Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Exposes New Islands in the Arctic
circletimessquare writes "The New York Times has a sobering article about the rapidly accelerating pace of glacial melting across the arctic, focusing on the discovery of new islands and the fact that this is occurring far faster than climate scientist's models predict. What were called Nunataks or 'lonely mountains' in Inuit, trapped in the ice, only a few years ago, are now in the open ocean by kilometers. Off of Greenland, what was known previously as peninsulas have been revealed to be islands as the ice retreats. Dennis Schmitt, a modern day explorer and discoverer of one of these new islands and fluent in Inuit, has named it Uunartoq Qeqertoq: the warming island."
It will be interesting to see what else is under the ice. The melting is definitely something we should be concerned about.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
Can you really "discover" an island these days? I'm sure some arctic researchers in a lab somewhere saw these on recent satellite photos. Even more so, I bet the appearance of these islands was predictable, given melt rates and knowledge of what was under the ice.
For all those interested, all the OceanLand Islands are property of me, and are being sold at $499,999,999.99 each.
Not only am i chepaer than the competition, my islands are real. Please, check them out, you'll warm up to them faster than you'd think.
Have you read my journal today?
Why bother putting it on the map? Soon global warming will also put it under water too.
Problem solved! Hurray!
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland, and when the Scandinavian monarchs converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland as well. The settlements seem to have coexisted relatively peacefully with the Inuit, who had migrated southwards from the Arctic islands of North America around 1200. In 1261, Greenland became part of the Kingdom of Norway. Norway in turn entered into the Kalmar Union in 1397 and later the personal union of Denmark-Norway.
After almost five hundred years, the Scandinavian settlements simply vanished, possibly due to famine during the fifteenth century in the Little Ice Age, when climatic conditions deteriorated, and contact with Europe was lost.
----------------
So Greenland used to be green. Then it froze. Now it's turning green again. It's almost like it's a natural cycle.
Work Safe Porn
When can we expect the announcement about Pirate Bay trying to buy one of the new islands?
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Just start buying up inland real estate, 'cause beachfront's gonna be moving.
It's interesting that the models are proving to be conservative...Makes the case that the current warming trend is more closely related to a solar upswing (than greenhouse gas buildup) more persuasive. Either way, I think we need to start putting less thought into "how are we going to slow down our greenhouse gas emissions" and more thought into "what steps are we going to need to take to deal with the inevitable consequences of the current warming trend."
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
those who fear it lack the sense of adventure which led man out of the dark ages.
The past has seen tropical rainforests in Canada and glaciers in the southern USA.
IMO the whole global warming brewhaha is centered in power and control. It's nothing
more than another means to wealth and prestige for those who's only life skill is
massaging the emotions of the ignorant.
I for one welcome mass extinctions and greater stress on human life!
According to the article, Greenland has 630,000 cubic miles of ice. If all of it melted it will raise ocean levels by 23 feet, but the article also says we are losing only 80 cubic miles per year. At that rate it will take over 300 years to raise sea levels by a foot. This is reason for concern, but don't buy that inland beachfront yet!
Took a few minutes (the map in the article isn't really all that good), but I dug up a photo of the island in google maps:
, -21.726837&spn=0.209418,1.203003&t=k&om=1
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=10&ll=71.476542
Still shows it as connected.. but only barely.
You're right. We need to stay open to the possibility that temperatures staying the same (or even cooling) may be the cause of all this ice melting. ;-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Not to detract from the issue but is this not a good opportunity to go fossil hunting? Covered in ice there might be more than just fossilized bone as well (but we'd better be quick about it because once exposed to air there really won't be anything but bone).
Canada calls Shotgun! Those islands are now the soverign soil of Canada! Hurray!
By the time global warming gets really bad, I'll be kicking back in my condo on the moon.
Seeing as how this is the 10,000th time this sort of thing has happened, can we at least all agree that:
Seriously. Every year there's a new twist that the models missed by a mile. Most recently, it was the 2006 quiet hurricane season. Anyone who claims to predict planetary weather by studying past correllations and making guesses at future causations, is doing the academic equivalent of hunting for venture capital.
But, nevertheless, the planet is getting steadily warmer.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
I saw some ass hate on Fox New the other day saying that global warming was good for the economy. Knowing that there are many in this country (including our own freaking president) who feel similarly, I can't help but think it might be too late. I honestly don't think the human animal can over come its greed and hunger for power. It might be time to accept the great purge is coming. Now, if only there was away to make sure that only the idiots perish.
Oh? Think so?
