FAKE AND IT'S FOR CONTROL!!!
Research FREEDOM !!!! Learn HISTORY !!!! Don't make the same mistakes of past generations... their mistakes are their greatest legacy, do not fall into the same traps they spilled blood to get us out of or the saying will come full circle and "history will repeat itself".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.s. Funny you liked my "essay"... but when it comes to simple minded people... one has to break it down "Mr. Potato Head" style so that all the window lickers can keep up with the intelligent conversation.
Don't forget to put your helmet on before physics class today jr.
I got jokes too. ;-)
- RungeKutta, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Haha, what are you 12? Awesome essay there kiddo.
- addman0, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0yes OK so the ice is malting now, but what about before. the graph they showed state from 1979 to 2000. last time i check the earth is billions of year old you cant say the this is bad or normal when you give so little time line in your evidences. in fact all it say is we having a bad or hot summer (i mean in the earth time not humans) if you can show me profit that in all of earth history form that the warming of the ice has never happen like this then i will say is bad. but in tell then this is still out.
(of course im not saying the we should still pollute that bad )
- randf, on 06/27/2008, -31/+17green damn you, you...rational-nonhysterical-nonhumancentric, thinking person you...green damn you to global warming hell!
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 06/27/2008, -54/+47You obviously have zero grasp on the significance of this research - not to mention the implications this can have on ocean, climate, farming, flooding, and potential impact in billions who live in coastal regions all over the world.
It's 'people' like you that stall, deny and bury their heads up to their assholes in this proverbial sands and think all of the calls to fix our environment is "melodrama".
You want drama, danielttt? Stay in daniel - denial a few more years. The you'll have drama you can't swim away from.
You have no idea what we are pissing away.- pjr12345, on 06/27/2008, -31/+24Did you know that when water freezes it expands? Inversely, when ice melts, the volume it fills decreases. That being FACT, should all the ice in the poles melt, we can expect the volume of water in the oceans to decrease.
Similarly, have you ever wondered why the Vikings would name a frozen tundra "Greenland"? If you do the least bit of research you'll discover that not very long ago (say 500 years) Greenland was MUCH warmer than now.
But hey, don't let the facts part you from your religion.- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 06/27/2008, -13/+10"Ever wondered how Greenland got it's name?" WTF? This is your response to these findings? What intellectual planet are you from?
You have a right to your own opinion, but you do not have a right to your own set of personal "facts".
Perhaps this is your speed: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm- JayTee44, on 06/27/2008, -5/+6he is correct that 500 years ago (actually 1000 - 500 years ago) there was a much warmer period, making it possible to farm in greenland.
Look the article destroys itself instantly in the first sentence, and everyone takes climate change seriously.
It doesn't help a serious issue. - vonmises05, on 06/27/2008, -4/+4It's not his opinion, it's fact. There are records from the early days of the US and Medieval Europe that record record low temperatures (that means changes in weather patters) like we see today. The planet has fluctuated for eons. Stop your fear-mongering and find a cause that actually makes sense and will really change something. The only reason you global warming drum-thumpers are anxious is because you want the cities we live in the smell better. Grow up.
- socket, on 06/27/2008, -4/+2Well first off p9s50W5k4GUD2c6 is your standard global warming alarmist, pot stirring, follower of the blind. I have to deal with these mindless douche bags multiple times a day. But generally within an hour or two I can deprogram them enough so they'll calm down enough to take a few deep breaths and restore normal oxygen flow to their brains.
Wow the Noth Pole melted?! ALL THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING! IT MUST OF BEEN MY DAMN SUV THAT DID IT.
- JayTee44, on 06/27/2008, -5/+6he is correct that 500 years ago (actually 1000 - 500 years ago) there was a much warmer period, making it possible to farm in greenland.
- Soniti, on 06/27/2008, -2/+7Decisive victory! A bit of kitchen sink science to prove your point, good show sir!
- wrathchilde, on 06/27/2008, -3/+49"Did you know that when water freezes it expands? Inversely, when ice melts, the volume it fills decreases. That being FACT, should all the ice in the poles melt, we can expect the volume of water in the oceans to decrease."
This is so incorrect, it does not deserve clarification, but as an oceanographer I cannot allow this to pass.
