Slashdot Mirror
What's Hidden Under Greenland's Ice?
Roland Piquepaille writes "Ice has covered Greenland for millions of years. So what's hidden under this ice cap? Mountains and valleys? Rivers and lakes? Of course, we might know it sooner than we would have liked if the ice covering Greenland continues to melt. But researchers from Ohio State University have decided that they wanted to know it next year and have developed a radar to reveal views of land beneath polar ice. Their first tests of this new radar, which helps them to catch 3-D images of the ground under the ice, took place in May 2006. The next images will be shot in April 2007. Here are some images of the new GISMO device and what it can do."
Lots of nasty body popping evil dog maiming spider infesting damned aliens.
Would you close the damned door so they don't get in.
liqbase
I'd say that iPods are hidden underneath the ice and Roland's blog has much to say about it and he's getting $0.01 per page hit.
TDz.
(captcha is "decoys"...I love coincidences)
Jimmy Hoffa.
Lambeau Field
If it's oil, Greenland better brace for the invasion.
Now if only the ice were getting thinner in Greenland, we'd have something to worry about. Unfortunately for you global warming scaremongers, that isn't the case. It seems the ice has been getting thicker in Greenland over the past decade or so.
I do not want to hear about global warming as the cause of all the melting ice in Greenland if we're going over there and effectively microwaving the place to get pretty pictures of what's underneath.
shouldn't any mountain ranges be pretty well worn down by now? Scandinavia doesn't have any huge mountains due to the ice ages, so I'd imagine that the same goes for Greenland.
Then why isn't it tosu.edu?
Or why does the web site say "Welcome to Ohio State" in its title?
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
Likely? No... but if it happened it might make certian people reconsider that greenhouse gas/climate change tradeoff issue.
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
Wasn't there a book about this?
p /0671027387
http://www.amazon.com/Deception-Point-Dan-Brown/d
Oh wait, that was the North Pole. My bad!
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
What's hidden under Greenland's ice? Simple. Shuggoths. Lots and lots of Shuggoths.
I feel like death on a soda cracker.
Atlantis. The real question is, does it have a star gate?
Real Estate. I thought Greenland was owned by Denmark, but apparently it's autonomous now. AFAIK, nobody has surveyed the land, and even if the ice melted today it would probably be a nasty unstable place for a while, but you know some Lex Luthor type has to be smacking his lips at the prospect of an ice sheet collapse and a temperate polar climate.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Whatever it is, I patented it first.
It's Waldo. Obviously.
I say it triples in volume and gets salty.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
And yet the same article you cite says the ice has been thinning in Greenland over the same time period. How is this possible? Did you leave something out?
Now if only the article you quoted said what you said it said, we'd have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately for you, the abstract itself indicates that the growth is only in the "interior areas" over 1500m in altitude, the height of the remainder of the ice (below 1500m) has been going down 2cm/yr (+/- 0.9)
Try again, unless you want to argue over how big the interior is relative to the parts that are shrinking and whether or not the water melting off the edges is flowing back uphill to the "interior" to freeze there, or running off.
They started doing the The Ohio State University thing because of the legal battle they lost with my alma mater (Ohio University). OSU was trying to just use Ohio for a lot of their stuff, and OU had the rights to it (Ohio University was founded in 1804 and was the first college in the Northwest Territory).
They've been bitchy about it ever since.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
And it was a lot warmer in the distant past. From Wikipedia: "The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time [c. 984], possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period." I guess that warm period was caused by all those damn Vikings driving around in their SUVs.
to start building condos? With Florida and most of the current coastal land under water there's going to be a big demand for new coastal land. Personally I think it's all a scam and Trump is behind the survey and they are really dividing the island into lots. Just watch, there'll be prime lots for sale on Ebay any day now. They're starting to run out of desert and swamp land to sell so Greenland would be a perfect spot for retirement property for Gen Xers.
Your link mentions a thickness increase in the interior only; there's a decrease on the margins. NASA says:
Another study and that NASA report points to an overall decrease in ice.
The legislature ought to just merge OSU and OU and shut them both up for good, firing any administrators who don't like it. The "THE" thing is one of the dumbest things going.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Try again, unless you want to argue over how big the interior is relative to the parts that are shrinking
I don't have to argue. The information is provided in the article I linked to. It's very simple. The average thickness over the entirety of Greenland has increased 54 cm (21 inches) in a recent 11 year period. Is there anything else that you cowards would like to add?
Lots and lots of penguins!
I like muppets.
The article makes Greenland seem like a woman and the ice seem like a bra. So far, I can most certainly tell you that whatever is under the ice are not bags of sand.
