Slashdot Mirror
Countries Plan Land Rush in Warming Arctic
Noel Bourke sent in a pointer to this story about northern nations maneuvering to claim land in the Arctic. Fossil fuels, shipping lanes, and fishing are among the economic interests at stake, in an opportunity opened up by the melting Arctic ice.
Have dibs on the ice shelf.
(I'm Polish, so I can make this joke.)
We sure are fortunate that all that ice is melting, huh!
Cool.
"Back off, get your own arctic!" - Canada
Fossil fuels, shipping lanes, and fishing are among the economic interests at stake, in an opportunity opened up by the melting Arctic ice.
How can people ignore the enviroment and first think of expanding their country after the ice caps melt. People need to see that alot of countries wont exsist in a few years.
So the melting of the Artic is what's driving them there. Really smart, let's build on land that's going to melt out from under our feet! I didn't know it was really melting that bad. Can anyone say "The Day After Tomorrow"?
Someone who needs a book called "Web TV For Dummies" probably shouldn't be on the Internet.
And the Antartic freezes back up.
6000 years later everyone will be standing around a block of ice that washes ashore gawking at the well preserved specimen of prehistoric man.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Glad we're already here, though I here Greenland is free *snicker*
Where are the pictures of Trine Dahl Jensen??? All the arcticle says is that she is blond...
I for one welcome our new Canadian overlords.
There really is a bright side to this global warming, hole-in-the-ozone hullabaloo!! (or is it a broo-haw-haw...?)
of "progress" of course
AC comments get piped to
What no one disagrees with is the riches that would come from the thaw creating a north-west passage. The centuries-old bane of Arctic explorers could become a reality thanks to global warming, cutting thousands of miles off the shipping routes between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and delivering a windfall to any country able to tax its users.
Wars, have been started for less. Also it's nice to see Global Warming getting a good rap for something.
My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
Whoever gets this land, is going to roll in the wealth of minerals and oil...
World War 3, begins this year...
University of Washington
Student
...says a newspaper based in New Zealand. :-)
The world is melting and all we wanna do is milk it for some bucks. Whoever designed the human brain was obviously using windows, cuz smething is seriously screwed up there. One step closer to Capitalism eating itself, friends.
Hey! Lets just allocate the new land as a straight swap for contries that lose land under the raised sea level.
Holland looks lucky (or unlucky if you count the relocation costs.)
...And here in the UK, the English, in the Southern (mostly) flatlands, have to move to the north pole, making Scotland a sunny resort.
Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
Sometimes I wonder if I really am the only one that gives a shit.
Am I the only one that mourns for all the lost (and soon to be lost) species?
asside from pollution,i can see people
gobbling up huge tracts of land,and
shooting those they don't want on it.
there is such a lack of phy$ical freedom
in the so-called developed world,its
completely pathetic
the artic is one of the few places humans
havent managed to completely fuck up.
I wonder what will happen if this warming trend only lasts ten or fifteen years and then the ice closes back in. Will they find enough natural resources that are worth risking having the returning ice crush millions of dollars worth of equipment if the temperature starts to drop again?.
It is nice to think that there are still people out there who are so eager to explore this new area. As I watch people going to the front window in our office to trigger the remote starters on their cars (it's 20F here today) I can hardly imagine being able to find enough people to fill a helicopter that would be willing to brave that kind of extreme weather!
Should have been posted in Politics anyway. It might be international politics, but it's certainly politics when Denmark sends a oceangoing geographic team north from Greenland in the dead of winter to plant flags on every little rock they find sticking up from the ice.
A question though- why the heck is global warming still contraversial? After all, it doesn't matter if it's man or nature caused- dealing with it is going to be everybody's concern very soon, and there's very little doubt left that it is happening.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The melting of Ice caps would also create opportunities for beach front property in Nevada. Get the top maps and find the 200 foot above sea level elevation and stake your claim now - or least for your children.
Oh, yeah, and the fact that the oceans will be rising ever so gradually, well that's just a side effect. Of course, with all that money they'll be able to afford huge houseboats, while we all drown :(
Did anyone else read "Countries Plan Land Rush in Warming Arctic" to mean "Countries Plan Inland Rush with Warming Arctic?"
Why hasn't this happened already? It wasn't so long ago that people were building oil rigs and claiming them as private land... I would think anything would resource potential would have been gobbled up in the 80s and 90s.
Deploy and send the AT-AT's !!!
Watch for the US military to grab a role in "policing the sealanes" across the new arctic circle routes. Watch for the Russian military to challenge that role, backed by nuclear weapons. Watch for Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland to form a competing coalition that loses out because they're too nice.
--
make install -not war
I thought that the land was already divied up? Wait, I must be thinking of Antartica. International waters only extend 6 miles from a country's shores. Can a country legally stake a claim to international waters?
Heh, after all the flak I get on Slashdot everytime there is an article on global warming and I point out that a smart long term investor should be buying up coastal real estate in Canada, Alaska and Siberia. I also routinely point out you don't want to buy real estate that is to coastal since you have to allow for the fact the coastlines are going to move dramaticly as all that ice melts.
@de_machina
get your f*cking submarines out of our country
this land and surrounding waters belong to Canada
The Arctic report said polar bears were "unlikely to survive as a species" if the ice disappeared and they were left to compete with their better-adapted brown and grizzly cousins.
I vote that we relocate all the polar bears to Antarctica. For too long have we northern-hemispherer's hoarded all those cuddly big white bears to ourselves. Now that we're unable to sustain their population, we should take them to the coldest continent, where there are no brown or grizzly bears, where they can be the dominant species.
Look out Mr Penguin, looks like there'll be a new kid on the block.
"At her desk in an overheated, cupboard-sized office lined with polar maps on both walls, the Danish scientist with her blonde hair and broad forehead looks a true descendant of her Viking forebears."
They're not serious right? This just gotta be a joke. Or no? Is it just NZ thats a joke?
This is just tragic.
...more money being made at the expense of the environment. I'm telling ya' the take from the business folks will be that global warming is good for business. If temperatures keep rising, that Article Circle land, might become prime water front real estate.
USA: We have Alaska, the pole is ours.
Canada: We have Hudson Bay, the pole is ours.
Russia: we have Siberia, the pole is ours.
Denmark: we have Greenland, sort of, the pole is ours.
Sheez, Holland used to have Svalbard and Jan Mayen, can we claim too?
Oh, and some of us spent some time on Nova Zembla, we must have a strong case...
which could have drastic consequences for nesting seabirds
Not to mention the effects this could have on Santa's Workshop and band of midg... errm... elves.
erm.. forgive me here, but isn't the Arctic totally landless? Antarctica is a continent, but the Arctic is simply frozen water. No land. At all.
:) )
(and yes, I read the article, but it was a bit boring really. Why can't Russia control it as it has all those nuclear subs hanging around the place, or Canada that sort-of owns all the cold bits anyway. Denmark.... good luck guys
Stop hurting America.
Muthafucka, I resent that shit.
I guess one of the reasons us Canadians support it is this way we can keep those damn Russians and Danes from stealing Santa's mail. (You all knew Santa is Canadian, right?)
Hubris, arrogance, and lack of foresight are among the karmic interests at stake, in an opportunity opened up by the melting Arctic ice.
Although... maybe Erik the Red can finally make good on the biggest real estate swindle of the last 2 millenia: giving "Greenland" it's real estate-friendly but truth-defying name.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sorry, but it's all ice up there.
What an ironic "land-grab" this will turn out to be when it all melts out from under them.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Beachfront property for sale in Philadelphia, NYC, and Oklahoma.
I'm not so sure we can hold onto it. There was an exclusive on the news the other night that told how submarines from an unknown country have been spotted in the same location by Inuit fisherman on an annual basis. When interviewed the minister of defence had some scary words to say: "Oh no. Nobody would do that. We're Canada.... plus we don't have the resources to defend it anyways" They flew some planes over the area, saw nothing then concluded "Nope. There were no subs there."
There's something about international law that states waters become international if ships pass through it without being contested. I don't recall if it was how many years that the waterway must remain open. 30 Maybe? Anyways, basically Canada's claim to the north may not be as sure-footed as one might expect.
I have heard several 'experts' argue about whether it's nature or man causing the global warming. Doesn't anyone have a real answer yet?
For all we know, the warming trend might drastically end within a few years.
here are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras - and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of west
I am not really sure, but I think you are correct. I know some parts aren't navigable as the ice goes down for miles, but I thought it was all ice.
I always thought it was why that russia and the USA have both sent Subs to the North pole.
They can go under the ice. it was still dangerous, like driving through a tunnel without any lights on and lot's of curves in the tunnel.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Seriously, isn't the Arctic mostly ice on top of a minimal amount of land? I thought that Antarctica was the polar ice cap which had a large land mass underneath it.
I suppose that countries might try to put offshore oil rigs or something, but an actual land grab? Melt the Arctic ice cap and don't you just get open water?
Anakin Simpson: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy--ooh, donuts!
I have heard several 'experts' argue about whether it's nature or man causing the global warming. Doesn't anyone have a real answer yet?
It doesn't matter- either way it looks like it's here to stay, at least until the natural end of the potential warming cycle a century from now.
For all we know, the warming trend might drastically end within a few years.