If ice (solid water which occupies a larger volume than its liquid form) melts, then there is exactly the same volume of water in a given basin. If you are referring to the sea level, this too stays exactly the same when floating ice melts. Only melting ice that is grounded, or on land, has the potential to affect sea level.
Really people, how can you digg up such a complete hogwash observation?- MrSkills, on 06/27/2008, -0/+7Quite right, wrathchilde, Also, the South Pole is over land, so it's only the North that would not have an effect in sea level. But it would still have a massive effect on ocean currents.
- pjr12345, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1You believe what you want, but I don't advise you putting a sealed bottle of water in your freezer on "faith".
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -3/+4So let me get this straight... you're saying that when the polar ice caps melt, we won't have any problem because there will be LESS water int he sea due to the event?
You should totally get a PhD and go work for an oil company as their PR. That's the best one I've heard yet.
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 06/27/2008, -13/+10"Ever wondered how Greenland got it's name?" WTF? This is your response to these findings? What intellectual planet are you from?
- DerangedPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -5/+5Digging you up for the use of the words: "deny and bury their heads up to their assholes" "melodrama" "zero grasp" "The you'll have drama you can't swim away from." extra points for reference to flooding. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/08 ...
- JayTee44, on 06/27/2008, -3/+6actually the first sentence is obviously not true- and that doesn't mean that pjr12345 doesn't take climate change seriously. Actually, pjr12345 was pointing out that the article itself was irresponsible by way of being sloppy on non-factual. 'People' like you get all in a wad if everyone doesn't drink the coolaid.
- tman84, on 06/27/2008, -1/+7P9 you come off like a pompous over dramatic ass, you could have all the scientific facts in the world and it won't mean a damn because you sound like a complete douche. Never debate someone by insulting them right off the bat.
I am making a statement not debating, which is why I can call you a pompous douche.- amoro99, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2By all means, let's cover our ears to the message because we don't like the delivery. Like my airhead friend who wouldn't vote for John Kerry because they "think he's creepy".
- merlin5, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1But he really was creepy.
- amoro99, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2By all means, let's cover our ears to the message because we don't like the delivery. Like my airhead friend who wouldn't vote for John Kerry because they "think he's creepy".
- OldWiseOne, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3Instead of relying on emotions to drive your thought, you may want to look at some viable reasons why the ice is melting http://www.crystalinks.com/volcanoesunderwater.htm ...
- pjr12345, on 06/27/2008, -31/+24Did you know that when water freezes it expands? Inversely, when ice melts, the volume it fills decreases. That being FACT, should all the ice in the poles melt, we can expect the volume of water in the oceans to decrease.
- whodat51773, on 06/27/2008, -15/+22What do the odds makers in Vegas say?
- johnnyfistfight, on 06/27/2008, -21/+13We better stop driving, flying, farting and using electricity ***** right now! On the other hand if we can melt the ice in Antarctica we might find some frozen dinosaurs and cavemen. We can thaw them with our global warming powers. Once we do we'll discover they have superpowers and they'll turn against us. The dinosaurs will possess laser beam shooting eyes and the cunning intelligence of a monkey. The cavemen can bench press 475 pounds on an empty stomach and have the cunning intelligence of 2 monkeys who are bent on revenge. With these powers they'll kill us all and return the Earth to whatever it was a long time ago.
- kotn2012, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5"North Pole."
- johnnyfistfight, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1North Pole is water. I need a frozen land mass for this to work.
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -5/+0What the hell is "cunning intelligence"?
- vonmises05, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5If you can't define it then you obviously don't have it....
- starbuxadct, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1You know, after reading whatever it is that you wrote... I would actually take death by cunning, empty stomached, monkey brained caveman over reading anything else you attempt to write.
- johnnyfistfight, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Maybe the cavemen could crush your total cyborg looking skull saving you from painful brain cancer before your 30th birthday.
- johnnyfistfight, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Maybe the cavemen could crush your total cyborg looking skull saving you from painful brain cancer before your 30th birthday.
- kotn2012, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5"North Pole."