Probably a portal to Hollow Earth, just ask Olaf Jensen, William Morgan and Richard Byrd.
For all I know freaking Atlantis could be hiding under the ice there or at least
fascinating, mind-boggling remnants of past civilization like pyramids twice the
size of Gizeh and sphinxes galore.
They wouldn't tell us in a million years.
So what do you think they'll tell _you_ what's under all that ice?
ancient pr0n.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
If one can see through the ice then one can see through solid rock. A few years back the US developed a radar that was used to map the banks of where the Nile river was a 100 years ago. The Soviet Union got the message. If the US could map the under ground banks of the Nile River a 100 years ago then the US could find all the Soviet Union's missal silos and take them out.
A couple of years back the North Koreans did one of their missal tests by flying it over Japan. Later the Japanese demonstrated their missal technology by sending a robot to intercept a comet and return a sample to earth. You can shoot at us but we can shoot at you and hit you.
So question, who is the US telling that they can find all of their underground bunkers? The North Koreans? Iran?
I would like to just suggest a link to Roland Piquepailles blog somewhere where those who are interested can click. And *no more articles please*
/. to get real news and facts, and see discussions from people with insight.
I read
Roland Piquepailles submissions has not met this criterium. Did this article tell you what lies under greenlands ice?
You should mod this up if you agree or mod away as flamebait/offtopic/troll if you dont agree, but at least mod it.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Your link mentions a thickness increase in the interior only; there's a decrease on the margins.
No. If you could read, you'd see that my article, published in Oct 2005, clearly states that there is an overall average thickening to the tune of 54 cm over an 11 year period.
Another study and that NASA report points to an overall decrease in ice.
An unpublished study according to the link you provide. Really, I'd love to see that study, but all you've provided is an article in National Geographic. Of course, we can all remember National Geographic led the global cooling craze in 1975. But now, I suppose, they are an authoritative source. Much moreso than a peer reviewed scientific journal...
We all know that the previous hot periods were caused by Dinosaur farts (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNe ws/20061030/klein_quotes_061030/20061031/).
The Greek philosopher Pythagoras advised against eating beans, so the the Medieval hot period must have been due to the Viking's inability to read Greek.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
They didn't get too far from the coast, or they might have realized the error. You know the first rule of Medieval Warm Period Club? Don't talk about the Medievel Warm Period. The Global Warming people don't have an explanation for it (reverses the direction of the Hockey Stick), nor the fact that Mars has been warming up, so they want us to just... LOOK! Britney Spears' coochie!
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I'd say that all the evidence of Steve Jobs' corporate cover up and the lack of reportage about it on geek sites. Apple: Another Enron? Well, maybe not, but at least another scum-bag at the top of a corporation.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
That doesn't really reassure me. Anyone who's lived in a particularly cold climate can tell you that precipitation increases as it gets warmer (given sufficiently cold temperatures), and tends to lessen as it gets very cold, due to the air's inability to hold as much moisture at lower temperatures; it could be that the increased depth of the ice pack in the interior is a direct result of increased snowfall due to warmer atmospheric conditions. That would be rather consistent with increased snowfall in the interior (hence deepening of the ice) and melting at the edges.
I don't know for sure if that's the case, but the fact that the ice depth is increasing in the interior doesn't necessarily refute climate change. It's certainly not an open-and-shut case.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Frozen Vikings and cattle standing under frozen palm trees.
[Insert pithy quote here]
We should leave the aliens alone. Finding out what's in Greenland is surely far more important than pissing money into space to find out what's under Jupiter's/Mars's/etc surface.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Don't be silly, It was obviously I who patented it first
*insert lawsuit here*
that resembles the devil and have psychic powers.
Why do it in Greenland and not at the South Pole?
Yes. That explains why the Baltic sea hasn't frozen yet this year, they shipped all the ice to Greenland :)
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
an ancient 66 square-kilometer ice shelf, the size of 11,000 football fields
Unfortunately for you global warming scaremongers,
"global warming scaremongers" !? Seriously! Maybe that is why atleast in the North-Eastern part of USA, we have had a wet Christmas instead of a white one.
Oh my god ....
.. greenland ice area has gone away over 30% last 15 years alone ...
..
No idae where you get your source from or whre the source gets their data from
Who the fuck cares if the rest is getting "thicker" ? Just loock on google maps or google for greenland ice retreat
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Sorry, but this was predicted by the models.