So shouldn't we get busy and have a few plans in either direction? Like large ammounts of commonly owned land in Northern Russia and Northern Canada and Antarctica by the UN in case of global warming, and similar reservations in the tropics in case of global cooling? This ain't rocket science people. The key here is to plan for ALL possibilities- and then make sure you have disaster plans for the worst. It matters none at all whether it is man or nature caused- time to move past the blame game and into the action phase.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Viking forbears who brought huge quantities of cardemon home?
They almost bought a busted ass British sub! But then it caught fire at sea.
Here's a little experiment:
- fill a glass with ice and put some water in it. Come back in a few hours and see if the glass has overflowed water all over the table.
It won't. It's a thing called displacement.
Melting the arctic ice pack is of little consequence to sea level. Note: melting the northern ice pack would certainly have MASSIVE ecological consequences, but raising the sea level isn't one of them.
HOWEVER
Melting the Antarctic glaciers WILL affect sea level. A lot. They're not displacing much of anything - most of it is on top of rock - and if it melts it will contribute to a rising sea level.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I have heard several 'experts' argue about whether it's nature or man causing the global warming. Doesn't anyone have a real answer yet?
Yes. There seems to be a scientific consensus that it is mostly (but not necessarily entirely) man made.
You will always get some scientists challenging this view - that is the way science works, but having individual experts arguing in the media about this gives a false impression of balance between alternative views. There is no balance - a majority of scientists agree that we are doing this.
Ah, for just one time I would take the Northwest Passage
To find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Beaufort Sea;
Tracing one warm line through a land so wild and savage
And make a Northwest Passage to the sea.
Westward from the Davis Strait 'tis there 'twas said to lie
The sea route to the Orient for which so many died;
Seeking gold and glory, leaving weathered, broken bones
And a long-forgotten lonely cairn of stones.
Three centuries thereafter, I take passage overland
In the footsteps of brave Kelso, where his "sea of flowers" began
Watching cities rise before me, then behind me sink again
This tardiest explorer, driving hard across the plain.
And through the night, behind the wheel, the mileage clicking west
I think upon Mackenzie, David Thompson and the rest
Who cracked the mountain ramparts and did show a path for me
To race the roaring Fraser to the sea.
How then am I so different from the first men through this way?
Like them, I left a settled life, I threw it all away.
To seek a Northwest Passage at the call of many men
To find there but the road back home again.
2nd set of lyrics
Ah, for just one time, I would take the Northwest Passage
To find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Beaufort Sea
Tracing one warm line through a land so wide and savage
And make a Northwest Passage to the sea
Westward from the Davis Strait, 'tis there 'twas said to lie
The sea route to the Orient for which so many died
Seeking gold and glory, leaving weathered broken bones
And a long-forgotten lonely cairn of stones
Three centuries thereafter, I take passage overland
In the footsteps of brave Kelso, where his "sea of flowers" began
Watching cities rise before me, then behind me sink again
This tardiest explorer, driving hard across the plain
And through the night, behind the wheel, the mileage clicking West
I think upon Mackenzie, David Thompson and the rest
Who cracked the mountain ramparts, and did show a path for me
To race the roaring Fraser to the sea
How then am I so different from the first men through this way?
Like them I left a settled life, I threw it all away
To seek a Northwest Passage at the call of many men
To find there but the road back home again
It's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. ___ Alex Schoenfeldt, Photographer http://www.schoenfeldt.com
San Francisco Photographers
If it is manmade, then it will accelerate as China and India industrialize, and the solution is to cut pollution.
Personally, I'm staying agnostic. I've been voting against the Republicans lately for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment, so it really doesn't matter what I think.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
All land that is up there has already been claimed. The polar ice cap is over an OCEAN. What they are arguing over is rights to the sea, not land.
> I have heard several 'experts' argue about whether it's nature or man causing the global warming. Doesn't anyone have a real answer yet?
Has it occured to you that it might be both? I remember hearing someone saying how we're only responsible for 50% of the greenhouse gas emissions. Well boy howdy, we only doubled them then, yeah, so let's all hop in the SUV...
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
It's quite simple. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
Perhaps I will explain using examples on a smaller scale.
Do you criticize the autobody man that makes a buck off someone haveing a car accident? Yes, he profits off someone's misery, but he fills a need.
Do you criticize a factory that starts making jerry cans and body bags because a nearby country got washed out by a tsunami? Yes, the factory makes money out of the misery of others. They also fill a need.
Melting ice caps and the openning of the northwest passage is an issue of national security in Canada - our waterways and shores need to be protected and that is incredibly difficult to do if the north is unpopulated.
Nobody will pretend that the tsunami is a good thing and nobody will pretend that global warming is good, but every challenge presents a need and every need presents an opporunity and that is the essence of capitalism.
- Thomas;
___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
subject line says it all
I believe the Canadians bought the entire run of Oberon-class diesel subs, which are about as good as any non-nuclear boats in the world. Scarily quiet and perfect for lurking around the littoral environment of the far North.
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
Like... helping to prevent the arctic from warming?
Capitalism is why you can sit there on a computer and make your idiot statements, but pig ignorant shitsacks like you will never understand that. Never. Maybe most brains are using Windows, but your has had a hard drive crash. Now do us all a favor and die.
Greenland looks pretty damn big on my globe. And it's only a mile or so deep in ice.
Melting that would cause a sea-level rise.
Take off to the great white north, it's a beauty way to go.....
Eh?
wbs.
Huh?
The contraversy is not whether the earth is warming but whether there is a causal relationship between mans activities and that warming.
As it stands now, the 'fact' that warming is taking place on a global scale is still in question and the models that tie 'greenhouse' gasses to this questionable warming have variences some two orders of magnitude greater than the warming that they are not sure they have measured.
The artic may be warming while other parts of the world are cooling. These are long term weather patterns. It's happened before.
1)You've got what may be a temp change or not depending on assumptions about the quality of the data.
2)You've got models that says CO2 may cause increases in temperature and may have a strong component of negative feedback.
3)You've got people who add '1' and '2' together and assume the worst case for every possible variable.
4)You've got people who want to do research to figure out what the atmosphere is doing who depend on '3' for funding.
Of course you're gonna have a LOT of bias in the direction that makes the money flow.
The guys who are gonna make out like bandits are the farmers who buy desert in the southern hemisphere. Deserts are shrinking rapidly in some areas along with COOLING weather!
I have no biases on this other than self-preservation. I say we put the kooks on both sides away for now and come up with a way for the human race to survive EITHER way.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Is this 1947? Diesel subs are completely worthless unless you plan to make war with 3rd world countries.
There is oil down there??? Why hasn't Bush attacked Antartica yet??? We will show those terrorist penguins some shock-n-awe!! There is a link between Al-Qaeda and the penguins.
1) Al-Qaeda flew planes into the World Train Center
2) Birds can fly
3) Penguins are a bird
4) Penguins are terrorists!!
Look there is more of link to Al-Qaeda and penguins than Iraq.
I know they're in a rush to claim the North Pole and all, but it's just a bunch of ice floating in the ocean. That's hardly valuable to me. All the minerals would probably be found on the arctic islands, which are already claimed mostly by Russia and Canada.
I'm sure if someone other that the U.S., good ol' G.W. will "melt their hopes" with lasers from his newfangled missile defense system that he's planning.
Either that or the current tendancy of the U.S. government to ignore things like greenhouse gasses and global warning will do the job without having to fire a single laser.
Anyone find it ironic that the New Zealand Herald is reporting on this? That's about as far as you can get from a country with arctic interests.
Well, the controversy would be over what we can do, and how bad it will be. If one assumes that it is natural, it is unlikely to accelerate, and it is likely to be irreversible (like my raincoat!). Any "solution," then, would involve setting up dykes along probable flood-prone areas, for example.
And of course- creating new reservations in the North, just like this article suggests.
If it is manmade, then it will accelerate as China and India industrialize, and the solution is to cut pollution.
Unfortuneately cutting pollution is just as hard as setting up dykes and moving- plus there's the added problem that we may have already reached tipover and no ammount of pollution reduction will work.
Personally, I'm staying agnostic. I've been voting against the Republicans lately for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment, so it really doesn't matter what I think.
Same with me- but regardless of how I vote, I think Canada needs to prepare for an influx of about 200 million refugees from Mexico and the United States and Central America. Argentina should prepare for a similar influx.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Quit Trespassing on my Kingdom! No, not the Artic, the Antartic. Hey, if one's melting, the other can't be far behind! My Great-great grandfather, Oscar the Lost, found Antartica on one of his voyages and claimed it for our family. Dan Rather even verified that our documents are real! I figure that by the time the Antartic melts, you'll see the price of crude up around $250-350 barrel, and I want my cut. Sure. I'll use some of it to build a high speed train accross the continent to cut shipping times and costs between Chile and New Zealand, but mostly it'll go to pay for my summer palace in Hawaii. All Hail HexaByte, King of Antartica!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
No, they don't. A majority of scientists? Not one of the scientists I know - who doesn't work for a lobbying group or left-leaning "think tank" aka lobbying group - claims to believe that Global Warming is caused by humans.
So, where do you get the idea that "a majority" have formed a "consensus"? And more importantly, how do you know that they came to that conclusion based on solid reasoning and not just from accepting what "everyone knows"? Scientists aren't immune to that, you know.