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 06/27/2008, -16/+36One of the current theories on one 'global warming' contributor to arctic melting: arctic earthquake swarm and deep volcanic activity.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/08 ...- DerangedPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -15/+15Now why was your comment dugg down? Oh because it goes against the Liberal-Fascist creed that all things evil are caused by Free Men and Women. All things good are caused by Governments enslaving the unwashed unlearned masses who believe in G-d and Guns
- robbiemuffin, on 06/27/2008, -3/+2wow man, why are you raving like some luna... ooh, I see what you did there. Even your name says "deranged".
- SpacePoet, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3There has been no correlation to the couple of volcanoes that are far below the surface and normally never break free due to the pressure of the sea and the warming. It is another red herring. The research that was recently concluded that you are referring to was from quakes in '99. How does that relate to today?
- dcshiderly, on 06/27/2008, -3/+0Except that the Nat. Geo. article doesn't suggest that the volcanoes ever went away. The entire opening paragraph is in present tense, for Pete's sake! There will be heat vents, and there will be geothermal effect. Similar geologic activity is suspected to be behind the glacial activity on Greenland as well. The researcher in the article was looking for geothermal activity and _found_it_. The interesting part was the nature of the activity, which was assumed to be impossible, but demonstrates that it's still going on.
/so much for reading comprehension...
- dcshiderly, on 06/27/2008, -3/+0Except that the Nat. Geo. article doesn't suggest that the volcanoes ever went away. The entire opening paragraph is in present tense, for Pete's sake! There will be heat vents, and there will be geothermal effect. Similar geologic activity is suspected to be behind the glacial activity on Greenland as well. The researcher in the article was looking for geothermal activity and _found_it_. The interesting part was the nature of the activity, which was assumed to be impossible, but demonstrates that it's still going on.
- Tableboy, on 06/27/2008, -3/+3Jesus People... Its A Cycle... While The Arctic May Be Warming... The South Is Cooling...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.htm ...- bruce86, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1It is important to recognize that the widely-cited “Antarctic cooling” appears, from the limited data available, to be restricted only to the last two decades, and that averaged over the last 40 years, there has been a slight warming (e.g. Bertler et al. 2004. At present, it is not possible to say what the long term change over the entire last century or more has been. The lesson here is that changes observed over very short time intervals do not provide a reliable picture of how the climate is changing.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18
- bruce86, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1It is important to recognize that the widely-cited “Antarctic cooling” appears, from the limited data available, to be restricted only to the last two decades, and that averaged over the last 40 years, there has been a slight warming (e.g. Bertler et al. 2004. At present, it is not possible to say what the long term change over the entire last century or more has been. The lesson here is that changes observed over very short time intervals do not provide a reliable picture of how the climate is changing.
- DerangedPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -15/+15Now why was your comment dugg down? Oh because it goes against the Liberal-Fascist creed that all things evil are caused by Free Men and Women. All things good are caused by Governments enslaving the unwashed unlearned masses who believe in G-d and Guns
- LeifEriksen, on 06/27/2008, -31/+31we didn't listen
- orlyfactor, on 06/27/2008, -7/+1No. THEY didn't listen.
- jasonlfunk, on 06/27/2008, -7/+1No. YOU didn't listen.
- proliance, on 06/27/2008, -4/+5I listened. I just disagree that man controls the weather.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/27/2008, -3/+3ignorance is bliss
- trejrco, on 06/27/2008, -3/+2No, I broke the damn. /SouthPark
/TJ - cnot3, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2WE DIDN'T LISTEN!!!!
- rsylvest20, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2(roll down window) WE DIDNT LISTEN!!
- LeifEriksen, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1at least some people got it
- Gandalff, on 06/27/2008, -12/+6RUSSIA DID IT....
1) Last year there was Ice...
2) Russia tries to make a stretigec claim for the land because of oil & Natural Gas....
3) They plant a flag at the bottom of the ocean using a unmanned sub and plant a flag.....