What happens is that warming causes ice near the edges to melt. This dumps cold freshwater into the water nearby, disrupting warmer ocean currents. It also increases humidity. Due to the disrupted ocean currents, the prevailing winds go inland, taking the humid air with it. This gets dumped as snow in the middle, causing the central ice dome to increase. A similar effect occurs in Antartica, where the central ice dome is about 4ks thick.
As shown in the link you provided, _below_ 1500m, the average change was a shrinking of 2cm (+- 0.9cm). Yes, the overall effect was to increase the thickness of the ice dome, but the dome is definitely getting more pronounced.
What the models predict next, however, is that as the slope of the dome gets more steeper, it gets unstable. You then get large stress fractures occurring, and huge slabs - say, about the size of New York State - break off and slide down to the ocean. Fun stuff.
Also, there's ice and there's ice. Old ice is very dense - it's been compressed over thousands or even millions of years, and contains more water by volume than the newer ice being laid down above. The main contributor to this is that the new ice has a lot of gas dissolved into it, or caught in bubbles. What this means is you can melt a million cubic meters of old glacial ice to get a bit less than a million cubic meters of water. However, the same volume of water (a bit less than a million cubic meters) falls as about 3 million cubic meters of snow inland, which gets packed down to about 1.5 million cubic meters of new ice. So, yes, the _volume_ of ice over Greenland is increasing, but the quantity of water in that ice is decreasing.
Here's an paper from the same March 2006 issue of Science that describes the process.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
You can read the paper here. It was published in Science on August 10, 2006. Abstract:
Didn't you know?
Well, life's a bitch, ain't it?
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Just a Guess.. but maybe there is.. uh... green land under Greenlands ice caps?
Is that too easy?
#1. Dozens of 300 meter tall Thorium/Platinum Alloy Pyramids arranged in fascinating patterns somewhat like a landing field. Exploring parties vanish in a flash of light...
#2. Cthulhu's Dark Corners of the Earth.
#3. The real reason for global melt - Google's gigantic ice sheet cooled server farm!
a lot like the terrain on Baffin Island, another arctic island which underwent intense glaciation in the last ice age - and emerged from it due to slightly milder climate. This picture of Mount Asgard on Baffin Island is likely quite representative of what would be under Greenland's ice. Minus, of course, the moss/lichen/pioneer plants.
Nice acronym.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
Having grown up in the Northeast I'd like to know when it is that we've ever had a white Christmas. In fact, a few years ago I read something about how contrary to the expectation that we should get snow on Christmas very few parts of the country actually see snow on a consistent basis for the holiday. I don't remember the percentage exactly, but it was quite high.
Like it says in the title, OIL will be found under the shelf.
That study was done using satellites, which don't have the resolution to work very well along the edges of Greenland, where much of the decrease is being measured.
Since 1990, scientists at Wallops Flight Facility/NASA have been flying either a P-3 or twin otters over both many of the outlet glaciers and the interior of Greenland and using LIDAR to map the surface. The interior is indeed increasing, but the edges are decreasing very rapidly. More importantly, once the outlet glaciers are "unplugged", the rate of outflow will greatly increase.
Google searches for Robert Thomas, William Krabill, and Waleed Abdaliti should reveal papers on their research.
Why are you even bothering? MacDork is obviously a MacMoron.
you know, if you could read I might have some faith that people who think like you aren't completely retarded, but since you can't, y'awls are retarded, yo.
Under the ice sheet there are, wait for it... Trees
o re.htm
http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-ice-c
This planet was once warm in the past. It is warming up again despite our human influence.
FYI, the planet is going to get cold again when it adjusts.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Santa Claus and his great big factory of elves making all the toys for Christmas.
Rumour has it that he has a huge Elf library for every operating system.
Don't you understand what is happening here? Every Roland Piquepaille submission is good, if you know how to see the goodness. Without a doubt, every time he gets something on /. there are people whining and complaining. When the executives analyze their site to see what is working for them, they notice RP submissions generate a great amount of comments.
/. time and time again. This one has been posted only a few minutes and already has way more comments than the NASA 'fake moon dust' article.
/. a favour. He works at no cost to /., and they have total control over posting his articles or not. They do it because it makes them money and keeps the site running. You should be happy. At least every time RP gets something wrong, you have the chance to set the record straight in the comments, and also expose how 'bad' he is because he is trying to make money. Instead of 'bad', think of it as 'living his life'. He has to eat too, maybe feed some kids, maybe pay a mortgage. He's just like you.
...