One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
First nation to build an AT-AT walker with a sense of balance wins!
-- sometimes AND gates turn me on.
Maybe if you had read the parents post you would have realized he was talking about icepacks that AREN'T floating.
You're right though, most of the ice in the arctic is already floating. The antarctic glaciers are the ones we should worry about as far as sea level is concerned.
AccountKiller
According to my guide to Slashdot Journalism, the post qualifies perfectly for item c): "Is the story controversial enough? If you're posting a SCIENCE story, make sure the majority of comments won't be "Oh, yeah... um... cool."
Non-controversial submissions have very little chance of getting accepted.
"The success of the Vaedderen and Sirius missions in proving their ability to operate so far north has given Denmark the confidence to stake its claim to the North Pole."
... but the "north pole" ... come on... no Danish politician would be that stupid. (which says a lot).
I'm Danish and I can positively say that this is bullshit.
Denmark do however protect Greenland territory on behalf of Greenland.
In the US it's still an open question apparently. The rest of the world decided years ago.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Actually, modern diesel boats are the reason why the U.S. Navy has been developing the ultra high-powered low-frequency active sonar. Because when running on batteries, the newer diesels are often too quiet to hear until they have you in range, quite to the chagrin of American commanders who learn that they've been "sunk" by a Japanese or Australian submarine during a naval exercise.
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
Science is not a democracy. A theory's predictions check out or not...it does not matter at all what the majority of scientists think about it. When was the last time you heard about a 'consensus' around E=mc^2 or the like?
Michael Crichton's latest book, State of Fear, is quite thought provoking on this stuff. As he says, "scientific consensus" is not science, it is marketing.
Besides... What's the likelihood that humans become one of those planet-hopping civilizations down the road?
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
On the 4 data points:
1. Does anybody still have an argument on the two degree increase in the last decade alone? I thought that data was VERY sound- and my averages from the weather that I've downloaded from my local automated weather machine at Hillsborough Airport certainly bear it out.
2. Who cares what's causing it, the question is finding a place to move too which will be more habitable.
3. Even if it's a worst case scenario, there's still plenty of land out there guys- just move the cities.
4. Cut off ALL their funding, they're asking the worng question completely. The question shouldn't be "what caused this" the question should be "how can we survive this".
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If the ice is melting, there would be less land thus if they start to drill for oil, what is the point if the coast line covers it?
When will I learn to use the lessons from my writing classes and not write run on sentences to make my point when I can break up my sentences in a logical manner?
erm.. forgive me here, but isn't the Arctic totally landless?
erm...no. If the ice were to melt away it would expose the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and northern coastal areas of Greenland, Siberia and Alaska, among other places. The corresponding rise in sea-levels might put some of the Canadian islands underwater but there would still be a considerable increase in exposed, above-sea landmass.
So, not only would there be land to use, much of it would be waterfront property. Considering the Canadian Arctic has sizable diamond deposits, the receding glaciers might expose some lucrative opportunities--I wonder how much "ice" is under all that ice...
As the Arctic article at Wikipedia explains: "The Arctic is the area around the Earth's North Pole. The Arctic includes parts of Russia, Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Lapland, and Norway (including Svalbard), as well as the Arctic Ocean. The 10C (50F) July isotherm is commonly used to define the border of the Arctic region."
There are lots of Islands in the arctic (most of them in Canada)
welcome our new Eskimo overlords
Anyway, at least your much less likely to run out of ice in the middle of a party!
Those who talk about Greenland Ice raising sea levels don't consider that the Continents are floating....
But that would ruin their whole theory etc wouldn't it? Well it certainly throws a monkey wrench into it anyway.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
The Earth is dying and humans have an argument over who will own the new land. How stupid.
what's the concept of anything?
What's the point of anything eh? We should just all seppuku to save everyone the grief eh?
The things you think about on a 12 hour shift..
All your base are belong to Google.
The continental plates are floating on magma, not oceans.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Actually, They bough 3 busted british subs, and one of them caught fire on the way back to Canada.
Most researchers who seriously research or review the topic. Have noted the current warming does not match any known past warming event, that CO2 and methane levels are way off, that these will cause warming as well.
From this data it seems obvious that humanity must atleast be partially to blame, how much exactly I wouldn't venture, but it's there for sure.
Quickshot
PS These researches arn't from any think tank thus, just the more basic researchers.
Look at something that isn't a Mercator projection for a change. Greenland ain't that big.
Oh - and it's not made of floating ice, either.
And magma is a liquid. Geologically, when large quantities of ice melts and the weight of all that frozen water goes away, the land masses under them bob upwards.
But...I wonder what happens to those land masses without ice to begin with?
Open water is valuable. Aside from crude oil, the other mineral they are referring to is probably manganese, found in vast quantities on the sea floor in Manganese Modules. In the 1970's a few groups tried to mine it but it proved unprofitable. Maybe things will be better this time around?
We don't need a bloody flag, this is our country you bastard!
No flag, no country! You can't have one. That's the rules... that... I've just made up!
Should be evident that norway is the rightious owner. It sent the first man to the north pole. It owns Svalbard, used to own Iceland and Greenland as well. Before Denmark managed to snag it when norway and denmark broke the union.
The North Polar cap plays an important part in moderating our climate due the fact that the ice reflects considerable solar energy back into space. If the cap does substantially disappear one effect will be an increased rate of atmospheic warming. This in turn may lead to the melting of the South Polar cap. Although it's impossible to accurately calculate the possible rise in ocean levels I've read estimates of a rise as high as 369 feet. Are you 369 feet above sea level?
There is no sort-of in what Canada owns. We don't mind other people doing what they do in their countries, but please stay the hell out of ours if you aren't invited. Thanks. The international law of the sea says countries have 6 nautical miles of ocean around their countries (Russia could park a navy 6 miles from New York, but the US Navy may object), but many countries have no problems getting a lot closer than 6 miles to Canada in the north. WTF? At some point, sand bars will be erected and the point will be moot.
The lefts position is that something must be done, whether it's man made or not. This is the only reasonable position. The rights position is that it's "natural," and that nothing should be done.
Now, you know, I've never ever seen a Mercator projection on a globe, since I would have thought it was quite unnecessary.
I would be interested in knowing how that's done.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Hmmm, were you hiding when Ghob was handing out the brains? I'll betcha you're a huge redneck, as evidenced by your (for the lack of a better word) "thinking" displayed in that post ?
Or of course you could have a sense of proportion, so you wouldn't lump "not doing any more damage than necessary" and "nuke the wales!" into the same boat, with the only option being a hard cap on population.
There was a discussion regarding this in the letters section of a recent _Physics Today_. You're right, according to Archimedes; but the concern is whether the temperature rise will be sufficient to melt the floating ice AND cause significant thermal expansion of seawater. This paper touches on the latter: http://sedac.ciesin.org/mva/WR1987/WR1987.html "FUTURE increases in the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons) are expected to result in substantial global-scale warming in future decades. In response to this warming, global mean sea level should change owing to thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting (or accumulation) of land ice" From the abstract: For the period 1985-2025 the estimate of greenhouse-gas-induced warming is 0.6-1.0C. The concomitant oceanic thermal expansion would raise sea level by 4-8 cm.
yes, but if you have 100 diesel subs, those 10 USA nuklear subs cant get em all can they.
though what they need are remote controlled whales with a solarpanel/sat guided control on their backs.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I'd love to see your experimental data demonstrating this "land masses bobbing up" phenomenon.
I think you're full of crap.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Huh? The weight is on top of Antartica, not existing continents. If they'd shift at all, they'd be forced DOWN by all the melting water comming up the coastlines.
dumbass
There is not land at the Artic - the Artic is a place not a continent because it is ice not land!
The article is completely incorrect Countries Plan Land Rush in Warming Arctic no, that is impossible. Antartic yes that's possible. At the Artic no, because there is no land, and if there is no land and the ice melts away the 'building' isn't a building as we would know it - it is a ship - in international waters.
During the period from about 120,000 years ago to 20,000 years ago, the Antarctic Ice Sheet grew much larger than it is today. This was the last glacial phase. Since about 20,000 years ago, the ice sheet has been retreating to its present size. This marks the present interglacial phase of the cycle. A similar change occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, with ice sheets expanding across large areas of North America, Asia, and Europe. Shifts in climatic conditions occur across the globe accompany these cycles. This cycle of advance and retreat of the ice sheets in the Northern and Southern hemispheres has occurred many times in the past and will occur again in the future.
All but small remnants of the continental ice sheets retreated from North America thousands of years ago. Although it may appear that the Ice Age has ended, many scientists argue that our present relatively warm period represents but a brief interlude and that the glaciers may again advance in the future.
Too bad they won't put torpedos in them for quite a while.
He is correct that they do bob upwards. But sea levels could easily rise several metres in 100 years but landmasses will generally take several millenia to do the same.
Science is not a democracy. A theory's predictions check out or not...it does not matter at all what the majority of scientists think about it. When was the last time you heard about a 'consensus' around E=mc^2 or the like?
Sorry, but consensus is extremely important in science, for a variety of reasons.
First, it's important to remember that experiments never prove anything, they only support or disprove. A theory can be supported by thousands of experiments, but if the thousand and first demonstrates an error in the theory (and if that experiment can be replicated and verified by others) then that theory is disproved (or at least needs to be modified). In one sense, all widely-accepted scientific thought is just a consensus on the current interpretation of the experimental evidence. It could (and very, very often does!) change in a few months, years or decades.