4)They have been sitting there like a fat kid eating ice cream not moving an inch with their MICROWAVE SUBMARINES truned on HIGH
5) For Some reason we keep having mild weather & No Major Hurricanes despite Big Al's dooms day friendliness approach for life for us surfs, and so far I'd say the Mid-West US is going to meet it's quota on water this year by say tomorrow
6) Now we are told next year no more ice and if you have a drilling rig come on down the waters hot and the land is dry Side Bar:(yet you would think the ocean levels would be off the chart. (I had one of those spinning globes as a kid and the North Pole pretty much took up the whole top in White ink)) Damn brain fart WWSD poor kids .... oh that means "What Would Santa Do"
7)Yea RUSSIA DID IT they hate Santa- DerangedPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Perhaps it is all the crap the Communist countries continue to dump into their rivers. Unlike the free nations of Canada and the United States who regulate pollution and ensure environmental laws to protect the Earth are enacted and enforced.
- Murdats, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1except for those who work to protect the environment claiming there has been too much political influence and people being fired for being too persistant about not complying with the governments orders to lay off certain companies.
- bruce86, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1"so far I'd say the Mid-West US is going to meet it's quota on water this year by say tomorrow"
You mean by record flooding that hasn't been seen for 500 years?
- DerangedPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Perhaps it is all the crap the Communist countries continue to dump into their rivers. Unlike the free nations of Canada and the United States who regulate pollution and ensure environmental laws to protect the Earth are enacted and enforced.
- Doofy, on 06/27/2008, -33/+23If global warming were the cause, all the ice would be shrinking up TOWARDS the north pole (where the sun is weakest). Instead, it's all been moving towards Greenland in some places over 1,000 miles AWAY from the North Pole. Some summer sea ice is now so far down the Greenland coast it's never been recorded there before.
Cause: Weather patterns and ocean currents.- Taciturn, on 06/27/2008, -6/+10Because clearly global warming has no effect on weather patterns and ocean currents.
- draculthemad, on 06/27/2008, -4/+7I am going to applaud this one tenatively are a very clever joke done tongue in cheek.
The image of ice packing up and moving north is slightly amusing.
This is a joke right? - Infosciphi, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1Might be, but there's a likelihood that the currents & weather changes are GW induced.
- sagecommander, on 06/27/2008, -40/+33Buried, Inaccurate.
- Joejackal, on 06/27/2008, -59/+82These deniers are generally the same people who supported this twice unelected administration. I guess the debut of the Northwest Passage last year was just another weapon anomaly. Keep reassuring yourself that ignorance is bliss or maybe even use the search feature on this website with the words Canadian, military, expedition and cracks.
- DerangedPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -25/+16Oh you mean the Democrats twice unelected 2000, 2004 lets make it a trifecta with Barack Hussein Obama as the next unelected administration. By the way Bush, unlike Hill Billy Clinton and his war mongering wife Hillary Clinton, got both the electoral and the popular vote.
I am digging you up, because once again a Liberal Fascist has brought in politics where we should be having a scientific discussion about climate change and whether this is a naturally occurring event or something we can actually do something about.- ell0bo, on 06/27/2008, -3/+5Dude... you just sound angry. Get off digg and go get laid, makes the brain work much better. Once you've done that, think about "Bush, unlike Hill Billy Clinton and his war mongering wife Hillary Clinton, got both the electoral and the popular vote" again and I'm sure you'll thank me for my advice on cleaning up your mind.
- B1663r, on 06/27/2008, -4/+6No, you are mistaken, in 2000 Bush lost the popular vote by about 500k. I think you are trying to say, that Bush won the majority of the votes, but he didn't do that either really... In order to win the majority of the votes, you have to win 51% of the votes, Bush failed to do that in both 2000 and 2004. Also, since you want to compare Bush and Clinton (guffaw) neither of Bushes victories were as big as as Clinton's victories either numerically or proportionally.
Yeah, and if you want to talk about this fall... ROFL, Im just gonna bide my time on that one. I guess we could have a miracle solution in Iraq, the fighting ~could~ just stop one day, at the same time there is a magical recovery of the economy, and we could also have an interdimentional breakthrough in power generation and fule prices stop going up 5 dollars a barel every week. I mean, all that ~could~ happen, so maybe, jesus will listen to your prayers and just make it all happen, because republcians are noble or moral people, right, you not the type of people that torture and murder the innocent or anything like... oh wait, nevermind;)- phydeaux70, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Well...too bad you don't need popular vote to win, you need to win the votes in the electoral college.
In fact....that is a great thing. Because if you only had to win the popular vote Democrats would only campaign in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, Atlanta, Philly....etc. Anybody ever take notice of where the major networks are located?
