Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away, At Davis Station

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the weather-is-what-you-get dept.

Earth 633

schwit1 writes "A report from The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research says that Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away. Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m. A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded."

cancel ×

633 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Welp, (5, Funny)

James Skarzinskas (518966) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630055)

All thanks to President Obama.

Re:Welp, (5, Funny)

powerslave12r (1389937) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630073)

He solved the issue of Global Warming? Already?

Re:Welp, (5, Funny)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630097)

No. Al Gore did. Pres. Obama just gets the credit just like other people received the credit for "the internet." ;)

Re:Welp, (0, Troll)

ultranova (717540) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631059)

No. Al Gore did. Pres. Obama just gets the credit just like other people received the credit for "the internet." ;)

Actually, it was Seaking who did it, poked a hole on the layer of carbon dioxide and let the extra heat out. Fuck yeah Seaking! In Soviet Russia, the Internet credits you! I, for one, welcome our new credit-stealing overlords! Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Antarctic ice! Antarctic is not a truck, you can't just throw some snow on top and expect it to convert to - hey, wait a minute...

Slashdot is where old memes come to die. Sadly, they don't stay dead, but haunt this place like the undead, seeking to eat the brains of unwary. Sadly, it seems that you weren't careful, and thus your intellect was devoured, and were made a host to continue this particular stupid meme. Stop it, or we're forced to drive a stake through your heart, cut off your head, and to add the final insult to injury, stuff your mouth with garlic. Oh, and we'll cremate the remains and bury them in an urn at crossroads, under a pile of rocks.

Re:Welp, (5, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630125)

He solved the issue of Global Warming? Already?

The audacity of hope.

Don't worry, they are still going to implement the carbon tax. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Re:Welp, (3, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630307)

> Don't worry, they are still going to implement the carbon tax.

Of course. Because it has never been about global warming or CO2. Otherwise CO2 emitted by India and China would have been as bad as emissions in the 1st world. But Kyoto exempted them. It is about a once in a lifetime opportunity for the 'enlightened good progressives' to get almost total control over all aspects of life in the West and thus finally stamp out everything they don't like by taxing it out of practicality. And the things they don't like include pretty much all of western civilization.

Re:Welp, (3, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630373)

Ranting about Kyoto would make a lot more sense if the United States Congress had ratified it.

I really don't think that the current Congress is a whole lot more likely to ratify it than any past Congress, but who knows.

Re:Welp, (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27631129)

"Of course. Because it has never been about global warming or CO2. Otherwise CO2 emitted by India and China would have been as bad as emissions in the 1st world. But Kyoto exempted them."

Yes. But you don't have any clue why.

It has something to do with the fact that it is the industrialized countries that have been emptying CO2 into the atmosphere in ever-greater amounts for the last 2 centuries or so before realizing it might be a problem. The premise of the Kyoto agreement is: they are the ones that have created the problem so far, they're the ones that are already industrialized and have most of the money. They are therefore the ones best positioned to come up with technical solutions and ways to meet lowered targets or at least flatten out production. The race is to do that before countries like India and China ramp up as fast as people are expecting given their populations.

How can we possibly say to countries that are in the early stages of industrialization "Oh, you can't do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, or it will be a disaster!" It's like eating 3/4 of the pizza at the party and then telling a skinny latecomer: "Whoa there. Don't go eating all the pizza that's left. It's bad for you and we also have to share", while still stuffing your face as fast as ever.

The whole point was to meet the goals of Kyoto and THEN say to India, China and other developing countries: "See? This can be done. Now it's your turn to meet the same targets." That was the bargain.

Ever since then there has been this myth that India and China are somehow completely and forever off the hook. Well, they probably will be because we're dragging our asses on what we committed to do.

Here's hoping the world can make do without any kind of agreement, and that the predictions expected from that scenario are wrong. Hope really hard.

Re:Welp, (5, Informative)

genmax (990012) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631165)

I remember a quote from the former Indian prime minster Indira Gandhi - "Poverty is the biggest polluter."

Re:Welp, (1)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630279)

Yeah man. Every parallel universe is missing a tall, skinny half Kenyan dude because in this universe, we have The One.

Re:Welp, (4, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630587)

Yeah, damn him here he was promising change and first thing he does is to halt everything and preserve the status quo. Politicans, you just can't trust them.

Re:Welp, (3, Funny)

XavierItzmann (687234) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630673)

Well, in his nomination acceptance speech on June 3, 2008, Obama did say that his presidency would be remembered as:

"the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." [breitbart.com]

Moses had nothing on this guy. He only parted one measly sea, let alone oceans.

