Slashdot Mirror
Greenland's Glaciers Develop Stretch Marks As They Accelerate
New submitter dywolf writes: NASA-run Operation IceBridge has been monitoring and mapping ice sheets for the past eight years. They develop these maps in 3D using laser equipped aircraft to measure ice thickness. As glaciers reach the coast, they begin to accelerate, which causes crevasses to appear, which are essentially stretchmarks in the glacial strata. While a natural part of glaciers as they travel to sea, the glaciers of Greenland have increased in speed by 30% in the past decade. Jakobshavn Isbrae is Greenland's fastest glacier, and is now moving four times faster than it did 20 years ago.
When something starts to go down hill faster, stretch marks occur?
Must resist ex-wife joke......
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
It seems to the rest of us that whiny ACs and climate deniers who provide no evidence probably have their own political agenda.
Got facts? Provide 'em.
Got innuendo? Fuck off.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This is great news! There will soon be new baby glaciers out and about playing in the cool mountains and valleys of Greenland. Most mothers consider stretch marks a small price to pay for their children. I'm sure glacial mommies feel the same way about their little baby glacial rug rats.
It looks like the scientists of NASA's biggest agenda is to protect this planet, why would you think otherwise?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Those glaciers look very sooty, does anyone know how much of that is man made from coal and diesel pollution?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
I'm usually not one to ad hominem by source, but seriously... slate.com? The whole site is a political screed. But, it gets worse...
You go to the article, and of all the links they have, only *two* point to anything that comes even close to scientific -or- academic.
The one academic link points to a summary on UCAR, from 2007(!?), that contains exactly one pretty chart, but *no data* to back it up (or even a link to said data.) If someone finds a link to hard data in any of this mess, please let me know. Meanwhile, it should be noted that one of UCAR's missions is literally "Engaging in effective advocacy."
The one scientific link, to a NASA project site, tells the actual story. the TL;DR is that most of what they saw was routine, but two small areas got their attention... and they didn't measure those areas with anything useful, but instead literally used:
If you're going to link to something as backup for a story, how about you make it an article that contains some fact, and not an alarmist screed which supports its premise with a series of blind alley links, only one of which eventually leads to something useful... and that useful thing isn't even all that scientific?
Seriously - if you want less skeptics on the subject, it would help if you provided something more than blind assertion by a university-affiliated advocacy group, and what one guy did with his little handycam...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
its not surprising you hide behind an anonymous coward posting
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Actually, if European governments stopped "doing something about it", Europe could be lowering their CO2 emissions as well.
The problem with the global warming activists isn't so much what they advocate (lowering carbon emissions), but their idiotic belief that the best way of accomplishing that is through government action.
LOL not surprised anyone hides behind AC on this.
The gloom and doomers are notably brittle, the only things they dislike more than unbelievers are unbelievers with legitimate points.
If you want empirical evidence of this, just post a list of failed predictions from the warming crowd.
Here's a starter for you
https://wattsupwiththat.files....
In response to climate change, Elon Musk made a point to make cool electric cars. Millions of people died. In response to climate change, some people have refrained from taking planes and are using their cars if they don't really have to. Millions of people died. In response to climate change, people have chosen to select energy suppliers that provide 'green' energy. Millions of people died.
At this rate of millions dying, we soon will have not enough people to put enough CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the furnace going.
The problem with the global warming activists isn't so much what they advocate (lowering carbon emissions), but their idiotic belief that the best way of accomplishing that is through government action.
If it wasn't for government action, people would still be hauling coal out of the ground and burning it in the dirtiest (i.e. cheapest) ways. Your "government is bad because it's an axiom" argument is stupid.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The problem ... isn't so much what they advocate (lowering carbon emissions), but their ... belief that the best way of accomplishing that is through government action.
I'm intrigued. What is the best way to accomplish this? I'd advocate a market based solution (but not cap and trade), but even that would require government intervention. Is there a better way?
Yes, the evil government. I did find one government that acts on climate change
http://theconversation.com/beh...
Without government you eventually devolve into militia rule, slavery, rape, forcible starvation etc.