- phydeaux70, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Well...too bad you don't need popular vote to win, you need to win the votes in the electoral college.
- Duositex, on 06/27/2008, -5/+4I am so damn sick of people using his middle name against him. It's got to be the most childish and petty crap I've seen repeated in a long time.
- minorthreat, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Everytime they use it, Obama picks up another swing voter because one of the party's is acting like an 8 year old girl. Noone wants to vote for a party of 8 year old girls.
- Warbick, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2He didn't use it against him, he simply spelled out his full name, whats wrong with that?
- tman84, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2You mean like Richard Milhous Nixon
- eltrev, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2The word "deranged" implies an underlying intelligence to some form of psychosis. I don't think it applies to you. You are just plain retarded.
So I christen you RetardedPenquin. - Joejackal, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0You have some audacity putting together the combination of liberal and fascist in this instance. This bemoaning of politics is perfectly suitable when you're challenged with the unintended consequence of too heavy a reliance on the finite resource of fossil fuels and the installation of two oilmen in the White House. I hope you realize the only thing that a Freedom Of Information Act had obtained about Cheney's meeting with energy officials early on was a map of the Middle East centered on Iraq detailing the location of oilfields. If we had listened to environmentalists decades ago and heeded the writing on the wall that the Arab oil embargo of the 1970's represented we might not be in this circumstance today. Neither the presidential election of 2000 or 2004 was legitimate. In 2000, Katherine Harris of Florida ought to have recused herself as she was the head of a Republican committee to elect the governor's brother who had lost the popular vote by about a half a million. In 2004 similarly, Ohio's secretary of state Blackwell held the same position in that state as Harris had had in Florida on both a party and state office level. The CEO of Diebold had bragged that he would "deliver the electoral votes of Ohio to George Bush." Speaking of fascism, Dubya's grandfather Prescott had continued to sell petroleum to Nazi Germany well after Pearl Harbor into 1942. He and his associates had been integral in financing the Nazi party even before they took power in 1933. It's corporate socialism all over again. Great banks and corporations can be rescued but many ordinary Americans must face foreclosure.
- tman84, on 06/27/2008, -5/+10Why make political assumptions about those of us who do not agree with man made global warming? If you are going to do that, why not connect Al Gore and his profiteering to the tune of $300 million dollars over creating this hysteria? Why do the fear mongers always like to ignore that fact?
- FordSVT1, on 06/27/2008, -5/+2Oh, so now right wingers are against making profits from circumstance? When did that start?
- tman84, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Since when did circumstance become a euphemism for lying?
- FordSVT1, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I don't believe they are lying. I don't think they're totally correct, but I do think man contributes to GW and I do think it will cost us more money down the road to deal with it if we don't start now.
- 1sammy, on 06/27/2008, -2/+0I suppose it's easier to ignore science, name call and finger point than deal with complex solutions.
- FordSVT1, on 06/27/2008, -5/+2Oh, so now right wingers are against making profits from circumstance? When did that start?
- jentilla, on 06/28/2008, -1/+0Debut of the Northwest Passage? I don't think so. http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-repor ...
- DerangedPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -25/+16Oh you mean the Democrats twice unelected 2000, 2004 lets make it a trifecta with Barack Hussein Obama as the next unelected administration. By the way Bush, unlike Hill Billy Clinton and his war mongering wife Hillary Clinton, got both the electoral and the popular vote.
- rjwusa, on 06/27/2008, -11/+25Uh....
Shouldn't Venice, Italy and Venice, California be under water soon because of this?- DerangedPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -8/+13No, as ice melts it density decreases, water level will remain the same. To prove this fill a measuring cup with water, add ice cubes to the water and watch as they melt. The level will not change, however if you heat the water it will again begin to expand as it approaches the boiling point of 100 degrees C
If you don't believe me I will sell you some soon to be Ocean Front Property in Colorado. Come to think of it might be kind of cool to ski all day then go surfing the next day.- allocate, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5Interesting. Now what happens if you get a giant block of ice to represent a glacier, where a large portion of it isn't submerged, and it melts?