I'll bet you have a car or maybe even an SUV. I'll bet it runs on gasoline, too. And I'll bet you drive it every day. I'll bet you have a home and I'll bet you have a furnace, too.
You really do have a choice. You are at least, in part, responsible for global warming, like or not. It's not that d4 3v1l 01l c0mp4n13z are forcing you to use their products. You use their products because they are plentiful, available, and cheap. It's the fact that the oil companies have made it plentiful, available and cheap and that they have used their powerful PACs and lobby groups to make sure that oil remains the most used energy product that relieves you of at least some of the responsibility.
My blog
Actually, as far as I understand the science, what happened the last few days in the US is entierly expected as a consequence of Global Warming. YOu don't just get warmer weather, you get more extreme weather as the extra energy in the system pushes things further from it's balance point. Global Warming is a misnomer as its far too simple and encourages thinking along the lines of 'its cold here so Global Warming can't possibly be happening'. Global Climate Change is a better term.
Since this will devolve into a debate about global warming in general, I'd like to jump the gun a bit.
I'm not entirely certain if global warming is entirely the cause of humans. The limited research and reading I've done makes me learn towards the side that says it is, but my degree-in-earning is Computer Science, not Environmental Science, so I won't rule without doing far more research.
However, I think there are two facts that can't be denied by anyone:
1) The Earth is, in general, becoming warmer.
2) Polution and trash from humans is affecting the environment in some negative manner.
I know of no person who will deny that CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons- say that three times fast) affected the ozone layer (oddly, I haven't heard much about that in the Global Warming blurbs I see on Slashdot daily), though I'm sure a few exist, mainly in the industry that made their money off such things. No one thinks smog is a good thing.
So, whether we like it or not, humans are contributing in some form to the degredation of the environment, which can include global warming- I'll let the scientists hash out just how much. So, with that in mind, something should be done. Perhaps not the far-reaching suggestions some of the more "hardcore" environmentalists suggest, but a gradual process to decrease trash and pollutants would be useful.
As the saying goes, "A pinch of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Or something like that.
The Medieval warm period was fairly regional, and GLOBAL temperatures at the time were fairly well-maintained. That is a red herring. You are either ignorant or shilling.
The thing is that many of mankind's effects are far outstripping some of nature's effects. For example we strongly suspect that volcanic CO2 is a significant force in climate, yet we (humans) put out several times as much CO2 as all volcanoes combined, every year. We also create numerous compounds which nature would probably never create, and which there has never been any sign that nature could create - so to argue that our impact is probably negligible is to deliberately ignore several important reasons why our impact is different and probably greater than any prior species.
In fact we have had such a dramatic effect on the planet's surface, especially through deforestation, that it would be extremely foolish to assume that we have not changed global weather significantly. We do things that we KNOW affect global weather - when a huge fire sweeps through and takes out a forest for a while, we know that makes changes. Yet when we wipe out forests so that we can grow food and raise cattle, we act like that will not make any difference. Clearly this is inconsistent at best, but is probably deliberate hypocrisy in the majority of cases.
Even if we didn't CAUSE this problem we have to deal with it. We can be part of the solution, or part of the precipitate (and that means we drop out and are left lying around on the bottom of the flask, just a bit of excess, rejected sludge.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Given that the climate scientist's models aren't predicting very well right now (by the climate scientist's own admission), why is so much faith put in the predictive ability of the models further down the road?
I'll be the first to admit that adding CO2 to a closed system can raise the temperature; the real question is "how much?" and "what other factors are involved?". Constant curve-fitting of the climate models (euphemistically called "calibrating" and "tweaking") to make CO2 the primary driver of temperature may not be the right approach.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
"We can be part of the solution"
And how is calling people ignorant shills being part of the solution?
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
It has long been known that the Greenhouse Effect exists, causing temperatures to rise by trapping heat. The more gases that trap infrared radiation that exist in the atmosphere, the more heat is retained and the faster the atmospheric temperature rises. This is mitigated by other factors, but the basic mechanism is pretty simple. I think the why question has a pretty decent answer, making the real question: Is this part of a natural warming trend, part of the natural fluctuation that happens after an ice age, or has the current warming trend been triggered, or is it being accelerated, by the rate of Greenhouse emissions?