Perhaps you save much energy from the collapse of the standards of living of 98% of the population, and slave labor is an alternative source of energy.
Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention. The reason carbon emissions in the US have gone down is because of fracking, an innovation driven by the market trying to increase the supply of a scarce resource, not government.
The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth. But global economic growth is the best way of combating global warming and protecting the environment because the wealthier a nation is, the slower its birth rate and the better its environmental record.
In terms of promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and nuclear, the market itself already has more than enough of an incentive for that, because fossil fuels are expensive and limited. Nothing the US or foreign governments can politically accomplish is going to be a bigger incentive than that.
Are you kidding? Coal is such a big source of energy today in large part because of government subsidies and government exemptions from liability for its environmental impact.
Did I say anywhere that I wanted no government? I talked specifically about government intervention in the economy.
As for slavery, you really need to learn some history. Slavery is a construct of governments. In the US, slavery only continued to exist until the civil war because state and federal governments guaranteed and enforced property rights in slaves. That's why the fugitive slave act was such a hot issue.
It's the farts of EVERY species on the planet that are causing global warming - so everything must die to protect the earth. Oh wait - they already engraved something like that on the "Georgia Guidestones".....
The Truth is a Virus!!!
It's actually Glacier poop! It has no where to go so it drags it along with it.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention.
They do, if there's no fair market price for pollution.
The reason carbon emissions in the US have gone down is because of fracking,
A lucky coincidence. Similar kinds of innovation are responsible for digging up tar sands, which increase carbon emissions per unit of energy.
The global warming religious crowed needs to come to the realization that the earth IS affected by the sun
Yes, that's well understood. But the problem is that the sun has actually slightly decreased in average brightness since the '80s.
Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention.
By what definition? Are you referring to barter? Any more complex market requires governance. The market based solution that I favour is a revenue neutral carbon tax. Income tax and sales tax would be reduced (which is good because why are we taxing behaviours that we want to encourage!) but the price at the pump would increase. A relatively modest RNCT was introduced in British Columbia and it seems to be working quite well.
The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth
Agreed. We need to proceed with caution. We're better equipped to tackle this if we're rich. Let's plan to stay that way.
In terms of promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and nuclear, the market itself already has more than enough of an incentive for that, because fossil fuels are expensive and limited.
The big problem is that there is much more fossil fuel available than we can safely burn. Just waiting until we run out (or diminish stocks to the point that they become prohibitively or even relatively expensive) is not really a solution.
Do you have any proof that he "wants to micromanage everyone's lives"?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
So... There's no global warming because you start your graph on a unusually warm year, use a satellite derived value, and one that measures the estimated temperature of the lower troposphere?
That's three strikes against your example graph already, and I barely had to look at it.
If we look at the surface temperature average, like HADCRUT4, there's clearly warming even if we start with your cherry-picked start point. The trend is much more pronounced if we use a 30 year graph.
Heck if we use a 30 year RSS graph the trend is pretty clear there too.
So, who are you trying to fool?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Try the 2000 year graph
Oh and btw 57% of the man made co2 was put in the atmosphere in the 18 year period
So bs on you ?
(Never mind that lack of action on climate change will probably cost billions of people their lives while doing nothing to help the planet. But what do results count as long as your intentions are good?)
You people are sickening.
FTFY
By what definition? Are you referring to barter? Any more complex market requires governance. The market based solution that I favour is a revenue neutral carbon tax. Income tax and sales tax would be reduced (which is good because why are we taxing behaviours that we want to encourage!) but the price at the pump would increase. A relatively modest RNCT was introduced in British Columbia and it seems to be working quite well.
I'm against using a carbon tax to reduce income and sales taxes because if it works as we want it to after a few decades there will be little tax collected because no one is emitting carbon which means you have to increase them again (with all of the politics that involves). Instead what I favor is a dividend where the proceeds of the carbon tax are distributed back in equal shares to all legal residents of the country. That rewards those with a lower carbon footprint and penalizes those with a higher carbon footprint.
if it works as we want it to after a few decades there will be little tax collected because no one is emitting carbon
I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.