Second, some theories aren't very amenable to testing. The cause of global warning is one of these. Ideally, to test it you need to take a few identical planets and pump billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmospheres of a subset of them, then measure the results for, say, 100 years. Since we can't do that, we have to take a more observational, statistical approach, measuring everything that may be relevant and using statistical methods to attempt to isolate correlations, and then logically determine causes and effects. That's a complicated, difficult process, and different researchers use different methods, consider different factors and get different results. If those results vary wildly, then you really don't know anything conclusive. If the majority of them indicate roughly the same thing, then you begin to obtain a consensus among the researchers in the area.
Science is done by humans, and frankly it's not uncommon that the primary mechanism for building consensus on major new theories is retirement and death. Specifically, the retirement and death of the scientists who hold to the old theory, allowing younger adherents of the new theory to begin dominating the discussion, literature and allocation of research grants.
Consensus-building is a very real part of science. "Consensus" is often abused by people who claim there is a consensus when there is too much diversity of scientific opinion for any side to rightfully claim a consensus, but that doesn't mean it's not a real, and important, phenomenon.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The irony of global warming is that the US, which has been dragging its feet on CO2 reduction measures, probably has more to lose than most. Many countries may well experience a net gain, once the dust...er...water settles, but the US enjoys a particularly favorable climate. Rolling the climate dice again is unlikely to be in our best interest.
Er... not to bust your bubble or anything, but that would be E^2 = m^2c^4 + (MV)^2c^2
Sig
And, with a nick like "Capitalist 1", I'm sure that all the scientists you know don't belong to some kind of right-leaning "think tank" aka lobbying group.
I mean, you couldn't possibly be biased or anything, could you?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Google is your friend.
Glacial rebound is a well-known phenomenon. A much better rejoinder would have been to point out that glaciers can recede in decades or centuries but rebound takes millenia. Sure, melting the Greenland icepack won't increase sea levels, if you're considering averages over 20,000 years. Glad to see someone taking the long-term view.
The rest of the world also decided that giving Poland and Czechoslovakia to Germany in 1938 was a good idea.
Just because lots of countries agree, doesn't make 'em right.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Global warming is somebody elses problem. I'll be dead before it has any major impact and I don't have any children so I don't really give a rat's butt. Not a troll. I just don't care.
Nothing here for you to see. Move along.
Yeah, gosh. If only the Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for the last 60 years, we'd never have had these pollution problems!
Oh wait.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"and my averages from the weather that I've downloaded from my local automated weather machine at Hillsborough Airport certainly bear it out."
Hmm, an airport near a rapidly-growing urban area. I wonder if there could be other explanations for the temperature incerease...
Nah, it _must_ be global warming.
Glacial rebound over the course of a few millenia, sure. Continents "bobbing up" (you know, like my rubber duckie in the tub), rendering the melting of continental ice shelves irrelevant...hogwash.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
--Actually, I'd be curious to know the ratio of Internet Explorer users to people who spent the last ten years in environmental denial. --As well as to people who think torture in Iraq is no worse than college 'hazing'. And to those who bought into the whole WMD thing. Indeed, I wonder how many common threads there are among people who still have their heads plugged into the Matrix.
-FL
1) Yes, here's a google cache:
o J: www.co2science.org/edit/v7/v7n4edit.htm+temperatur e+history&hl=en&client=firefox-a
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:isPMGHt27_
A decade, or a century, is nowhere near a long enough time to estimate climate changes. The environmentalists looked at the trees instead of the forest, and you give an example of a part of a leaf.
2) If it's a natural cycle then there's no need to move anywhere. Enjoy the warmer temperature for a while. People 1000 years from now will certainly be wishing for it, when they go through another cooling trend.
3) I'll stay right where I am, thank you much. Nothing is going to happen other than increased air conditioning costs and decreased heating costs. (Oh, I think I just figured it out, those french people don't have air conditioning, that's why they are loosing their mind).
4) "Survive?" I think you're blowing it way out of proportion.
1) the two degree increase is there only if you choose the right window for the data and toss out data that doesn't support the 2 degree warming. the few papers discounting mans impact on local climate through local deforestation and construction have serious problems in that they fail to address the variation in regional weather which is superimposed on the local measurements.
2) humans have relocated in accordance with climate change for as long as they have been on the planet. they are also quite adept at dealing with extremes. I certainly would not want to live in a place with Djibouti's local climate but plenty of people do. i ask the guy from Djibouti who works at the convenience store if it's hot (outsidetemp 104 on sweltering Atlanta summer day) he says, "no Bob, this would be a nice day in Djibouti".
3)We really don't need cities. IMO cities are BAD because the foster specialization in the extreme. They are like insect colonies. Yes, I live in a city and I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who can do only one thing, their job, and have no interest in learning anything else. It's frightening. Without multiple talens one can not see the corralaries that lead to discovery and innovation.
4)You're assuming that there is a 'this' and that there is a 'cause' and that 'doing something' is more important than understanding the cause. False premise Alert. There may be no 'this' and hence no 'cause' and no need to do anything. Yes, there is evidence that the climate is changing. There is evidence that it's been changing for as one can find climatalogical indicators.
Business, religion, politics, AND science all have one thing in common. The game you watch is not the game being played. I was told by the assistant of an international leader in atmospheric science research that when the sponsor came for a dog and pony show he was charged with hiding behind the curtain and making sure the demo corresponded to the justification for funding. The whole demo was a SHAM!
But it IS irrelevant...if you're willing to wait 20,000 years.
You're forgetting that big hunk of glacier sitting on greenland.
.
Christ, you pedantic bastard. You know exactly what the saying means, that how it can apply to water too.
and it's really a "global" phenomenon, then how come nobody seems worried about Antartica?
Whenever I hear the words "well-known phenomenon" in reference to anything other than things taught in grade school, I'm instantly suspicious.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Uh...yeah. I don't work on that timescale. Neither does anybody I know.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Actually, this is not correct: About 25% of the ice in the Arctic is above the surface and consists of freshwater ice from rain and snow. This ice is less dense than the seawater ice, and freezes at a higher temperature. Since Archimides theory deals with the volume displacement necessary to cause an object to float, that surface ice is not accounted for in your argument. As the surface ice melts, it will add to the oceans' volume. So melting the Arctic cap will have an effect, just not as great an effect as melting the Antarctic cap.
The icecube theory, which has been harped on a great deal by Rush Limbaugh, is wrong because icecubes are not comprised of two different layers of material, and tend to float just at the surface, rather than poking significantly above it.
Think of it like this: take a glass of water and put a rubber duck in it. The duck floats, yes? Now push the duck down so that it's top is even with the top of the water. What happens to the water? Same thing that will happen to our oceans when that freshwater melts.
// This is not a sig.
The entire floating ice pack in the arctic could melt and it wouldn't effect the water level one bit. Why? BECAUSE IT'S FLOATING ALREADY.
I would strongly disagree about the 'one bit' thing. The portion of ice that's above the water would certainly contribute to raising the sea level once melted. The effects will not be dramatic, but they will not be nil either.
And, if you don't believe me, conduct your ice in the glass experiment.
t.
and Canada belongs to the U.S., correct?
Think of it like this: take a glass of water and put a rubber duck in it. The duck floats, yes? Now push the duck down so that it's top is even with the top of the water. What happens to the water? Same thing that will happen to our oceans when that freshwater melts.
So you are saying that a glacier weighs the same as a duck and is therefore a witch?
The ice does not extend down for miles, and most of the Arctic Ocean can be traversed by submarines (except the continental shelf regions at times). The main pinch point is the relatively shallow Bering Strait if it is ice covered.
The Soviet sent their subs (i.e. their boomers like the Typhoon) under the ice because they were then more difficult to detect (acoustic environment terrible for surveillance), the transit from the USSR could be more easily hidden, and they could be poised to launch their ICBM's at a relatively short distance from the US. The US sent their subs into the Arctic to counter this threat.
I don't think the difference in density is as great as you are suggesting.
You have to also consider the fact that land use has been changing drastically, which is proven to increase temperature averages locally. This could be part of the phenomenon that people are overlooking.
yes it is. The ice on the top is still causes water to be displaced by pushing down on the sea ice. Your example in reverse is what will happen.
We've fucked up our nice little biosphere - why not fuck it up some more? Hey! Let's do atmospheric nuclear (nook-YOO-lur) weapons testing for the Fourth of July?? It would be soooo KEWWWWLLLL.
Gyawd! We're so fucked. I'd say that we have about 5 generations left on this planet.
I feel better now.
Not really.
funny, Hawaii doesn't look screwed up.
Do the math, folks. The scientists definitely are not: "Sea ice, for example, has diminished an average 8 percent each year for the past 30 years, totaling nearly 390,000 square miles." -from http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/n ews/local/10136245.htm
So, 240% of the sea ice is, uh, gone!
Countries are trying to grab non-existent land in the Arctic in an attempt to... let me get this right.. go shipping and fishing?! On land?
By the way I know 30,000 ways to get money from the government.
(Your head asplodes)
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Smaller government, states rights, lower taxes, free trade: sounds like a quest for undiluted power to me.