The real bread and butter of this site comes from the user discussion. That's what makes slashdot. That's why you keep coming back here. That's why you are all trying to be funny and trying to be insightful and trying to be informative. Without the discussion, this would just be a boring site with links to SEC (Someone Else's Content). Often the user comments are more interesting than the actual articles, and many users are happy to discuss the subject at hand without even reading the articles.
Who cares if RP makes a few nickels selling ads? Slashdotters are supposedly smart; we all have ad blockers running, and we don't click on them anyway. Do you think he makes a killing off his site? I bet you he still has a day job. Like it or not, his articles are (perhaps barely) interesting enough to make it onto
RP is really doing
In the end, if you didn't enjoy this article, there is sure to be a different article coming soon that is more to your liking. Just hit that refresh button
Even if it does not snow on Christmas day, there is usually still snow on the ground from previous snow showers which is not the case this year in most of the north east.
Roland's blog is fascinating and insightful. All of you envious anti Roland turds should just flush yourself away. So waht if he earns a little cash from us? It's the least we can do to reimburse him for the effort he puts into it and making /. a better place. Go back to Digg.
I could be completely off base here, but I read a while back the reason is because previously it was too cold to snow as much as before. However, since now thanks to "global warming", it is snowing more, but still below the freezing point and hence more ice. Again, I could be wrong here, but sounded like a good explanation to me for this phenomenom.
...it's probably oil.
If the GP wishes hard enough, all the evidence in the world will support his opinion, despite his pitiful reading comprehension and inability to grasp the highly complex and abstract nature of averages.
Alien starship.
Who did what now?
Damn it, you beat me to it!
"No. If you could read,..."
And if you could read you would find your precious "article" is actually an abstract, the paper itself does not account for the edges but does agree they are shrinking, and if you read past the 54cm bit you would find a citation at the bottom of your link pointing to the GRACE study that contradicts your 54cm claim.
Now if there are contradictory findings and you had any research skills at all, you could easily find a scientific critique of the two papers. Don't dispair, you do have some skill, at least you can quote an abstract from science that (on the surface) appears to pander to your world view and assists in you ridiculing people, perhaps if you brushed the chip of your shoulder you could learn something about the world around you. OTHOH: I suspect you are trolling and don't really expect a sensible reply to the GRACE data that I and others have pointed out.
BTW, the oil company shills have blown the cooling craze completely out of proportion to what it was (and yes, I do remeber 1975 and was old enough to read newspapers at the time).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Good question, personally I answer these kind of trolls in an attempt to head off disinformation.
A huge sign that reads 'Made in Magrathea'
Fabio Aquotte
Do like I do and tag all Roland blog advertisements as "pigpile".
I kid you not.
photosMy Photostream
Make it so they can be disabled on the "Customize Stories on the Homepage" part of the user prefs. Seriously, how many Piquepaille blogspams are there compared to Apache stories? Personally, I'd leave them on, but the icon or whatever would be a warning - even though there's usually no substance to the "story", sometimes there are worthwhile posts within the comments. Hopefully, this would also improve said comments, since complaints about these blog posts would no longer be justified.
wikipedia:
b /Iceland_sat_cleaned.png
e et_hg.png
Vatnajökull
It's 8 percent of the country preserved since the ice age.
The average thickness of the ice is 400 m, with a maximum thickness of 1000 m.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_icesh
Under the glacier, as under many of the glaciers of Iceland, there are several volcanoes. The volcanic lakes, Grímsvötn for example, were the sources of a large glacier run in 1996. The volcano under these lakes also caused a considerable but short-time eruption in the beginning of November 2004.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
Greenland, being the possesion of Iceland, or Denmark, or Norway, or someone somewhat civilized like that -- well, we give 'em money, they give us oil.
Money is peace.
You seem to assume that "ice getting thicker" is inconsistent with "global warming". Do you have any evidence for that, or even any reasoning? Because "ice getting thicker" to me (a non-climate-scientist) seems to have more to do with "more snow precipitation". Now given that it probably isn't raining in greenland too much, that "more snow precipitation" isn't because what used to be rain is now snow. Instead, it seems more likely to be from just plain more precipitation in the first place (all of which is as snow in any case).
And why might greenland be getting more precipitation than normal? Is it because the overall climate nearby is colder (decreasing evaporation), or because it is warmer (increasing evaporation)? Don't ask me... go ask a scientist who might know something. Or at least spend 10 seconds on google to understand that your silly idea is naive and stupid.
I have no problem with the fact that Roland Piquepaille makes money while posting articles to slashdot, and frankly he often links to interesting stories. The problem is that he doesn't write good summaries. He always seems to miss a small detail that later proves to be the point of the whole story. We all have to browse through the comments to find a reader that can explain the missing pieces. Todays story was pretty good though.
the first thing that came to mind after reading that headline was...