Re:Welp, (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630595)

Actually, you should thank the Somali pirates. Now, I think we can all agree that, based on overwhelming evidence [seanbonner.com] , piracy prevents global warming. There's UNDENIABLE PROOF for that. I mean, if you can't tell that correlation equals causation, well, you're just in denial, or being paid off. With the recent surges in piracy, how can that ice not grow? It is simple logic, stupid! Now, I know that the mainstream media will probably call them thieves and killers (because they are obviously in the pocket of Al Gore and Big Carbon Credit), but I'm going to call them what they really are: Heroes, righteous environmental crusaders, examples for all of us to follow. Somali pirates, I salute you!

So (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630105)

Will Al Gore and others who pronounced elevated ocean levels and other disasters due to melting ice now go on national television and admit that they were wrong? Somehow I doubt it. Amazing how loud most people are when they think they are right, and how quiet most people are when they're found to be wrong. If you don't like me mentioning Al Gore's name, insert the name of any of the other doom-and-gloom type of environmentalists. This wasn't intended to be a political statement, just a statement of why you shouldn't mindlessly believe someone merely because they have a powerful media presence.

Separation of Science and States (0, Flamebait)

dada21 (163177) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630123)

Many research scientists live their comfy lives on government-stolen funds. They have to, because no one wants to buy their junk.

I have friends who admit to me, off the record, that their government grants are the only way they can pay off their ridiculous college debt that paid for a talent no one wants. Some have even said that they knowingly adopt accepted practices of shenanigans that fudge the data to support beliefs desired by the State.

This is nothing new:

Teacher's unions don't teach.
Public healthcare takes care of its own industry rather than patients.
Police officers serve and protect the State, not society.
TSA agents work hard to enforce their own barrel-chested powers rather than actual securty.

Why should government-granted shills be any different?

It is time for science to be market-driven rather than socialist in nature.

Re:Separation of Science and States (5, Insightful)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630167)

"It is time for science to be market-driven rather than socialist in nature."

Since IS market driven. There is a BIG BIG market for global warming and that's where the money is so climate scientists focus on global warming and not other topics or (God forbid) the heresy that is global warming denial.

Re:Separation of Science and States (4, Interesting)

Weedhopper (168515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630437)

That's not a bad point.

For the last few years, guys with the slightest connection to anything even remotely connected to the climate and weather are being called "climate scientists" or "climate change expert." Huh?

Re:Separation of Science and States (5, Insightful)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630873)

I bet a climate scientist could have gotten plenty of money from the Bush Administration for arguing that manmade CO2 wasn't causing climate change. Exxon Mobil has plenty of money for anyone who can sow doubt about the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.

Why not more scientific criticism of the hypothesis, then?

Because scientists went into science instead of law school because they care about reality.

Re:Separation of Science and States (0, Troll)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630259)

Many research scientists live their comfy lives on government-stolen funds. They have to, because no one wants to buy their junk.

I have friends who admit to me, off the record, that their government grants are the only way they can pay off their ridiculous college debt that paid for a talent no one wants. Some have even said that they knowingly adopt accepted practices of shenanigans that fudge the data to support beliefs desired by the State.

This is nothing new:

Teacher's unions don't teach. Public healthcare takes care of its own industry rather than patients. Police officers serve and protect the State, not society. TSA agents work hard to enforce their own barrel-chested powers rather than actual securty.

Why should government-granted shills be any different?

It is time for science to be market-driven rather than socialist in nature.

The general public apparently has no idea how incredibly dogmatic, religious, and un-scientific much of modern science has become. Nowhere do you see that more clearly than in cosmology, as highlighted by the Electric Universe folks. I don't care whether you believe in the Electric Universe theory or whether you think it's a load of crap (though, all people I've encountered who felt that way had one thing in common - they were not very familiar with it). It's not the theory that I really want to mention here. It's the associated writings which represent an excellent critique of what modern science has become. Those can be found at thunderbolts.info and at holoscience.com.

I think the real issue here is that scientists have become another authority. Authority of this sort is not compatible with genuine inquiry because it answers questions instead of asking them.

By far the biggest problem is entrenched government grants. You support the standard accepted theories or you are denied grant money. That's wonderful, right up until new theories are needed to advance the field. Then what was intended to be a way to weed out bad science and the like becomes an effective way to hold back progress. I don't think market-driven science is the ideal solution either, because many important pieces of pure research are long-term projects not likely to produce any sort of immediate return on investment.

Re:Separation of Science and States (0, Troll)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630371)

> he general public apparently has no idea how incredibly dogmatic, religious,
> and un-scientific much of modern science has become.

and

> I think the real issue here is that scientists have become another authority.

Or put more simply:

"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die."
        - Max Planck

And he said that before the politics and money factors entered into science.