When Toyota's Robots inhert the earth from us they do a better job of managing it than us.
"Look, our devouring of resources is causing the ice in the artic to melt!"
"Well then, lets go devour some more boys."
Seriously, only man could screw up the planet and see it as an economic opportunity.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
I seriously doubt you've never seen a Mercator projection - it's simply a method of representing a round object on a flat plane. The problem you run into with it is that the further you move away from the equator and toward the poles, the more exagerated the size of a landmass becomes. This is what your parent poster was referring to.
More information can be found at the Wikipedia.
I hear spain have already applied for the fishing quotas. They say there wil be no fish left within 10 years. :p
It depends upon whether it's an African or European glacier.
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
> (you know, like my rubber duckie in the tub)
You know, Moofie, thaere are some things that you just don't admit to on SlashDot.
And weirder, but not surprisingly, the responses here on /.
For those of us in Canada this isn't news. There's a special branch of the armed services that patrols the far north, made up primarily of natives. This is done not only to 'keep an eye on things' but to maintain sovereignty.
There's also more effort being put into patrolling the waters now. The Russians have made a play for shipping, and the US too, trying for a new NW Passage. Canada isn't enthused about this considering it'd have to handle any rescues and should there be an accident, likely in those challenging waters, the environmental consequences would be catastrophic for the region.
A bit further down the melt is having terrible effects. The famous ice highways that have been an important means of supplying northern communities and projects are experiencing unpredictable weather and dramatically changing 'ground' conditions. Routes that have been reliable for 40 years are now unusable and new ones difficult to find.
Outside of deep winter the thaw line is wreaking devastation on communities as roads and foundations heave and subside. Inexorably moving northward the land is turning into the half-frozen tundra-bog that used to be typical of further south.
Along with this change the animals and plants are struggling to keep up as seasons alter, new competitors emerge, and interdependencies fail. Rodents, owls, plants, insects, all sorts of things are showing up in places they haven't been for thousands of years and affecting what had been there. That this is alarming the cultures who've also lived there thousands of years is an understatement.
Heck, even in 'southern' Canada the warming is having a direct effect. Snow cover is less every year. This is actually kinda good news for the ski industry as the expectation is US resorts will suffer in comparison and business will move north. However along with this the hydrology of areas is changing as the spring flood are also less and less every year.
Agriculturally Canadian farmers are increasingly adopting plants they couldn't successfully raise before. Crops are going into the ground earlier and the growing season keeps getting longer. This isn't all a panacea though, for instance PEI potatoes benefit from the cold that kills soil pathogens every winter, without that blights could become a huge problem.
Climate-wise Canada is getting very concerned for what the future holds for it. Planning for large projects now regularly includes future climate considerations. Even trade is affected: Already bulk international water sales have been outlawed for fear of setting precedent.
This newish century is shaping up to be an interesting one on planet Earth. Where much of the big history of the last century was human events this one may well be that of human effects.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Done, the water level goes down.
living in his parent's basement. Marx's system has failed. stop believing in your college lit professor's wet dream and get on with life.
1-I'm sure I'll be too old, but my son says he will be the first one to hang out on the coast of Baffin Island with a missile launcher. 2-It's ice FLOE, not flow. 3-The arctic is ANYTHING north of the arctic circle. Lots of land and water both. 4-In any case, the cold melted water will probably cause the gulf stream to either shift south or quit altogether. When that happens, everybody above the tropics will freeze their nuts off. If they have any.
The entire floating ice pack in the arctic could melt and it wouldn't effect the water level one bit. Why? BECAUSE IT'S FLOATING ALREADY.
The grandparent in fact mentioned ice that is not floating. ("ice packs that are currently *not* floating begin to melt"). That is ice that is still attached to land, which is still a significant mass. Introducing it to the ocean would indeed increase the sea level.
Ok, everyone who does not understand what "on a globe" means, this seems to be the thread for you to post under.
But *your* parent post is talking about GLOBE, not a map. Hence, no distortion due to mercator projection.
HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
NO CARRIER
Bad math there. 8% of the existing ice. So to keep things simple, lets say there are 100 tons of sea ice(I know its more, just an example).
:P
Year 1, remove 8%, now its 92 tons.
Year 2, remove another 8% from the 92 tons(not the original 100), now its 84.64 tons.
Year 3, remove another 8% from the 84.64 tons. Now its 77.8688 tons.
Etc. The number is roughly 8% per year of whatever ice is left over. So it isn't 240% lost
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
Actually there is a lot of doubt. Global warming remains an unproven hypothesis. Yes, certain areas have gotten warmer in recent years. Other areas (such as most of Antartica, where most of that ice everyone is worrying about melting is located) have gotten colder. And we have no idea what will happen in the coming years. Believe it or not, scientists do not have a magical crystal ball that tells them what the world will be like 100 years from now.
$5 says this will be moderated down by mods mad at me going against groupthink, so read it quick before it becomes hidden at -1 Troll.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
There are no well observed climate changes from recent history, the mechanism by which they occur is uncertain. It is one thing to recognise a problem, it is another thing to try and fix it. I am unconvinced that any given form of meddling will help, and may even worsen the situation.
With any chaotic system the way to achieve a desired result is difficult to determine. Yes, the consequences of global warming could be disaterous, but so could the impact of human meddling without understanding the current situation well enough.
What if all of the elves get better offers from the land grabbers?
You meant to say up? Where do u think the portion of the ice go? Evaporate?
my averages from the weather that I've downloaded
Doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. There are all sorts of data points for areas that show a COOLING trend, and places in the Antarctic where the ice sheets are growing, and the temps are going down. It's a fiendishly complex system, and the local weather near any populated area is more likely to be impacted by the "heat island" effect (google it, you'll see what it's about - many paved/urban areas see increases of several degress over decades: zero to do with CO2, etc., and everything to do with asphalt and fewer trees). Remember a few years back when we were headed for a "mini ice age"? This system swings all over the place and has for millions of years.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Global warming is about more than a two degree increase over 10 years. The average temperature goes up and down all the time. Futhermore, much of that "global warming" can be attributed to development: a developed city is going to be warmer than undeveloped lands. Thus as development occurs, there are going to be localized temperature increases that have nothing to do with the global temperature.
"- and my averages from the weather that I've downloaded from my local automated weather machine at Hillsborough Airport certainly bear it out."
Those are local changes, not global changes. Try somewhere else and you could likely find increased temperatures.
" 2. Who cares what's causing it, the question is finding a place to move too which will be more habitable."
Should the negative feedback he mentioned occur, nothing will cause global warming.
" 4. Cut off ALL their funding, they're asking the worng question completely. The question shouldn't be "what caused this" the question should be "how can we survive this"."
How are we supposed to prepare for something we have no knowledge about? Or are you just cutting them off because they challenge what you believe is true? Its people like you who wanted Galileo and Darwin beheaded.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
vinland is what the vikings called newfoundland in canada- not many vines there
;-)
you vikings must make poor real estate agents
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The guy in the cube next to me today said "Jeez, with this weather (60's in January in NJ) the global warming nuts will have a field day."
Yeah, great. BASF is happy because they only put 17 MILLION tons of goop in the air last, down 38% from last year.
I'm sure that doesn't affect the environment. Like they said in the 60s, "Heck, you can dump stuff in the ocean forever and nobody will ever notice."
Now you can find garbage from Secaucus in the Saragasso Sea.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
then they just rule that the japs or aussies could never have sunk the US ship, sack the generals in charge of the opposing forces, and invade a middle eastern country pretending those exact same tactics would never cause a problem. That would never happen..... oh wait.
But glaciers aren't made of wood?
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
There's no debate the planet is warming - none.
The only debate is over whether it's caused by humans or not.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Ice is less dense than water. That's why pipes crack in winter. The water expands as it freezes, contracts when it melts.
PNG achieved self-government when Whitlam was PM. 1973 IIRC.
Look to this map to understand who truly benefits from Global Warming!! Obviously the climate is being driven to heat death just to open up commerce in the far north.
A new paranoid meme for Slashdot readers.
All that land grabbing will be for naught when the ice caps freeze back, due to the fresh water shutting down the Gulf Stream and bringing on the next ice age.
A term so often used by scientists now is 'accelerated climate change', since it's clear that climate change is speeding up given evidence from thousands of years prior, and that climate change is not exclusively "warming".
British forces defeated by spanish forces
t m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1827554.s
Stupid shit does happen...no matter how much amazing technology exists, it's still operated by humans. Americans and Brits are no less prone to making mistakes than anyone else. Usually, the more complicated your tools, the easier is it to fuck up.
Exceptionally funny. I bow to the awesome power that is this post.
The only thing that might have made my enjoyment of this post better would have been my not reading it while taking a big drink of my Diet Coke. The coughing a burning in my nose took away from my appreciation of an otherwise flawless and hilarious comment
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
young grasshopper, Greenland is approximately the same size as Mexico. Africa is bigger than the Americas and Europe combined. The US is quite small. Australia isn't all that big. What does that tell you? Look at the actual numbers, not the representations on the map.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Shame on you for posting this. ...because I remember those dire predictions of...
:::woo-woo noises:::
Global Cooling
Seriously though, did you notice the difference between the two eco-nightmare scenarios presented?
Global cooling doomsayers focused on the projected famines that would result.