"Your mom".
This is a sig. It is like every other sig in the world, except that it is mine, and it is different.
they'll find Jimmy Hoffa? Or maybe Hans' wife?
What?
That's ridiculous. It's global warming, not parts of the globe warming. Global warming of 2 degrees obviously means that if it's 30 degrees outside it would have been 28 degrees if global warming hadn't happened. There being thicker ice in any part of the world (even my freezer) means that global warming is totally false. And they say that climatology is hard.
It seems the ice has been getting thicker in Greenland over the past decade or so.
The article you quoted doesn't really support your statement. Sure, the ice has been getting thicker in some areas, and has been getting thinner in other areas. That is not the same thing as the total of the ice increasing! For a total, look many other articles, such as this later article in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/580 3/1286.
"From 2003 to 2005, the ice sheet lost 101 ± 16 gigaton/year, with a gain of 54 gigaton/year above 2000 meters and a loss of 155 gigaton/year at lower elevations. The lower elevations show a large seasonal cycle, with mass losses during summer melting followed by gains from fall through spring."
"Mass changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet are of considerable interest because of its sensitivity to climate change and the potential for an increasing contribution of Greenland ice loss to rising sea level. Observations and models have shown that in recent years Greenland has experienced increased melt (1), thinning at the margins (2-4), and increased discharge from many outlet glaciers (5). At the same time, the ice sheet has been growing in its interior (3, 4, 6)."
Also see http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/g reenland/melt2005/
Get over it, Greenland's ice is melting. Now for the news that you might think is better. Because the center of Greenland is a large plain mostly surrounded by mountains, it will take at least several centuries for much of the ice to melt, even in a much warmer world. The edges will melt faster.
--
Is this a sig? Why, or Why not?
I have lived in Melbourne Australia for nearly 50yrs, we are experiencing a 1:1000yr drought event accompanied by record breaking heat waves, you may have also read about the exceptionally bad bushfires that have come 2 months early and blanketed the SE part of the continenet with smoke. My reasonably clean-air city looked like Calcutta for most of December, much worse and much longer than the smoke from "Ash Wednesday". Surprisingly, this year was my first white Christmas, I woke up to a severe hail storm that turned the garden and street white, elsewhere snow was falling on the fires.
The thing is, this is the third time in the last 2 months that an Antartic blast has dumped snow on bushfires, yet they have done little to eliviate the ever worsening drought, needless to say few people here now doubt that our climate has gone pear-shaped.
BTW: Thanks to the US, Canada and New Zealand for the fire-fighting assistance and equipment, maybe there is still reason to hope for international cooperation.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yes, there is more ice in the interior of Greenland. The amount of ice in the interior of Greenland depends on the amount of precipitation, not the temperature. That is, warmer temperatures don't reduce the amount of ice in the interior of Greenland as long as the temperatures stay below the melting point. But warmer temperatures increase the amount of moisture in the air and therefore the amount of precipitation in the interior, and that leads to more ice there.
By comparison, some of the strongest snowfalls are in the Sierra Nevada, even though it is not particularly cold, because the air coming in from the Pacific is full of moisture.
Warmer temperatures only decrease the amount of ice in those areas where the temperatures are already near the melting point, which is exactly what we're seeing in the melting and breaking up of ice sheets.
So, overall, more ice in the interior and more ice breaking off from ice shelfs are both consistent with global warming.
Eventually, of course, the temperatures in the interior of Greenland are going to get high enough that the glaciers there start to melt, and then you will see a decrease of the thickness of the ice there. But that's probably still a few decades off.
Osama Bin Laden
Prepare to be censored by global warming propagandaists who will mod you down for the crime of not following the holy word of politician Al Gore. Remember, environmentalists want you to feel guilty and ashamed for even existing on this planet. Facts don't count; it's all about what you feel is true. Ever notice how the media now asks people how they "feel" about something rather than what they "think?" It's part of our emotion-over-reason society of today, caused mostly by a predominantly liberal media that is more interested in "storylines" rather than truth. Global warming fits into their emotional, self-loathing storyline of mankind destroying Eden. Hence, the overblown alarmism of today that compares to the global cooling scare of the 1970s.
"Sufferin' succotash."
There. My informativity quotient has exceeded our noble blogger. And for a more entertaining notion: I wonder if someone could get charged for criminal acts against humanity if they ran around Greenland with space heaters and tried to claim some cheap real estate before the boom?