I think it's safe to say that claiming our activities have no impact is facetious at best; adding Greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is altering a natural process by overloading the atmospheric system and causing the other systems that provide re-uptake and moderation of these gases to be stretched to their limits more quickly. In the end, the question becomes: is the natural system capable of absorbing the extra gases we create, or are we pushing the global systems toward catastrophic failure?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
We still lack a great deal of information that would allow us the ability to make sound decisions concerning global warming. There is strong indications that human actions are taking a toll on the climate, but to what extent is still up for discussion. While rising ocean water is a massive problem for coastal territories, dumping a tremendous amount of fresh water the ocean will change the salinity and with it the density of water potentially altering currents. This could be catastrophic because ocean currents are the worlds most efficient means of transferring energy from the equator to the poles. Interruption in this could change weather patterns around the world if altered considerably. Can't wait to see how this works out in a decade of two.
Uunartoq Qeqertoq - Finally! Something to do with all those Q's and U's in Scrabble!
That green slime had it coming.
A minor nit.. but it bears pointing out:
Inuit is the general term for the people (it literally means "The people")
Inuk is the singular
Inuktitut is a general term for the languages of said people (for the Inuit living in northern Canada.. apparently in Greenland it's a different one)
It's a little more complicated than I'm making it out to be.. but it's certainly not correct to say that "such and such is a word in Inuit"
More detail than you ever wanted: here, here, here and especially here, from last week.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Speaking of "An Inconvenient Truth," this reminded me of all the before and after pictures of glaciers and such. Here are a few: melt
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
The parent is right. Global warming argument aside, no one wants to live in a garabage dump.
p.s. No offense to the residents of Staten Island
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
That article states, among other things, "More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in Sept. 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, and downplays the likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time."
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
http://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=&ie=UTF8&z=11&l l=71.502266,-21.821594&spn=0.129185,0.444946&t=k&o m=1
1. Grab an iced drink and hang on to it.
2. Observe the temperature stay relatively constant so long as there's ice, and that ice melts quicker as there is less of it.
3. When the ice is gone observe that your refreshing drink is now warm as piss and you have to go find another new one.
This is a very serious issue that needs to be responded to immediately, and given its size it is unfortunately the responsibility of the US to lead the way on this one (though they have done a woefully inadequate job so far).
More generally people need to get better at risk management and focus on things that will certainly affect them (global warming, privacy, etc.), even if less interesting than the more sensational yet relatively insignificant 'global issues' (terrorism, nuclear energy, etc.).
It seems that the two biggest gloom-and-doom scenarios these days (aside from global warming itself) is that the ice will melt causing the oceans to rise, and that we're going to run out of fresh water.
Anyone else seeing a way to kill two birds with one stone here?
Why not start creating man-made lakes, and towing icebergs into 'em? Yes it's a lot of work, but if we're going to need the water anyway, and we don't want to lose too much of our shoreline...well, why the hell not? It'd be extremely easy to do in north america, and much of northern europe and asia. And if we're feeling really charitable, we could start towing the southern ice-caps up to africa and the middle-east. They could certainly use some fresh-water.
"My eventual plan is to move to a warmer climate" my eventual plan is to have a warmer climate move to me - go global warming!
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
Who are these people with this agenda, and how are they influencing scientists? Do you realize how paranoid you sound?
It's clear to me that *one side* is horrendously guilty of twisting the facts, and that occasionally media types (who are hardly on the other side) are guilty of playing chicken little. However, if you actually RTFJs, you'll find the side that does not tend to twist the facts nor exaggerate the consequences. (I'm talking about the science, not the literal politics. Gripe about Kyoto to your hearts content, but don't paint scientists as pawns.)
Seriously, try reading a journal dedicated to climatology. If you're not able to understand it, then please don't argue about the science.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
So, why do you think that Bill O'Reilly, GW Bush, and (gasp, finally!) ExxonMobil disagree with you? Is it just because they're a bunch of envirowackos trying to destroy the economy?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You use their products because they are plentiful, available, and cheap. ...and because there are no alternatives, thanks to the companies.
OilCo's do everything in their power to make life virtually unlivable without dependence on their products. The only people who truly are free are the hippies in Marin County who live off the grid in tee-pees. I could give up my life to live in a tee-pee, because everything up to this point has been my choice, but it has been a choice between shitting behind a bush and not showering, or living in the modern world where oil is a necessity.
Another example, cities used to get money to promote mass-transit systems, until BushCo. cut those subsidies at the behest of the oil companies. This means people now have the choice of living far from work and commuting, or taking a job that pays much less somewhere else. And if they do drive, they could have a choice of driving a more fuel efficient vehicle, but due to the oil industry lobbyists and BushCo., gas standards are set to improve 5% over the next 13 years.