The Global Warming bunch are merely concerned with the planet, an object that has never been static, but rather has been (and always will be) subjected to many enormous geophysical changes including axial, orbital, magnetic, tectonic, and seasonal perturbations.
Who cares about those silly human beings and their food supply being increased with a global temperature increase?
They teach plenty of junk in grade school too.
I'm not saying global warming will not happen, merely that claiming that any changes with regard to global climate is unnatural and will destroy our 'fragile' ecosystem is just plain wrong.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
The Larsen A ice shelf suddenly collapsed in 1995. The Wilkins Ice Shelf is shrinking. In 2002, the 3400-square kilometer Larsen B shelf -- at least 12,000 years old and up to 70 stories thick -- disintegrated into the Weddell Sea in the space of a few months (satellites images of the collapse are available at http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/animation. html). .
. .
The calving of monster icebergs is now common. Ted Scambos, an expert from the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Centre, found that after Larsen B's collapse, nearby glaciers began entering the sea up to eight times faster than previously.
- www.worldpress.org -
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
The difference in density isn't the point. The point is that there is a lot of ice in the Arctic which is not in the water and therefore doesn't displace water.
// This is not a sig.
Shame on them for poluting the pristine arctic
Going the other way, going down an inch doesn't mean losing an inch off the shoreline, it means losing several yards depending on the grade of the slope. Shallower grade means more land is lost. Do the trig and see how much land is lost from a 1 m rise in sea level on a 2% slope.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
No, I just realized what he's saying. Ok, suppose the ice caps melt. This means that the weight on top of the oceanic plates will increase. These plates press down on the magma underneath them, squeezing the magma towards the continental plates, pushing them up.
This is, of course, assuming that magma is an incompressible fluid and that the change in weight distribution won't change the difference between the rate at which magma is created and the rate at which magma escapes.
Saying that the continents will bob up as the water level rises really conjures up inaccurrate imagery, but it isn't all that different from what would happen if you removed the oceanic plates and replaced the water and magma with a single liquid.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
That two degree increase in the last decade is actually a 0.7 degree increase over the last 50 years. Read Michale Chritons "State of Fear" He references a lot of real scientific articles in there and several NASA graphs.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I am sorry, but you are some what wrong. Frozen Water, or ice, is less dence and lighter than water. Water is polar and forces itself into alignment when the crystals freeze, just expanding, increasing mas, and lowerind density. That is why it floats. The water being melted will add to the water slightly, however the land ice melt will be greater, many of the poles land mass is ice. The loss of this land, and additional loss of land due to rising water levels, and the disrution of the echosystem (those bitterly cold winds from the north won't be bitter) could cause another effect on produce, because winter gives soil some time to refurbish what was destroyed in the spring. Not I am in no way some pro environment guy, I am a natural born Texan, and could really care less. Either way, the US has a nice chunk of land compared to its population, but its places like Inidia and other parts of Asia where trouble may really break out. ~T http://www.ModLife.Net
ModLife.Net - If it ain't modded, what's the point?
but not to us.
an average raise of a few degress will destroy much od the world farmland.
Were not talking about a 'dry summer' one year. We are talking about a few degrees around the entire globe. Just think about how much energy that is.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The "Learn science from TV" educational system.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Any attempts to use our waters and resources is a violation of Canadian sovereignty.
International law dictates that, unless Canada makes an effort to assert its sovereignty by, for instance, maintaining settlements, conducting patrols and challenging trespassers, then Canada would lose its right to the territory. And there are currently vast swaths of uninhabited land up there that we don't regularly patrol.
I suspect many people don't realize this. And as a fellow Canadian, I'm quite worried. Just because we make maps that declare it to be a part of Canada, doesn't mean other countries have to agree. And we mustn't get complacent just because we think that friendly countries wouldn't try and steal our territory if they felt they could get away with it. If we want to keep it, we have to work for it.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
Continents "bobbing up" (you know, like my rubber duckie in the tub)
that just made my day!
if people would stop "voting against" a certain party, they might actually get someone they want in office. try "voting for" your favorite candidate.
I already know that global warming is a hoax dreamed up by the tree-hugging left wing drugged-out hippie peacenik media elite.
Rush told me so.
There's nothing to be concerned about. We'll just torpedo the dikes in the Netherlands, and that should balance out the sea level problem nicely. (If that doesn't work, we'll attach a few blimps to New Orleans and raise it up out of the water)
Like what I said? You might like my music
Like noise output has anything to do with how new US subs detect other subs. There's this fancy thing called "sonar" that's been around for 50+ years now, maybe you've heard of it?
Thats fucking hilarious. You should be a comedian.
>Greenland ain't that big.
g l.htm
Land Area 2,166,086 sq km (839,999 sq miles)
http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/
Claimed by Denmark in 1380, Greenland is geographically considered part of the North American continent, and is the world's largest (non-continent) island, approximately 85% of it covered with ice.
by comparison, Antarctica is 13,209,000 sq km, 5,100,021 sq miles
>it's not made of floating ice, either
doesn't that make it worse? If floating ice melts, the level of the surrounding water shouldn't go up (water expands when it freezes).
OTOH, when ice that is not floating (ie glacier over land) melts, it would eventually add to the volume of water in the sea (fozen or otherwise).
Not saying that all the ice on greenland melting is going to make the sea level on the earth rise by 100 feet, but still...
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
like this?
Looks pretty fukin' bit to me, dude.
That shit melts, you gonna be surfin in nebraska bitch!
That's exactly what the parent poster said, too.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
No, parent was correct. That's the entire point. Floating ice that melts doesn't change the water level. Try it yourself.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
you are a fucking idiot.
Ice is almost 30% larger in volume than water.
a glass full of ice and water will have LESS water volume after melting.
please this is basic physics.. what are you a junior high drop out????
One thing the otherwise nicely written article didn't mention: why is the area suddenly now eligable to being claimed by neighbouring countries based on the fact the temperature is warmer and some ice turned to water?? Surely these countries either have "rights" to the area now, or they don't have any such rights at all. It certainly wouldn't work the otherway -- would a country such as Norway have its northern tip politically shed off if an ice age descended upon it?? I bet not! Finally - wouldn't it be nice if the UN (or some such) would appoint the government of the country least involved with environmental disaster and commercial wreaklessness (It would seem Russia and US would be excluded on these points. I imagine Canada and Denmark fare better but I won't assume so).
Sorry, but your duck theory is completely wrong.
The duck has air in it (making it less dense than the water). That's why it floats. In order for it to sink, you'd have to make a hole in it so the air could escape. And if you did that, then no, the water would NOT rise.
The point is that there is a lot of ice in the Arctic which is not in the water and therefore doesn't displace water.
Ice is less dense than water. That's why it floats. In order for it to sink, it would have to melt. That would make it less dense, and again, the water would NOT rise.
Sure, if you pushed the ice down (just like the duck), the water would rise, but then you'd be the one making the water rise, not the ice.
Right?
..named Aussie or something like that.
We will overthrow the government of Australia one day and force the popultion to drink real beer.
Why is it that everytime a new piece of land is found either on this planet or even explored on the Moon or Mars some white guy has to stick a flag on it and call it theirs?
Moofie, I am appalled at your apparent lack of insight. My great great great grandchildren might be affected by this, you insensitive bastard.
No they won't. Global warming is going to kill everybody on the planet (starting with white Republican men) next Tuesday, so no great great great grandchildren for you.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Well, in that case, I'm all for repenting, genuflecting and spending billions on possible, maybe solutions. After all, we might all actually die someday.
Generally speaking, I've found that unreasonable points of view come from ignorance or fear.
The fear of death is probably the ultimate, and that denied reality can colour a person's outlook to the point where *real* reality doesn't matter any more.
Bah, I'm getting philosophical and running out of beer. Trooper said, "We're here for a good time, not a long time". That's a pretty good outlook as long as you're not selfish along the way.
Oddly, the Inuit ancestors invaded and conquered Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period...so the Inuit were doing what they don't have words for.
If its FLOATING, its accounted for. You could put a block of steel on top of the ice, if the ice still floats, the volume has been accounted for...
If you knock my block of steel off the cube into the ocean, the same thing happens. cube becomes lighter displaces less water, block of steel now under water displaces equal amount...Same with your surface ice.
Even for an anonymous coward you're too stupid man...
okay let's see:
Main Entry: so·nar
Pronunciation: 'sO-"när
Function: noun
Etymology: sound navigation ranging
: a method or device for detecting and locating objects especially underwater by means of sound waves sent out to be reflected by the objects; also : a device for detecting the presence of a vessel (as a submarine) by the sound it emits in water
They could have been scammed, but are unlikely to be making this up.
This, of course, leaves unanswered the question of why you Northern Hemisphere types needed to find a Southern Hemisphere newspaper article discussing one of your local issues.
"The entire floating ice pack in the arctic could melt and it wouldn't effect the water level one bit. Why? BECAUSE IT'S FLOATING ALREADY."
While I grant you this is true, what I think most concerns people is where the giant ice-shelf-chunks will be floating. Since they're essentially at the North Pole, the only direction in which they can float off is South, where the waters are warmer, and likely to accelerate the melting process. The more ice that melts, the less white surface area on the Earth we have, which means less reflected light energy, which means higher temperatures and more ice melting all over the place (including over land).