Stretch marks... on a stretched material?
You're missing the externality problem. The market only accounts for costs that the various players have to pay themselves. If a certain valuable activity requires some sort of fuel, then the market will optimize its consumption based on the direct cost. It will do nothing about any costs borne by anybody other than that particular market actor.
Consider good old-fashioned pollution. A factory owner might run a factory at its economic optimum by spewing pollution all over the place. That comes at a cost, but that cost is not paid for by the factory owner, so it doesn't affect his or her decisions. The factory owner will only clean up if required to do so by law or regulation, or if some sort of cost of pollution is imposed. This is normally done by government.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention.
An economic market is not a place or a thing, it's a set of rules that govern trade (eg: property law). Forget what you have been taught by Fox news and think about it for two seconds, how is a market even possible without property law?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Even barter assumes that some form of property law exists.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The global warming religious crowed needs to come to the realization that the earth IS affected by the sun
Whoever told you what the "crowed" thinks, was lying to you.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Markets do not require "governance", they can be self-governing, and frequently are.
I suggest you do the math on that. I did, and I came up with being able to get at most to about 1000ppm, which is still quite safe.
You got it backwards. The only reason the factory owner gets away with polluting the environment and imposing costs on other people is because government has given him license to do so.
Externalities only exist because government created them. Take water pollution. If the body of water being polluted belongs to a private party, that party bears those costs. It becomes an "externality" (a cost effectively born by all people) when the government makes that body of water "public property".
Markets do not require "governance", they can be self-governing, and frequently are.
Could you give me an example? Game theory suggests that this would fail on any large scale.
I came up with being able to get at most to about 1000ppm, which is still quite safe.
Assuming you have a good account of undiscovered repositories, which I think is probably unlikely, how do you know that 1000 ppm is quite safe? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
How do you know it's safe? You look at Earth's history and see when it was that high last time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
It actually went as high as 1700 ppm during the Cretaceous era; mean global temperatures were about 4C above modern temperatures, but the sun was a few percent weaker. Generally, when mean global temperatures go up, the higher latitudes get warmer, leading to an overall more gentle climate.
The way fossil fuels were deposited and the fact that a lot of them are not recoverable also pretty much tells you that we couldn't reach anywhere near those atmospheric carbon concentrations by burning fossil fuels even if we wanted to.
The underground economy and black markets are large scale markets that operate just fine without property rights or government regulation.
I don't see why you think that game theory suggests that "this would fail on any large scale".
That's some crazy thinking. You realize sea levels were 550 feet higher then as well? (R.D. Muller et al 2008). So you started by saying that you don't deny the science, you just don't like the proposed solutions. What's your solution? Reject the science.
Markets by definition... as long as that definition is limited to black markets... notwithstanding the fact that these are governed by the mafia.
So all those other times the government stepped in and helped save some aspect of the planet we rely on as a species, that didn't happen. Gotcha. Your logic is fucking embarrassing.
So you don't know much about markets or climate science, yet here you are, espousing how the former can fix problems with the latter. Incredible.
Translation: "I don't know about the climate but fuck you I'm stupid and I love it that way."
First things first. You understand how that works, right? Right?
You don't understand the difference between ice on the sea and on the land, so why should anyone listen to you about anything related to this topic? You clearly like the idea of fighting against accepting climate change more than learning anything about it.
Ad hominem ? and Strawman at the same time and psychoanalysis.
Three strikes your out
It looks like the scientists of NASA's biggest agenda is to protect this planet, why would you think otherwise?
But, but, but - That's not their JOB! Air and Space, not Earth! Rah, rah, rah!
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Correct. In fact ONLY the US has not increased their CO2 emissions year over year.
Provably false in 2013 and 2014. Looks like the recession is finally over.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Would BP have paid anything for the Gulf of Mexico if there was no government? Why don't you ask Nigeria for their opinion. By what means would restitution be made in your imaginary free state? By legal action? The people who are negatively affected are already broke, how are they going to hire a legal team to go up against a company with as much money as your average oil company makes? A strong government is needed to coerce companies into payment, if you can't see this from real world examples that abound right now you are too blinded by your ideology to think clearly and should really try an open your eyes.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Most black market activity isn't "governed by the mafia" or any form of organized crime.