- waspbr, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5dude, as ice melts its volume decreases, the density increases as it is changed into liquid water, otherwise ice would not float.
but the point is exactly the one allocate is making, not all ice is submerged, most greenland's ice for instance is on land- slvrbullet87, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1There isnt any land under the north pole, and btw, if the ice is all gone up there, why isnt the water level higher
- TrevorBradley, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2The worry here isn't about sea levels from the melting arctic, that will stay the same as the OP stated. It's about darker sea water absorbing more heat than the ice that was there previously, pushing the summer heating even faster.
- lroche, on 06/27/2008, -4/+21Melting Sea Ice doesn't make sea level rise. Melting glaciers are the threat to low lying communities (such as that huge one in Greenland that's melting)
- Angostura, on 06/27/2008, -0/+7It depends if we start to lose significant ice cover in the Antartic, where it is sitting on a continent.
- TrevorBradley, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Well, Greenland is holding about 20 feet of worldwide sea levels if it melts. Antarctica has about 600 feet.
World sea levels were that high back in the Cambrian.
- TrevorBradley, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Well, Greenland is holding about 20 feet of worldwide sea levels if it melts. Antarctica has about 600 feet.
- candyman682, on 06/27/2008, -0/+17I don't know about California, but Venice, Italy IS sinking.
See: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/venice-1106.htm ... - SpacePoet, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2No for the reasons mentioned, but when Greenland starts melting really fast, which it is starting to, you will see the rise happening.
- downneck, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1any minute now...
- DerangedPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -8/+13No, as ice melts it density decreases, water level will remain the same. To prove this fill a measuring cup with water, add ice cubes to the water and watch as they melt. The level will not change, however if you heat the water it will again begin to expand as it approaches the boiling point of 100 degrees C
- Iztikeit, on 06/27/2008, -18/+10God did it.
- DerangedPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -8/+1Yes my son G-d did it, now go and sin no more...
Geez sounds like a boring life to me.
- DerangedPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -8/+1Yes my son G-d did it, now go and sin no more...
- bosssmiley, on 06/27/2008, -23/+15Didn't this already happen a couple of years back? Or was that hype, propaganda and bull too?
Oh, and *which* North Pole? Magnetic? Geographic? Rotational? ...- wrathchilde, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3Geographic and "rotational" are the same thing, in this case. And, that is what is referenced in the article.
- vonmises05, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1No, the imagined north both which does not exist in reality. This is the fictional north pole of the global warming advocates, used for their own agenda in their lit drops. The REAL north pole fluctuates as has this planet for eons.
- Matt2k, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1The "geographical" north pole isn't real?
What point are you trying to make?
- Matt2k, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1The "geographical" north pole isn't real?
- vonmises05, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1No, the imagined north both which does not exist in reality. This is the fictional north pole of the global warming advocates, used for their own agenda in their lit drops. The REAL north pole fluctuates as has this planet for eons.
- wrathchilde, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3Geographic and "rotational" are the same thing, in this case. And, that is what is referenced in the article.
- DerangedPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -29/+23After viewing the video, it looks like the ice is retreating from the filth and pollution filled Asian Continent. Notice how it is cleaning to the North American Continent, where Canadian and U.S. Citizen are free and can make decisions on how to best protect the environment. One more example how Communism is detrimental to the environment and the world.
- banido, on 06/27/2008, -7/+12You're right, the USA must invade the rest of the world and spread all that democracy.
/sarcasm- govsucks, on 06/27/2008, -6/+5Democracy is just another form of communism, or collectivism if you will, we don't need to spread that tripe to anyone.
- Goblin, on 06/27/2008, -2/+6We need Slashdot style reasons for updigging. Dugg for comedy value, not for insight.
- groumpf, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Communism is bad. Stop Digg. Right.
- banido, on 06/27/2008, -7/+12You're right, the USA must invade the rest of the world and spread all that democracy.
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/27/2008, -9/+36http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/07121 ...
ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007) — The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F.- Cynicalme, on 06/27/2008, -14/+13Then why do NASA satellite data show a DROP in average global temperature since 1997? Might that have something to do with the fact that tens of thousands of scientists--far outnumbering the UN puppet scientists--have abandoned the idea of man made warming?