This tagline is umop apisdn.
Any city with significant growth will experience a corresponding temperature rise (urban heat island).
There are so many problems with "average temperature" measurement.
Even if you're looking at data from one location, the daily AVG temperature is usually just the mid-point of the day's high and low - which may not give a fair representation.
Defining the average temperature over a region with sparse clusters of weather stations is far more complex and much less accurate.
And them I think of the thermometers 80 or 100 years ago - probably blown glass tubes filled with mercury and stuck to a board with hand-drawn ticks...
Greenland ice cap: around 2,750,000 Km^3
Recent 9.0 quake off Sumatra: about 1,200 Km slipped, with a width of about 100 Km affected. That's about 120,000 Km^2 of ocean floor which was "uplifted by several meters". If there was an average of 10 meters of uplift (a value not yet measured), 1,200,000 Km^3 of water has now shifted around the world's oceans.
Perhaps the "100 Km affected" which the USGS refers to is 100 Km DOWN along the fault line; the phrasing is ambiguous whether it refers to the surface.
But as ice *FLOATS*, the water level will not change, in an ice/water mix as the ice melts. Something Archimedes worked out over 2000 years ago. Therefore if the North Pole ice cap melts because it is floating it will not cause the sea level to rise by even 1mm. However the Greenland ice cap will also melt at the same time and this is not floating.
You know what general relativity is a well known phenomenon but they don't teach that at school either. They don't even teach special relativity and I have not seen much quantum electrodynamics being taught either, even a degree level physics. Does not make it at least a well understood phenomenon to those skill in the field.
Large amounts of modern science is well known but for practial reasons (there is not time and some of it is difficult to understand) not taught in school.
However as a none geologist, but with a science background I have heard of glacial rebound and a quick google brings plenty of references.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-14156 27,00.html
Think of the poor children. Leave the pole to Santa Claus.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Science is not a democracy. A theory's predictions check out or not...it does not matter at all what the majority of scientists think about it. When was the last time you heard about a 'consensus' around E=mc^2 or the like?
... consensus that it applies in nature.
Not all theories have predictions that are easy to check. In that case, the only sensible thing to do is to ask the opinions of as many scientists in that subject as you can, and see what the majority think. There is no realistic alternative.
By the way, E=mc^2 is just an equation. It is still under debate, but there is a
Michael Crichton's latest book, State of Fear, is quite thought provoking on this stuff. As he says, "scientific consensus" is not science, it is marketing.
Why believe what he says? He has never published anything that is accurate science.
What if all the ice on Greenland melts? It doesn't float, so it will make the sea level rise. By seven meters, according to current estimates
To make matters worse, greenland is on the far end of the
North American plate.
If the downforce of all that ice disappears into the oceans, the tectonic plate might start to balance itself, causing giant earthquakes while lowering the US and Canada.
The same thing happened to Scandinavia after the last ice age.
It's difficult to predict exactly what will happen and how strongly, but it's a dangerous possibility you don't hear much about.
And in other news, Karl teaches George how to use one of the internets, and he stumbles onto slashdot.
No, they don't. A majority of scientists? Not one of the scientists I know - who doesn't work for a lobbying group or left-leaning "think tank" aka lobbying group - claims to believe that Global Warming is caused by humans
So, you select a group of scientists by their politics and then assume they are part of a consensus.
So, where do you get the idea that "a majority" have formed a "consensus"?
By reading the scientific press.
And more importantly, how do you know that they came to that conclusion based on solid reasoning and not just from accepting what "everyone knows"? Scientists aren't immune to that, you know.
Well, largely, they are - science is based on something called 'reviewing' of research in which published work has to be subject to quality checks even by those who disagree with it.
Scientists don't publish just opinions you know.
"sack the generals in charge of the opposing forces,"
When was the last time a general ever had something to do with the sinking of a submarine, simulated or otherwise?
If you're going to troll the Department of Defense you should at least get your service branch right.
Apart from the other serious issues for the world from what would be going on while the Arctic is warming it would seem that all that thawing permafrost is going to make exploitation an 'interesting' exercise. What today may be hard as stone may next year turn into mud. Hmmm ...
Also I imagine the weather would also have some 'interesting' extremes. Not saying it couldn't be done (or should be), but it wouldn't be like just going out and settling an area in the traditional way.
Bitter and proud of it.
Your damn hillarious for how ignorant you are (and by the way just in case you wanna call me Anti-USA ya damn New Age Nazi). Sonar as it stands for the most part entails screaming out "here I am!" and listening for a variation. Which also by the time they are "in range" of your sonar to where you can see them, YOUR in range of thier weapons asshat. Low Noise & High Output means they can talk a bit quieter and still hear variations the same.
All your penguines are belong to us
??? I am slightly confused. I am A+ certified (worthless I know) taking college computer classes even though I am 17, and am a repair tech for Best Buy.
ModLife.Net - If it ain't modded, what's the point?
I'd love to punch in the fact the retard who had this idea of a landgrab first. WTF? Haven't we realised like a half-century ago that this Earth is round, small and we all live together on it? What's that with expanding? It's the 21st century and time to put an end to this medieval thinking. I truly believe that Danes act like retards in this, but hope that some common sense and human decency might still emerge in them.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
I pity your high school physics teacher.
I'm from Denmark, and it looks like you wanna pick a fight. don't pick a fight with a viking, we raped and killed the people who came before you long time before our children, of which you are the breed immigrated to canada.
..ok everything aside. stop _pretending_ canada own the north pole. I'm not _pretending_ its Danish territory either. ..the native north americans were right about the faulty beliefs in property rights. shame they got wiped out.
and yeah we were already on the north pole back then.
Err .. no ...
...
The upward force is equal to the weight of the displaced liquid.
To see where you're wrong, attach the block of steel to the bottom of the ice cube. Imagine it still floats. now, if you disconnect the steel from the cube, the steel will sink, the ice will become lighter and float some more. The steel won't take up more space, but the cube will take up less. The water level goes down.
This ice-cube theory only holds if the densities are equal.
Just correcting the physics, not saying anything about the enviromental effects
That's not quite true. The signatory nations of the Antarctic Treaty have agreed that noonee owns the continent or portions of it. A few of the countries actually do have staked claims, but they don't actually defend them or reasonably expect anyone else to. See http://tea.rice.edu/deaton/12.2.2004.html for more info.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
This isn't exactly a new discussion, at least not if you're from Denmark. Claim of the pole has been a subject of discussion for quite a while now. The only countries with a "real"(or at least geographical) claim to the pole are Canada and Denmark. And as a consequence the two countries have started a joint venture to find out where one starts and the other ends. The only thing there's really left to do is for Canada and Denmark to place a border, once measurements and readings have determined where the continentel socket really is. In the less serious end of the topic a lot of ridiculous claims have been made to try to secure claim of the pole. The worst was when a group of "independent" scientists said that Greenland wasn't Danish territory, thereby excluding Denmark from the claims race. Only problem was that we could document that Greenland has been under Danish rule for the last ca. 1200 years. Since Leif den lykkelige and Erik den røde first sat foot on greenland.
Absolutely Fucking Nothing!
Let's "look at the numbers", as you advise.
With 1,755,637 sq km ice-covered, it's a lot of ice. Melt that into water and it's a more than a few meters of sea level rise... National Geographic says 7 meters.
Your so-called "institutional racism" is a smoke-screen, it isn't how big Greenland is or isn't compared to somewhere else that matters. What matters is how much ice might melt and the damage that produces in Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangladesh, London, Pacific Islands, and countless other places.
Not feasable given the current structure. To vote your hopes instead of your fears: Instant Runoff Voting (specifically
Condorcet Voting with Clone Proof Schwartz Sequential Dropping Cyclic Ambiguity Resolution
("majority prefers" is not transitive)).
Why believe what he says? He has never published anything that is accurate science.
Michael Crichton's latest book, State of Fear, has an extensive bibliography. It does not matter what Michael Crichton says (although he is an MD). But you might want to read some actual scientific experiments on the matter. The science does not conclusively support global warming.
Oh, I don't know. Given some of the other stuff that people seem to fess up to around here, a rubber duckie seems pretty benign.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I don't know them. I also don't know the tooth fairy. Hmm...I wonder...
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Michael Crichton's latest book, State of Fear, has an extensive bibliography
So does a recent issue of National Geographic. Who would you trust? A respected journal or a single author with a well-known reputation for publishing half-baked ideas?
But you might want to read some actual scientific experiments on the matter. The science does not conclusively support global warming.
As someone who works in environmental science, I disagree. There is absolutely no doubt at all about the fact that global warming is occurring. The only controversy is whether or not human activity contributes.
Don't know what they're teaching there in the States, but I heard about glacial rebound at school in NZ.
Then again, I have no idea how your grade system works, so mod be down if I've made an idiot of myself.
Cogito, ergo sig.
A WITCH! A WITCH! BURN HER!
> ??? I am slightly confused
He is commenting on the fact you said you were from texas and didn't care about the environment, kinda like someone else...
except was George isn't a natural born Texan:
Birth: July 6, 1946 at New Haven, Connecticut
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
I remember hearing somewhere that the predicted sea rise from global warming would be caused mainly by thermal expansion of the seas, and that the "ice caps melting" thing was just a way to popularize the idea. Don't know if this is true or not. Anybody have any sources?