Re:Separation of Science and States (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630527)

> he general public apparently has no idea how incredibly dogmatic, religious, > and un-scientific much of modern science has become.

and

> I think the real issue here is that scientists have become another authority.

Or put more simply:

"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." - Max Planck

And he said that before the politics and money factors entered into science.

I think Carl Sagan neatly addressed that:

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address


Especially when he said it doesn't happen as often as it should because change is sometimes painful. I will add one observation to that: what really makes change so painful is when your ego is invested in a particular outcome. When that ego need is replaced by a sense of awe derived from the mystery (and sometimes the absurdity) of the universe, which unfortunately seems rare these days, change can be something you welcome.

Re:Separation of Science and States (3, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630559)

s/ego/reputation/g

Re:Separation of Science and States (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630943)

s/ego/reputation/g

The good reputation should go towards those who are willing to go wherever the facts lead them. A scientist who can say "I have discovered that I was mistaken and here is why" is the real article. Any of them who won't let facts get in the way of their pet beliefs/theories are not scientists at all; they are priests who wear a different sort of robe.

Re:Separation of Science and States (2, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631159)

> I think Carl Sagan neatly addressed that:

Except Dr. Sagan was an almost canonical example of a politicized scientist toward the end of his life. His greatest work, Cosmos (which I have a DVD set of on my shelf) was greatly flawed by his growing political leanings (which were garden variety peacenik/green of the most naive uneducated sort) instead of focusing on the science which he was an actual authority on.

> In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'

That has probably never happened. The other guy having really good (and repeatable) RESULTS can change opponents into supporters in science. Hell, scientists would probably still be debating relativity and quantum theory had not the Trinity Test not settled the matter in such dramatic fashion.

But that not the same as the the problems when scientists get into political affairs, they expect the decisions to be made on purely rational arguments that can be solved as a math problem. But they often can't. Political decisions aremore often cases of competing interests or weighing risk/rewards. Then we get to AGW and the usefuless of the scientific method is really called into question. AGW has almost zero actual numbers, it's all computer models and measurements close to the error bars where both sides can make good arguments, thus both sides now field Nobel Prize Winners in attempts to win by appeal to authority. But one side has Al Gore and James Hansen and that settles it as far as this non-scientist is concerned. Gore isn't a scientist but is treated as one and Hansen might have been a scientist once but has been nothing but a fraud since his antics with the hockey stick chart were debunked and he escaped all consequences.

Re:Separation of Science and States (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630523)

The Electric Universe people were completely discredited when the NASA probe spawned from Deep Impact collided with the comet Tempel 1. If the Universe were -- as they claim -- made up of anti-matter, the resulting explosion of the probe and comet would have vaporized a fair chunk of the solar system.

Of course, this didn't stop them from saying that the collision actually proved their theory since there was a little explosion.

Re:Separation of Science and States (5, Informative)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630927)

The Electric Universe people were completely discredited when the NASA probe spawned from Deep Impact collided with the comet Tempel 1. If the Universe were -- as they claim -- made up of anti-matter, the resulting explosion of the probe and comet would have vaporized a fair chunk of the solar system.

Of course, this didn't stop them from saying that the collision actually proved their theory since there was a little explosion.

I believe you're proving my point for me when I say that the people who vehemently oppose the Electric Universe (EU) theory tend not to be familiar with it. I have read their works extensively and have never, ever seen the EU folks make the claim that the Universe is made up of antimatter. If you want to see what they had to say about the Deep Impact collison with Tempel 1, look here [holoscience.com] and you will find something entirely different from what you just described.

You can also find more on the Deep Impact event in this category [thunderbolts.info] of the Thunderbolts site.

To date, I have never once seen an opponent of the EU theory who was thoroughly familiar with it. There is no substitute for your own inquiry.

Temperature (5, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630153)

The antarctic is supposed to be a desert because it is too cold to snow.
The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation.

The ice sheets have increased their outward flow. Also another indicator of increased precipitation and warmth.

One has to be very careful what one looks at for indicators of global warming/cooling.

Re:Temperature (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630181)

YEah, wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions which haven't been approved by the government!

Re:Temperature (4, Interesting)

highvista63 (587404) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630191)

This is exactly what I've heard should be happening, as well. Global warming would evaporate more of the ocean's water, which falls on Antarctica as snow, resulting in more ice.

Re:Temperature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630457)

Then why all the bloody doomsday prediction because of melting antartic ice? If warmer = more ice, then less ice = cooling?

Perhaps when we have a global icelayer reaching the orbit of the moon they'll admit their fault, but most likely they'll tell us it all went to fuck because we didn't listen enough and didn't build them a 12-star harem when they wanted it in the early 21st century. For whatever my 2 cents are worth i'd say climate science is the new intelligent design.