- XTX7X, on 06/27/2008, -5/+13I'd be delighted to see your source for both of those statements. The UN IPCC has support from thousands of other scientific organizations. Look at the AAAS, NAS, and other national academies of science for their endorsements.
- Delphium226, on 06/27/2008, -2/+11Sources please.
- marksism, on 06/27/2008, -5/+5Argumentum ad populum
- FordSVT1, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Dugg back up because some idiot doesn't know the basic rules of logical deduction.
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Most bizarre new contrarian claim: "Global warming stopped in 1998″. By the same logic, it also stopped in 1973, 1983, and 1990 (only it didn't). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
The "thousands of scientists" is a reference to the bogus Oregon Petition, a pathetic fraud that was exposed the day it was released. - Isidore, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3@Delphinium
"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."
Quoted from the 2007 statement by the National Scientific Academies of the following countries:
National Academy of Sciences (US),
Royal Society (United Kingdom),
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
Royal Society of Canada,
Académie des Sciences (France),
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
Indian National Science Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
Australian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Irish Academy,
Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Source: 2007 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/resolveuid/88fcf2 ...
see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ... for sources/documentation
- jtsnyc47, on 06/27/2008, -7/+101961-1990? Wow. Is that THIRTY years of data? Dude, that's doesn't even approach statistically significant. No wonder there's no cure for cancer and AIDS. The scientific method is dead.
Science sucks.- NJank, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2of course the scientific method is dead. didn't you hear? The cloud killed it. The cloud will save us from this climate change conundrum.
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Wow, what a thorough analysis of the data and methods. NASA should hire you instead of real statisticians and scientists.
- relativeLogic, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0Statistical significance doesn't require a thorough analysis of the data. All you need is a null hypothesis, a critical point, and a test distribution. Let's see, if I want to see if the mean increase in annual temperature change is significantly different from the 1000 year drift, what kind of test statistic would I use? Anyone? What if we assumed some sort of normal distribution in the long run via the central limit theorem? A two tailed Z test with a 95% region of confidence might work. Drum roll..... um yea I must be a denier because I believe in math. By the way, there were no mathematicians or statisticians on IPCC Group 1. I wonder why?
- Cynicalme, on 06/27/2008, -14/+13Then why do NASA satellite data show a DROP in average global temperature since 1997? Might that have something to do with the fact that tens of thousands of scientists--far outnumbering the UN puppet scientists--have abandoned the idea of man made warming?
- Cynicalme, on 06/27/2008, -42/+33More alarmist bullcrap. The author demonstrates lack of smarts right up front--"first time in human history...." Ever notice how so many people presume to know things that are in fact unknowable? And how so many ignorant people just gobble it up?
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -5/+9Ice cores
- kholburn, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Human history is in fact knowable. Prehistory might or might not be. It's really not too difficult to understand, unless you're paid not to of course.
- Sasquatchxing, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Recorded history, maybe. But human history would be anything that happened while humans were in existance, whether it is recorded or not.
- Cynicalme, on 06/27/2008, -28/+35Oh yes, remember that the opening ice scene from Gore's movie was actually a computer generated image that was presented as actual fact.
- serif69, on 06/27/2008, -1/+7And it was taken from The Day After Tomorrow.
- Hosalabad, on 06/27/2008, -22/+32That submission is crap, did the guy even read the article first?
- ShadowFoxxx, on 06/27/2008, -18/+18Wait, wait, shouldn't the sea level be MUCH higher? Considering places like Floria, California, Italy - all those below-sea-level places are still above water?
I'm confused.- wrathchilde, on 06/27/2008, -0/+20If you melt floating ice there is no effect on sea level.
- slvrbullet87, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1Then who ***** cares if it melts? If it isnt going to raise the sea levels like everybody has been freaking out about, then it really doesnt mater that much
- diggimator, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Not really. Difference in salinity means difference in water density. Things in salt water float higher than in fresh water. Also, the exposed surface of the ocean can absorb more heat from the sun than a white surface, causing the ocean to get warmer and expand.
- harlowsmonkeys, on 06/27/2008, -0/+17When you have ice floating on water, and the ice melts, the water level does not rise. The north polar ice is floating on water.