Where is your "game theory suggests" reference?
Sea levels can't rise another 550 ft, there simply isn't enough water in the ice caps. And it would take thousands of years for our ice caps to melt, more than enough time for humans to adapt without even noticing.
Correct, because the solutions are far worse than the warming.
Try the 2000 year graph
The one you didn't link to? Jesus, do you actually want us to dig up your evidence from the swamp that is Wazzup.com?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Ad hominem ?
So that's another thing you don't what it is. Mentioning that your argument is wrong is not an ad hominem simply because it contains the letter-combination YOU.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Are you kidding? Coal is such a big source of energy today in large part because of government subsidies and government exemptions from liability for its environmental impact.
I guess you are not trying to present evidence for the vast "Global Warming Conspiracy" for now?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
What is this "no government" bs? I'm not arguing against government in general, I'm pointing out that governments create the problem of externalities through their policies.
BP paid nowhere near enough for their oil spill precisely because governments allowed them to get away with paying nowhere near enough. In fact, the reason that BP can drill in a valuable and sensitive area in the first place is because governments gave them license to do so.
The BP oil spill did happen, and the people harmed by it didn't get properly compensated, and the reason for that is that our benighted government valued the environment and their suffering so little that BP got away with it. And you weren't so blinded by your ideology, you would see that.
The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth. But global economic growth is the best way of combating global warming and protecting the environment because the wealthier a nation is, the slower its birth rate and the better its environmental record.
You are aware that you disagree with every single "skeptic" who claims that any action against Global Warming would wreck the economy.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The reason carbon emissions in the US have gone down is because of fracking
Yeah, it certainly isn't because you stopped looking at numbers from 2013 on.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
"All those other times"? Like which?
I never have presented such evidence because there is none. AGW activism is an army of fools, not a conspiracy.
You got it backwards. The only reason the factory owner gets away with polluting the environment and imposing costs on other people is because government has given him license to do so.
>
You are right insofar that if there were no government, people could just "handle" any polluters in a"confrontational" way, and "solve the problem" in a permanent way. Reading your other comments, that's actually your "just fine solution" to every problem.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The one and only thing preventing us from having a 100% carbon free energy economy is government. Nuclear energy would have by now, if it had only been allowed to develop like McDonald's, be on its 339th generation reactor instead of 3rd or 4th.
Nobody would have developed nuclear power if it hadn't been for huge government subsidies.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Where did I advocate "no government"? What I pointed out is that government policies, not markets, create the problem of externalities. Different government policies can avoid the problem of externalities.
The solutions are worse according to you. According to the people who actually study this, they are not. But seeing as this information is freely available, and yet you either deny its existence or veracity (without letting on), you are clearly not interested in engaging in a discussion where you might learn something. You've closed your ears, and you seem happy about it. Weird.
Sea levels can't rise another 550 ft, there simply isn't enough water in the ice caps.
You seem very certain about a topic that you appear to understand only superficially. You have neglected thermal expansion.
Most black market activity isn't "governed by the mafia"
I think at best you could say that some black market activity isn't governed by organized crime. Either way, we have come a long way from "Markets by definition..."
You mean these?
Looks like there's a definite trend, with a pronounced rise since the start of the industrial revolution.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Not actually true unless you use some bizarre definition of "man made co2". Human contributions have raised the the CO2 level from around 280 ppm to around 400 ppm. That's 120 ppm, the human contribution of the last 18 years is about 36 ppm. Which means the last 18 years represent about 30% of our total contribution and a little less than 10% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yes, I DO understand it. China continues to grow their coal=>electricity emissions, while the far left screams about nations that have been working at lowering it. Mostly it is about America that they bitch.
Oddly, America has emitted far less CO2 over the last millinium than has either Europe OR China.
