Slashdot Mirror
Huge Arctic Ice Shelf Breaks Off
knarfling writes "CNN is reporting that a chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan has broken away from Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic. Just last month 21 square miles of ice broke free from the Markham Ice Shelf. Scientists are saying that Ellesmere Island has now lost more than 10 times the ice that was predicted earlier this summer. How long before the fabled Northwest Passage is a reality?"
So is the arctic ice getting more or less when an ice shelf breaks off and floats away without actually melting? Anyhoo, global warming is good - it snowed last weekend.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Yeah, I didn't say I don't believe it, I just meant that they never seem to mention regions that have gotten colder when they're trying to 'educate' the masses.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
In early June, Slashdot told me all the ice would be melted by now.
There must still be ice up there. Is anyone getting tired of these stupid alarmist stories?
Ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. Get over it.
You completely missed the point, which was not "I think global warming is stupid and the sun is responsible", but rather "I think it's stupid that we create a theory, provide no cause and effect relationship, gather data that shows effect, the proclaim cause while something else may be going on".
I'm going to laugh my ass all the way to the grave if global warming activists kill us all because of an understudied field of science (ecology) led us to ignore other possible cause and effect relationships.
And I took special care to not invalidate global warming in my post. So don't get your panties in a twist, I haven't rained upon your parade.
FanFictionRecs.net
No. Read section 2.7 [ucar.edu], which summarizes pretty much every peer-reviewed paper published on the subject. Not even close. I mean, seriously -- did it never occur to you that maybe, just maybe, we have observatories and satellites studying in detail essentially every thing the sun does, in addition to all kinds of long-term proxy data?
Yeah yeah, studying what. Our sensors are primitive, our understanding of physics limited, our ability to model complexity is weak, and yet, you claim to understand exactly how a giant nuclear explosion is going to effect the earth in every possible way?
Why, it's only this year that they have discovered that there's some sort of quantum coupling between the earth and the sun such that solar output seems to alter decay rates of some materials, and it's only been this year that they discovered a giant electrical conduit between the earth and the sun. But that's just year. I bet we don't know 10% of what we think we know about the -only- source of energy in our solar system.
This is my sig.
I find it worrying when people jump on a bandwagon with the attitude that "we can err on the side of caution, and that will be ok because maybe it stops doomsday".
Unfortunately, doomsday never materializes, but in the meantime, people have spent much of their time and resources, to their detriment as a whole, to avert a disaster which is not occurring.
Now, I think reasonable people would agree that we should reduce pollution as far as reasonably possible. That's improvement. But to tell everyone that the sky is falling unless you only have 1 child (thus increasing the chances that your line will disappear), or unless you switch to electric cars (which have toxic batteries installed), or unless you vote for some guy who will drastically increase CAFE standards, is irresponsible. Unfortunately, these sorts of people don't care what damage they cause. Look at Paul Ehrlich, still truckin' despite his many flawed and dangerous predictions:
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, ... The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." Paul Ehrlich in an interview with Peter Collier in the April 1970 of the magazine Mademoiselle.
"Actually, the problem in the world is that there is much too many rich people..." - Quoted by the Associated Press, April 6, 1990
The last is telling. The man is not an environmentalist. He is a communist, who tried to use fear and hysteria to convince people that they needed to suffer in order to live.
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
I predict that, if Barack Obama is elected president, MSM reports of dangerous ice falling from the Arctic will decrease.
Then we will all be safe.
The opening of the Northwest Passage is so last year.
Actually, it's so 92 years ago - because that's when this man successfully traversed it (in 1906).
Some of you MMGW loonies need to go get some history lessons.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
He may be a little zealous but he has a point.
Your counter is a good point, and I would not call it untrue. I would counter by saying that the mental energy expended would just as likely be directed towards some other advance which was just as or even more important.
As far as the existence of global warming, it really will be a while before anyone can say for sure, and the earth as far as we know has been both warmer and colder.
The real issue that I take with many of these "scientific" articles is that they take extreme liberty in forming their conclusions. They then attract a rabid following, and when the science or conclusion changes, there is no learning occurring on the part of the followers. They continue to be rabid on the new thinking, and try to shout down anyone who doesn't carry the banner.
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.