It's southern polar ice that you have to worry about with regards to water levels, because that ice is not floating on water. It is sitting on the continent of Antarctica. Thus, when it melts and runs off into the oceans, they will rise.- OrangeTide, on 06/27/2008, -6/+1of course the ocean is rather large compared to the amount of polar ice. so it's much more like dumping a pitcher of water into a bathtub and getting a fraction of a centimeter rise.
I have no problem with rising oceans, people will just have to live somewhere else.- JAFFA, on 06/27/2008, -0/+6You havent really thought through your last comment. Apart from the obvious large scale migrations to deal with, much of the worlds agricultural lands would be flooded. especially in the developing world. So ... Nowhere to live and nothing to eat.
Add to that the potential for a massive climatic shift (as occurred when the central american isthmus appearred and you have nothing short of a global catastrophe for humans and many other species.
- JAFFA, on 06/27/2008, -0/+6You havent really thought through your last comment. Apart from the obvious large scale migrations to deal with, much of the worlds agricultural lands would be flooded. especially in the developing world. So ... Nowhere to live and nothing to eat.
- Sverre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1The main cause of rising oceans is the expansion of water as it heats. Glacial ice (like in Greenland and Antarctica) will certainly also contribute if it melts, though.
- OrangeTide, on 06/27/2008, -6/+1of course the ocean is rather large compared to the amount of polar ice. so it's much more like dumping a pitcher of water into a bathtub and getting a fraction of a centimeter rise.
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -4/+3Italy is already having issues. Just ask a Venetian
- slvrbullet87, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Venice has been sinking for 2000 years, it is what happens when you put a stone building on a marshland without a foundation
- Godwhacker, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Florida is above sea level - just not by very much.
- SpacePoet, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Most of south Florida will be covered if Greenland melts. Good riddance to Miami.
/Tampan
- SpacePoet, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Most of south Florida will be covered if Greenland melts. Good riddance to Miami.
- SpacePoet, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Greenland ice is another factor, when it melts it is predicted you will see a rise of 5-7 meters. Arctic ice is afloat, not on land.
- wrathchilde, on 06/27/2008, -0/+20If you melt floating ice there is no effect on sea level.
- Plower, on 06/27/2008, -11/+6But now it makes for a great tourist spot...taking a boat to the north pole...sounds good to me
- icndvl, on 06/27/2008, -11/+4I'm surprised we are still alive today tbh. Humanity is about as safe as a moron on a 10000HP motorcycle driving 500km/h in the rain between highway lanes in rush hours.
- Treoinmypocket, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Please stop breathing.
- Murdats, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1have you seen what is outside out planet?
comets we cant see till its too late, meteors, gamma ray bursts we cant see at all till half the world has melted, a supernova wiping out our corner of the universe and so on.
trust me, we arent in the safest position, just look at all the extinction level events that have happened before, and they didnt cover their planet in bombs then destroy their atmosphere.- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0Yes, but can we control "comets we cant see till its too late, meteors, gamma ray bursts we cant see at all till half the world has melted, a supernova wiping out our corner of the universe and so on"?
"trust me, we arent in the safest position, just look at all the extinction level events that have happened before, and they didnt cover their planet in bombs then destroy their atmosphere."
You do realize that most scientists agree we are in a 6th great extinction phase right now and they believe it's man made, right?
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldre ... - Murdats, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1yes I do realise this, I have pointed this out many times, but what is your point? are you agreeing with me or refuting me, as far as I can tell you are just quoting me.
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0Yes, but can we control "comets we cant see till its too late, meteors, gamma ray bursts we cant see at all till half the world has melted, a supernova wiping out our corner of the universe and so on"?
- Murdats, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1have you seen what is outside out planet?
- Goblin, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Well, at least humanity is a little less imaginary than that simile.
- Treoinmypocket, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Please stop breathing.
- eliot2000, on 06/27/2008, -12/+50The real cause of Global Warming:
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif- DanBoodro, on 06/27/2008, -1/+6Good thing there's enough pirates to keep the internet cool.
- buba1243, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Somalia has a few more pirates now perhaps the world will cool back down.
- tykwondingo, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2May his noodly appendage bless and keep you all.
- craighoxton, on 06/27/2008, -10/+8"The ICE is gonna BREAK!"
- BubbaBubberson, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Tell
