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."
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?
If you RTFWA, you'd prabably noticed Erik the Red called it 'Greenland' for the same reason Vista is called "The most secure OS in existance'.
Trust me, I work for the government.
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.
I don't get why the "man has no effect" crowd are so vehemently against taking any action. If we assume man has no effect and global warming is a natural phenomenon, what's so wrong with taking steps to (a) reduce pollution and (b) reduce dependency on fossil fuels?
(a) Pollution does f*cked up things quite apart from global warming. Remember those picture of forest in Germany and Sweden, algae blooms, "clean" rivers and streams etc etc, so what's wrong with trying to reduce it?
(b) Why would anyone want to be so dependant on another countries resource? The oil is finite, it's going to run out, this is a bad thing. Developing new tech and their associated industries, this is a good thing. What's the problem?
Look, if it helps all the naysayers, claim you're being patriotic, claim that you want to wean your country off the petrochemical teat, claim that you want to save you glorious forests and lakes for "the kids". You don't have to say you're doing it because you've changed your mind about global warming, you just have to do it.
The left one? Please don't tell me you took the left one.
I can only assume this is a troll. Surely no one could possibly be this ignorant by accident. Still, debunking your comment might provide minor entertainment:
The earth and sun have very long cycles that span eons and looking at a mere 100 years of semi-accurate data is very myopic.
Try hundreds of thousands of years.
I can go along with the current theories that we are having an influence on the climate but we certainly are not as significant as the political rallying groups would like you to believe.
How about the scientists?
IF they were correct after all, the ozone hole would not be getting smaller.
The situation with the hole in the ozone layer is improving because we took note of what the scientists were saying and reduced our release of CFCs. And this does of course have absolutely nothing to do with climate change.
Anyone who thinks the Kyoto accords were only about reducing greenhouse emissions needs to really look into the politics behind it. Most of the nations that signed it didn't have significant emissions to begin with.
Every nation of note except the USA and Australia signed and ratified it.