So you can see that there is always a choice, but the options are often so extremely far from each other as to make one option unrealistic, and the reason for this is influence of the evil (yes, evil), oil companies who care about their 10-billion a quarter earnings.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Do you use incandescent light bulbs? Then YOU are part of the problem. Do you leave your PC on 24/7? Then YOU are part of the problem. Do you leave your laser printer on all day? Then YOU are part of the problem (laser printers suck more juice than all other computer components combined; they're mini space heaters).
Do you Drive an SUV? Then YOU are even more of the problem and a sociopath as well. Do you race to the next red light instead of taking your foot off the gas? Not only are you part of the problem, then you are an idiot to boot.
If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, then please stop fucking up my planet. Thank you.
I wish you doom-saying liberals would stop saying that the ice is melting. Quit relying on your own senses and recognize that it's all about perception. Choose to perceive that the ice isn't melting and the problem will go away.
And we were welcomed as liberators in Iraq, too. Really, we were.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
...and I just bought a hybrid vehicle... Yes, it's an SUV, but I also need space to hold all that comes with having an infant (car seat, stroller, diaper bag, and still gotta carry the groceries or whatever we're going out for).
I just love this kind of self-justification. You don't 'need' an SUV. I think you could carry all that stuff pretty easily in a small hatchback - or a minivan - or any of several vehicle types that have plenty of room for such everyday suburban needs. You bought an SUV because the culture, fed by the car companies, taught you to *want* an SUV.
Now you may *need* 4 wheel drive up there in Alberta, but you certainly don't *need* a big, heavy truck.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
And if you look worldwide, rather than at just the Atlantic, they were, this last season.
The Atlantic didn't have many hurricanes, which is usual in an El Nino year.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
So what makes you a christian? You don't believe what christians are supposed to believe (creation story for example), so maybe you should stop flying under their banner. Do you believe there was a magic man named jesus, who was nailed to a cross thus removing "sin" from humankind (and that "original sin" was started by eating an apple, and this sin was passed down through the male line)? If you don't believe this nonsense, then why call yourself a christian? Is it because you believe in so called "christian values"? Well guess what, all those values are available to non-christians as well -nothing about doing good to others, and not lying, cheating, or stealing, is inherently christian. I think you should stop supporting this backwards religious thinking. You are supporting their nonsense by flying under their banner by calling yourself a christian. If you don't believe this christian nonsense, then you are not a christian -you are a christianity-flag waving hypocrit. You are a christian by name only, probably because you were raised by christians. By continuing to call yourself a christian, you support their backwards thinking that admittedly you disagree with. You can't have your cake and eat it too -either the christians are right, or they are wrong- so pick a side. You are committing intellectual dishonesty of the most egregious kind.
whoooaa... hang on a second. First and foremost I think for myself. Honestly, I think your personal attack on me is odd, assuming you're not christian.. I mean really, a non-christian dictating what christianity should or shouldn't be.. odd.
Most fundamentalist christians wouldn't have a thing to do with me for many reasons, but they (or you) will not dictate my spirituality to me. Jesus was alive and was nailed to a cross beside two criminals, that I believe. Crucifixion was common practice in those days. Christ was perceived a political threat to the Romans and was killed for it. Yes I happen believe he was devine, too. You're free to think differently.
I also try to live by what he said was the greatest law of all, which is love. So many xians conflate love with old covenant law, such as we hear from those godhatesfags freaks. Christ was very much a radical peace loving liberal in his time. That is why I choose to identify with Christianity. Between you and I, I can't stand the christian church and organized religion of all stripes. I hate religious fundamentalism (whether it comes from christians or muslims or atheists or __________). So yes, I try to follow Christ but that does not mean I have all the answers. If you study the Christian church in early American history you'll see that many many christians believed in evolution and thought creationism (as it's taught now) was bullshit. Fundamentalists do not own God, even though they may act like it.
You can't have your cake and eat it too -either the christians are right, or they are wrong- so pick a side. You are committing intellectual dishonesty of the most egregious kind.
No, you are the one committing a terrible logical error known as the "false dichotomy". If you were not completely ignorant of religion as a historical entity, you would understand that there are thousands of different beliefs. You would then realize on your own the folly of grouping them all together based on what one super-conservative fundamentalist sub-group thinks, and declaring that anyone who doesn't agree can't call themselves by the same name. Well, that's what they think too, and the one thing they share with you is that they are also ignorant bigots.
There are extremist idiots of every stripe, every philosophy has its xenophobic hatemongers, every sect has its deliberately ignorant. Again, history shows this as surely as anything. So does your post.
Just an fyi, in case you feel the need at some point to open your mind at which point this may make sense to you, but for many of us Christians there is nothing unusal or contradictory believing in God and the big bang, evolution, and global warming.
The enemies of Democracy are