People are already jockeying for position on Antarctica and the soon to be available northern shipping routes. Don't just be a victim of global warming. Be a profitable victim!
*sigh* Global warming is not quite that simple, and frankly you're either an idiot or a troll.
What global warming means is that there is more energy in the weather systems of the world. That energy gets expressed as more _extreme_ temperature. The snow storms in Denver at the moment are just as much a symptom of global warming as the heat waves in Europe were in summer.
The weather is a vast engine that pumps heat energy around the globe. Global warming will result in this engine becoming unstable. One aspect of that may well be a complete breakdown of the heat-transfer mechanisms in the North Atlantic - which, in turn, would see glaciers in New York before too long, while, at the same time, causing the icecaps in Greenland and Antarctica to melt.
Climatology is hard. So's being a sane person with a brain, and not a troll.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
...the face of Elvis.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
i bet there are secret CIA prisons hidden underneath!!
Eclipse PDE and Me
Troll? - No, If it were a troll I would expect a reply. It's actually flamebait disgused as information.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Perhaps it does fit into someone's agenda or view of the world. That's not a valid reason to dismiss a theory out of hand. Also, you are correct: there are far too many people formulating opinions based on their emotions or even simply what they read reported in news stories. How much feeling and how much thinking are you doing in formulating your opinion on the topic? Read some actual studies -- studies with varying conclusions -- and their criticisms in the scientific community.
Not being a climatologist myself, I recently buckled down and did some hard reading on climate change, because I got tired of trying to sort out the fact from fiction. Now it's a little easier, and I've got an opinion based on real science (and I can usually spot the FUD). I think this is the only way to come up with a solid position on the subject with all the FUD out there; anything else is irresponsible.
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
People taste Greenland beer in Copenhagen. The new beer is said to taste cleaner and smoother. A brewery in Greenland is producing beer using water melted from the ice cap of the vast Arctic island. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5234194.stm
"It's very simple: The ice sheet atop Greenland has been growing, not melting. I have provided ample evidence to support this assertion. Evidence in the form of observations, not predictions and computer models."
It's anything but simple and you still don't get it. Your "observational evidence" is a confirmation of climate model predictions and the "observational evidence" from the GRACE study (that has been repeatedly pointed out to you, but you have repeatedly ignored), is much more accurate since it was designed specifically to measure the ice mass.
"If you guys want to rationalize that thicker glaciers equals global warming, then go right ahead."
If you want to engage in willfull ignorance to suit your politically inspired dogma, then go right ahead. I am assuming you a smart enough to have a dogmatic political opinion since I cannot think of another reason why you would ignore thousands of scientific papers and concentrate of just two well known skeptical abstracts. Like king Canute, the only person you are fooling is yourself.
If you really want to argue against AGW using the built in skepticism of science then there is a method for doing so, first hypothisise AGW is not happening and then try and prove yourself wrong by prediction and observation. The IPCC reference pages are full of of people smarter than you and I that have tried and failed.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Even if it does not snow on Christmas day, there is usually still snow on the ground from previous snow showers which is not the case this year in most of the north east.
Nor has it been the case in any recent year I can remember. This really isn't anything new.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Wow, now that is some information perfectly suited for misinformation. Where did you find this trollish link?
The missing context in your little piece is of course that land-ice is a product of snow. So thicker ice means more snow in Greenland. It doesn't mean that "global warming scaremongers" are wrong.
Any chance of these slides causing tsunamis in Atlantic ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Maybe there are ancient cities underneath the ice (I've been hooked on those ancient underwater cities)
Well, at least you are reading something, now how about reading it all, not just the parts that look nicer in your political agenda? Such as, from the same article you quote, "The Ice-cap has shrunk noticeably since 1978".
Now try to follow your own links and look over that "Medieval Warm Period" thing you mention. Quoting from the same Wikipedia which you appear to consider a reliable source: Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned. A somewhat warmer weather in Europe could be caused by many factors, for instance, how strong was the Gulf Current during that period? Also, even this warmer weather in Europe was nothing compared to the current global warming
Finally, you should try reading from related material. How about this: Erik purposely gave the land a more appealing name than "Iceland" in order to lure potential settlers. He explained, "people would be attracted to go there if it had a favourable name". Or this: For much of the time that the Norse survived in Greenland, they had a very tough life
Nice to hear from someone who has actually READ about this stuff.