And with the far left metrics, they have loved to use total levels, until 2006, which is when China emitted more than America. Then they switched to using the emissions since 1850, which THIS YEAR, China will become the number 1 emitter. The problem is, that ANY time before 1850 is a contest between China and Europe for emissions.
Yet, the far left will do less than the far right on solving this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Solutions to global warming and their tradeoffs are a political and moral decision, not a scientific one. Yes, that is something you need to get off your lazy ass and think about for yourself.
Not engaging in a discussion and closing your ears is what you have done. And it's not weird at all: your kind of apathy and lack of intellectual curiosity is widespread.
Actually no.
The far right wingers are the ones pushing for global destruction.
The left wingers are turning this into a political battle when it should not be.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
https://feww.files.wordpress.c...
Well buckwheat
Just to explain this simple concept to you.
I say OP is wrong about global cooling being just one article in newsweek, and present a link to another article.
Proof by contradiction.
Poster comes in and says it doesn't matter because I'm a poopy head.
Ad hominem.
There never say conservatives aren't charitable to the disadvantaged.
A coefficient is only so interesting. A more interesting number would be the percentage of sea level rise that is attributable to thermal expansion.
This is also of interest
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
There is also no data to debunk the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. Your point?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Out of all the experts, celebrities, politicians, and leaders on the planet who champion the reduction of CO2, please list any of them who have adopted a true carbon nuetral lifestyle as an example to us all?
I can't think of a single one. Has anyone here done this? Why not?
(Settles down to listen to the crickets)
Is it because we are a carbon based life form? Do I win?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Well buckwheat
Just to explain this simple concept to you.
I say OP is wrong about global cooling being just one article in newsweek, and present a link to another article.
Proof by contradiction.
Poster comes in and says it doesn't matter because I'm a poopy head.
Ad hominem.
There never say conservatives aren't charitable to the disadvantaged.
I thought you wanted "explain this simple concept" - you failed. And you insulted me because you failed. You are the moron. Which is a given because you are a denier, FAIL.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Where did I advocate "no government"? +
Well, your solution would only work if there were no government - so you admit it wouldn't work as you describe it. Case closed.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I never have presented such evidence because there is none.
So you admit there is no conspiracy as claimed by most deniers. At least that's a start.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The reason a factory owner gets away with pollution is that no individual has the incentive or means to stop him. The problem started when there were no government restrictions, and the government restrictions came about as a result of pollution.
How do you think a private property owner is supposed to defend against pollution? Are you proposing a cheap and painless court system that can do its own investigation, in other words one far more expensive and intrusive than we've got now? By shooting the factory owner? The factory owner can afford to hire a few people who are actually good with guns as defense.
The natural state of property is not to be completely divided up among people as private property. There have been common areas as far back as anyone can tell, and rivers and lakes are typically not private property.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There have also been slavery and totalitarianism as far back as anyone can tell; that doesn't mean that we need to continue engaging in such idiotic practices.
Private property rights doesn't mean "individuals".
No, far simpler: shared private ownership, the way a lot of shared property is already aministered. It's far less expensive than what we have got now. And it is exactly as intrusive as the participating owners want it to be.
I thought you wanted "explain this simple concept" - you failed. And you insulted me because you failed. You are the moron. Which is a given because you are a denier, FAIL.
LOL so says the religious bigot.
LOL so says the religious bigot.
You signed your post, so you are a polite moron. But you are still a moron.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Dunning Kreuger alive and well.
Why don't you explain the fluid dynamics codes you believe in. Tell me how they work without copy pasting ?
How does it feel to be a religious man ?
Dunning Kreuger alive and well.
Wow, self awareness. If you didn't show yourself to be a moron over and over again, one could get the impression there was still hope for you.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Ahh listening to you say that reminds me of a nazi shouting juden
Keep it up
Ahh listening to you say that reminds me of a nazi shouting juden
Keep it up
Of course you remember, you were right among them.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Ahh listening to you say that reminds me of a nazi shouting juden
Keep it up
Of course you remember, you were right among them.
Ahhh so cute. Why don't you go on about how the Jews are behind oil industry and manipulate the Koch brothers