A land grab for the artic areas is all well enough, but as happened with the Vikings (during the last period of global warming) when they settled Greenland, when the weather started to get cold again all of this territory will become uninhabitable again.
The Vikings were able to build some fairly elaborate communities, with enough people that a dioscese for the Catholic church was established to govern the several congregations that existed there. All told close to about 20,000 people at the peak of the Greenland settlement. People were born there and a couple generations lived through some productive years, but eventually Greenland again turned cold and was not able to support a large population (at least with 10th & 11th Century levels of technology).
I think we can assume he was referring to the rest energy and rest mass, Einstein.
The world is everything that is the case
Why should we apply nation-state status to terrorist groups? The Geneva Convention was never meant to protect non-uniformed soldiers and terrorists from US care. Rather, it was a treaty that was meant to protect OUR troops from the enemy. Because terrorists purposely target civilians and police without wearing a uniform and swearing allegiance to a state, the Geneva Convention will never apply to them.
The Geneva Convention prevents POWs from being interrogated and the prisoners must be held in groups, not separated. If we apply this "minimal level of professionalism" to terrorists, what does that gain us? The terrorists have already gone against the professionalism and rules of warfare. Why should we treat them as prisoners of war?
We already apply a very high level of treatment for the detainees without giving them specific allowances from the treaty.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
He's right. There have actually been small earthquakes caused by things such as dam construction. The rock underneath us is under a lot of compression. A large reduction in weight can sometimes cause the crust to adjust. It won't be enough to cause the plate to sink into the mantle noticably deeper, though.
Plate flotation has quite a bit to do with geology. To take an example, in ocean-continent subduction zones, the oceanic plate will always be subducted under the continental plate because the oceanic plate is denser and floats lower in the plastic mantle.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Ahh, but what do most people think?
Sig
Why didn't you actually try it?
Actually I didn't try it either as I've done it before in science class. But one can assume the results to be the same.
From ScienceDaily.com
...
Extreme changes in the Arctic Oscillation in the early 1990s -- and not warmer temperatures of recent years -- are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean, with near record lows having been observed during the last three years, University of Washington researchers say.
It may have happened more than a decade ago, but the sea ice appears to still "remember" those Arctic Oscillation conditions, according to Ignatius Rigor, a mathematician with the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory and a presenter at the American Geophysical Union's annual fall meeting this week in San Francisco.
The Arctic Oscillation is a seesaw pattern in which atmospheric pressure at the polar and middle latitudes fluctuates between positive and negative phases. The wind patterns associated with the Arctic Oscillation affect the surface winds and temperature over North America and Eurasia, as well as the Arctic.
The Arctic Oscillation was in an extreme "high,"
More
I understand completely. But to suggest that continental ice shelves melting will let the continents "bob up", rendering the melting non-problematic, is Just Stupid.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Kyoto was supposed to get to the heart of the matter with CO2 emissions.
Actually, the real problem is human overpopulation, but there is no way we'll globally regulate that without a dictatorship.
It really doesn't matter where we got our fuel if we were a fraction of our total population. It's just that at the current and future size of the human species, we stress the planet too much no matter what we do.
Rings that were bolted into the rock here 200 years ago, to tie boats to, are now several metres up in the air (this was confusing for me when I was a child: "what's the point of having a ring when it's like 10m away from the water!"). The Ice Age ended about 8000 years ago. Difference between then and now: 800 metres. Current rise: 0-9mm per year (rising faster to the north). How fast will a landmass rise, if it's freed of it's ice today?
Please use wikipedia and google at your discretion to learn more about this "bobbing" phenomenon. Hell, use Microsoft Encarta if you will!
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
too bad you're a poopy head
Sorry, you are right. My mistake.
i was basing my observation obviously on the english "vinyard", as in winery, as in vines
;-)
sorry about the linguistic ignorance, thanks for the correction, i guess vikings know tundra when they see it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's more subtle than that. The fact is that CO2 is definitly a greenhouse gas, and the other fact is that CO2 released right now will definitly stay about 100 years in the air - hence if a CO2 climate problem is created, it will take 100 years to solve, even if ALL CO2 production (a huge part of human economy) is stopped right now. It's like you are on a bigger ship than the Titanic, you need kilometers to be able to change the direction of your ship to avoid an iceberg, and right now there is someone saying "hey I think I seeing an iceberg right now, and anyway, if you go far enough in that direction, you WILL find an iceberg". The answer is: "MAYBE there is not an iceberg, so let's continue"
So the question is not only "is it human-made ?", it is also "do you want to take the chance?", and "how much human-made CO2 is too much: current levels? 1/10? 10 times? 10000 times?"
The article and all subsequent responses could have been quickly and easily summarized:
"Climate changes; humans adapt, or die. Life goes one, earth and the universe barely notice."
So many people are squealing about the climate change. So what? Anyone who expected that climate would never change, weather would never change, conditions would never change was inevitably in for a major surprise on one timescale or another.
People will adapt, or they will die. Or more likely, they will die in great numbers, but the survivors will adapt.
So it ever has been, so will it be.
-Styopa
Bah, there's got to be a better solution than to all live in some UN Hippie commune in Northern Russia.
I say we start developing underwater domes. That would be cool.
"The Arctic Oscillation has been in a primarily moderate to high phase during the last decade or more, and the only way to reproduce this tendency in the oscillation using a numerical climate model is if you include the observed increase in greenhouse gases in the model."
Climate is more than temperature. Climate change will change more than temperature.
I certainly would not trust in appeals to ad hominem attacks and argument from authority.
If this stuff is so uncontroversial, what's the problem with just referencing convincing data and evidence?
(Please note I'm not saying there isn't any - just why does the argument always seem to boil down to demonisation of opponents and "most scientists agree...".)
Yeah, the bobbing up is only slight. Also, if the Greenland ice melted, the bobbing up would be only slight and take a long, long time. Since Greenland is land, it won't affect ocean levels at all.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Here's an article which list all the recent "sinking" of US Nuclear Subs, Carriers and destroyers in recent years by Modern Diesel Subs.
http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Is%20the%20Nucle ar%20Submarine%20Really%20Invincible.htm
Nuclear sub's are loud ass bitches, sure they have the advantage of being able to stay under water much longer, but the noise they produce allow them to be picked up by passive sonar which is a disadvantage. Diesel subs operating on batteries are scarily quiet and are hard to find using passive sonar.
Like noise output has anything to do with how new US subs detect other subs. There's this fancy thing called "sonar" that's been around for 50+ years now, maybe you've heard of it?
Active sonar (generating a ping sound and waiting for a reflection off of nearby objects) is a good way to let other subs know you're in the area, for that reason passive sonar (just listening for noises around you) is usual prefered when quietly lurking around.
No, he's a born again Texan.
Money for nothing, pix for free
I certainly would not trust in appeals to ad hominem attacks and argument from authority.
...seem to boil down to demonisation of opponents...
Why not? Crichton HAS published scientifically incorrect ideas - this is not an attack, it's established fact (for example, almost none of the science in Jurassic Park is correct). Also a good way to find out what is likely to be correct is to get the opinions of those believed to be authorities on a subject.
If this stuff is so uncontroversial, what's the problem with just referencing convincing data and evidence?
Because it IS controversial. I did not say it was otherwise. What I did say was that a consensus (vast majority) of scientists believe that human activity is affecting global warming.
One person's convincing data is another person's controversial result!
There are many scientists who don't believe that human activity is affecting the climate. I have respect for them. But, I don't have respect for an author (with a bad scientific record) who is out to make money with a controversial book, or politicians who just want to avoid making hard choices.
Kyoto was supposed to get to the heart of the matter with CO2 emissions.
Unfortuneately, that was a solution attacking a single potential cause (out of several potential causes) and does NOTHING about the fact that it may take a few years for the planet to heal.
Actually, the real problem is human overpopulation, but there is no way we'll globally regulate that without a dictatorship.
Most, if not all, human population problems are really resource and population distribution problems instead- you're still assuming global warming to be manmade instead of actually dealing with the problem of global warming, and working on the cause rather than the solution.
It really doesn't matter where we got our fuel if we were a fraction of our total population. It's just that at the current and future size of the human species, we stress the planet too much no matter what we do.
Sometime, seriously, you need to take the drive from Las Vegas to Reno. Especially in the winter.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Who cares about fixing it? Far better is to find a way to live with it. The planet will heal itself, regardless of what we think of as "pollution" it's all been here, in some form, for a lot longer than we have and it will be here, in some other form, long after we're dead.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It's certainly an option- plenty of land down there. It's just all wet is all.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I for one welcome our new frozen overlords.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
/me gives up
Irony: just like silvery, only harder.
It seems to me like putting a new iron ring in a fjord is a little bit easier to do than to move 80% of the population of the planet.
Will the continents "bob up" after the ice goes away? Yes. Will it be in time to prevent a major humanitarian disaster? No.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Simple. ... out ..
You just cut
Damn!
[gluoommph] -- sound of foot being extracted from mouth
Yeah, good point, what happened to the "republic of science". Is good and evil just relative to space and time (situation)?
As for the FA. The people who can see a "good side" to the ice caps melting are like the poor people who ran in to pick up stranded fish before the wave struck. They didn't see it coming until it was too late.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.