You can learn this is any basic College or even High School Chemistry class. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance. The key word here is average. If on average the global atmosphere is warming, it can very well be the case that ice gets thicker (much, much thicker) in one place so long as somewhere else an equal but opposite temperature change occurs. The key is that it averages out to the expected change in temperature. For instance, if I have a copper plate and cool one side to -150 degrees and heat the other side to +150 degrees, the average temperature of the copper plate will be 0 degrees. I can still cool the negative side 50 degrees more (to -200 degrees) so long as I heat the positive side an equal amount, +50 degrees (to +200 degrees) and retain the same average temperature. That is, one side is cooler than it had been before but the average temperature is still the same. Now if I only cooled the -150 degree side by 49 degrees, the average temperature would be half a degree greater than it had been. But the cool side would still have been cooler than when we started.
In much the same way, the world can warm up while parts of it get colder. The key metric is the average of all of the parts, not just some of the parts.
You misspelled "because of" as "inspite of."
Some, but not much... mostly, these will break off inland, so they won't drop. The slides themselves will be fairly gentle... more of a drift than a rush. You'd only get a tsunami if a large area was undercut and snapped off. Even so, this wouldn't be big enough to do much damage except maybe to Iceland.
A number of similar slabs have broken off from Antarctica, and there's been no tsunami as a result.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
So you are proving Global Warming wrong by pointing to an article that says there is Global Warming.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
As an Australian, I should point out here that we're not in "1-in-1000 year" drought. Point in fact, there was a feature in the Australian today about this. The second-wettest year on record in Australia was 2000.
The problem isn't lack of rainfall. The problem is that rainfall patterns have shifted - it no longer rains as much as it used to in certain areas, and it now rains more than it used to. In particular, this is screwing up dams - most of the catchment areas for them are now getting less rainfall. This is stuffing up irrigation, which makes the farmers pissed off because they ignored the fact that we live in a sunburnt country and don't plant to suit the prevailing conditions.
In this land of droughts and flooding rains, we have farmers who plant crops and raise livestock requiring intensive irrigation. According to the CSIRO it takes about 750 litres of water to grow one kilogram of oven-dry wheat grain. It also takes up to 100,000 litres of water to produce just one kilogram of beef, and 170,000 litres of water to produce 1 kg of clean wool. Something like 75% of all water utilisation in Australia is by farmers - about 10% of water is used in cities groaning under Level 4 water restrictions, with the remaining 15% used by heavy industry. A lot of this water "goes overseas" in a way.
What Australia needs is a way of shifting water around more efficiently, to take it from the areas which have too much and direct it to the places it's needed. Initiatives like Beattie's "water grid" will help. Moving the users of water would help, too - most of Australia's agriculture is based around the Murray-Darling basin, which has been hit hard by the drought. Areas like northern Australia and Tasmania, by contrast, are under-developed agriculturally and have plenty of water.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
Maybe you have a different definition of recent, but in 95/96 there was a blizzard from the Atlantic to the Ohio valley.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
I'm sure I've seen a Firefox Extension or Greasemonkey script that filters Roland's stories from the front page.
If there isn't one, and I've dreamed the whole thing, then it should only take 10 minutes to write one.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Thank you - it appears that there are several.
I tried 3 of them, but this one seems to work best http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/5735/
I don't block adverts, flash etc. but Roland's blog spam irritates me.
No ice there ('cept under rocks) yet it is the coldest place on earth.
Why is this so? You get ice sheets when it's cold, yes?
Well, the air is so dry and so cold that there isn't any moisture in it by the time it gets inland, so although it's cold it is dry and there is no ice.
If the place warmed up 10 degrees there may be enough water in the air to cause some snow to fall yet it will be too cold to melt, so you'd get glaciers.
So, you'd look and say "see the ice is growing, so it can't be getting warmer" yet the temperatures have gone up 10 degrees.
Now to answer you implied question: if someone is wrong, shouldn't they be moderated "wrong" and remove the erroreous information from the internet? Or should we keep ALL wrong information alive?
Wales was a LOT nearer the equator 250 million years ago. 120 million years ago it was under water and further north.
So why would you expect Greenland to be up north all that time? If you didn't, why are you suprised that a tropical landmass could have had trees on it?
While I generally agree bad land/water management has compounded the problem, and acknowledge storms stubbornly track around the catchments instead of over them, I would not want to mow down the Tassie forests to plant cash crops. OTOH: I wholeheartedly agree we need solid data to adapt. The article in the Australian is not bad but it downplays the severity as can bee seen by looking at the BOM's drought statement archives. The most interesting ones are the latest one and the one for the 2000 downpour you mention. As an aside this years grain crop forecast was cut in half (12M tons lost) around july-august, since then the drought has got worse.
The 1:1000 (or sometimes 1:500) figure I quoted was arrived at using the same techniques as insurance actuaries use for weather related events.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
AGREED.
/. needs to stop linking to this attention whore's blog and link directly to the information, not someone writing about the information that wants more clicks on his site.
Even though this is an interesting story,
-Styopa
...from the last time the ice melted.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Stan: "Global warming isn't happening right now. It's, it's not what caused the Beaverton flood."
Kyle: "How do you know that?"
Stan: "Because, I know what did cause the flood."
Kyle: "George Bush?"
Stan: "No."
Kyle: "Terrorists?"
Stan: "No."
Kyle: "Communists?"
Stan: "No."
Kyle: "Chinese radicals?"
Stan: "No."
Kyle: "...Grad students?"
Stan: "...sort of."
On related news, Ohio State publicly declared they broke the dam.
You know in the spring, when the snow melts, and you have to clean up after your dog hardcore? Yeah, well now think about how much dinosaurs used to poop and how long the snow's been there. We'll need even more special radar to tell us where the poop ends and the ground begins.
I like your sig - but I think that it should be "WW1+WW2+...+WWW" more geeky math stuff that way. :)
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Millions of years ? Don't know about the medieval warm period and the vicking colonization of Groenland ?
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
"Nor has it been the case in any recent year I remember."
Ah, but was it the case a hundred years ago? Wasn't there a time when the America's Northeast had snow on Christmas? The literature of New England implies that it did snow there a lot once. (And I don't just mean Buffalo.)
Global warming has been accelerating, in part since the beginning of the industrial revolution, likely somewhat faster since 1950. We've theorized about it for almost two decades now. The data we want for what things were like before it hit probably should come from before most of our lifetimes, not during them.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
"There being thicker ice in any part of the world (even my freezer) means that global warming is totally false."
OMG the three body problem doesn't have a solution, gravity is totaly false.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This is a rather lame topic. "What's Hidden Under Greenland's Ice?" At least as lame as, "What's Hidden Under a Scotsman's Kilt?"
The Luftwaffe. The Tomb of Couperin. And, at LONG last, Plato's "cave".
I would draw the picture of the joke going over your head but really - surely when reading that ice growing thicker in my freezer disproves global warming *something* tweaked your joke sensors...
Since we 'know' the ice has been there for millions of years, then we must also 'know' what's under it.
The ancient land of Hyperborea! Mount Voormithadreth, housing Tsathoggua the toad-god. I'm suprised nobody mentioned it yet...
Ah, but was it the case a hundred years ago? Wasn't there a time when the America's Northeast had snow on Christmas? The literature of New England implies that it did snow there a lot once. (And I don't just mean Buffalo.)
Sure. And I'm sure there were times before that when, again, there wasn't snow in the Northeast in late December. It comes and goes.
Don't read too much into what I said - I'm neither supporting nor denying global warming, nor am I saying anything about anthropogenic causes; I'm just saying that not having snow in December is nothing new. (And frankly I don't miss it one bit - I have a 150-foot driveway.)
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Maybe you have a different definition of recent, but in 95/96 there was a blizzard from the Atlantic to the Ohio valley.
OK, but that was ten years ago. There was another fairly bad one in '88 IIRC, and another before that in '78. So maybe we're due for one soon? But still, in general, at least in the part of the Northeast where I live (Long Island), snowless Decembers are hardly rare.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Perhaps not that common in the US, but Quebec city had it's first green Christmas in recorded history this year. Environment Canada says Montreal now has snow for Christmas 2 years out of 3 rather than 4 out of 5. I had to go all the way to Baie Commeau to get a white Christmas ^^
Three words "dead polar bears!" ha ha !
No seriously - a baby seal walked into a club...
Libertas in infinitum
There are exceptions to the basic classifications of matter, but water-ice is not one of them, and solids generally do not change shape. You can't squeeze a bubble out of ice any more than you can out of solid epoxy, so unless you're referring to snow, "new ice" is no different from "old ice." Indeed, scientists use the air trapped in "old ice" to observe past atmospheric conditions. Even if it were possible for the air to somehow teleport out of the ice, and/or for the solid to somehow fill in the voids to increase its density (despite the fact that solids don't change shape by definition), liquid seawater varies by only 1.8% in density from the surface to a depth of 4km.
I also managed to find an article that applied specifically to your claim (despite the fact that it's answering a different question). From http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/FAQ.htm, emphasis mine:
you're either an idiot or a troll.
I didn't bother to read the post to which you replied, but perhaps you should be a bit less condescending considering you don't seem to have your own facts straight.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
But at least you tried to figure this enigma....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.