Re:Temperature (1)

PeterKraus (1244558) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631041)

The main problem with the whole climate change is, that there is too many things you need to consider in and out. Just simulating the effect of volcano dust on temperature in a given area is quite hard to do; now, if you are supposed to account for the whole climate, you need to consider, well, the whole climate.

But yes, only the ice on the land can increase the water levels, since floating ice, well, floats on water, and when it melts it doesn't increase the volume that much.

Re:Temperature (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630285)

The fact that it's been cooling the last few years points to Global Warming. The fact that the ice sheet is getting larger points to Global Warming. The fact that there are Solar Cycles points to Global Warming.

In fact, there are NO observations that could possibly disprove Global Warming.

Geez. It is a religion, not a science.

Re:Temperature (1, Insightful)

Louis Savain (65843) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631091)

Geez. It is a religion, not a science.

More like the biggest con game since organized religion. Oh wait! It is an organized religion. My bad.

Re:Temperature (4, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630319)

I don't mean to discredit what you say, but could you possibly give a better explanation of what's occurring and how it's related to global warming.

It seems that some times every event is a sure sign that X is occurring, whether or not there's actually any scientific proof behind it or not. It reminds me of whenever something happened it would be attributed to God, the gods, or some other deity supposedly controlling the fate of mankind depending on the time period.

I just don't want things to devolve to that point. I have no reason to doubt what you're saying, but could you provide some links that explain the science behind your comments or provide a more thorough explanation yourself. I don't mean to call you out as my own knowledge of climate science is largely non-existent, but I still tend to take statements without further explanation with a grain of salt.

Re:Temperature (4, Informative)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630511)

Actually the bit about snow was misleading. The article was about sea ice thickness. Sea ice is caused by cold air flowing from a pole toward the equator and cooling the ocean. More about that in a bit.

Back to the bit about "to cold to snow". Really cold air carries very little water vapour.
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/222/ [theweatherprediction.com]

Now back to the article. The article described 1 year sea ice thickness. This is ice that forms on the sea over one winter and is essentially a measure of how cold the air was that winter. So first thought is that more ice implies a colder winter. Yes I agree with that. The question is what is the average global temperature. Global warming (called climate change by those who think explaining all the details will confuse people) does not mean it warms up everywhere.

Fact: Cold air does not come from the polar regions. Cold air comes from high in the atmosphere where air radiates heat to space. Warm air comes from contact with sun warmed ground and sea.
http://www.rcn27.dial.pipex.com/cloudsrus/wind.html [pipex.com]

So the polar regions are cold because they get more cold air dropped on them from high in the atmosphere. What pushes the whole cycle is "heat". We like to think of hot and cold as relative to our norms. Real tempeature is degrees Kelvin. So the polar regions just have less heat than the equatorial regions.

Back to the circulation putting more heat into the system results in a global warming but also in an accelerated wind system. This will push more cold air down at the poles. Essentially making the poles colder and the polar winds colder. This will make the polar regions colder --- when they are not heated by the sun.

So from global warming we can actually expect colder winters at the poles. Overall they will be shorter due to the added heat. There are lots of balances and more complex things. Particularly the global air circulation is not 1 cycle equator to poles, but banded. But the general idea is there.

Re:Temperature (5, Insightful)

Illserve (56215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631155)

So from global warming we can actually expect colder winters at the poles.

Truly this is a theory that cannot be disproven.

When we thought the poles were melting, the infamous pictures of a wet polar bear on a little ice shelf were everywhere and we were told that this was the direct result of warming.

So now it seems the global warming theory can have its ice and melt it too.

Re:Temperature (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630325)

Too Cold to Snow? WTF are you talking about:

http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/weather-climate/ever-too-cold-snow

The entire area of Antarctica gets some snowfall every year, less in some areas but it still snows:

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=107920

Re:Temperature (2, Informative)

thesandbender (911391) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630361)

Just because it's a desert doesn't mean it gets no precipitation, just very little. It's been averaging 4" a year at the south pole since they started taking measurements. Besides, the idea of it being too cold to snow is a myth: http://www.weatherimagery.com/blog/too-cold-to-snow/ [weatherimagery.com]

Re:Temperature (4, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630545)

> Besides, the idea of it being too cold to snow is a myth:

The article you quoted says --
    Once it drops below -20F, your chances of snow are virtually nil (but still possible).

I will take that "virtually nil (but still possible)" and say that effectively it does get to cold to snow.

Re:Temperature (5, Informative)

adonoman (624929) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630867)

And -20F is only just starting to get cold for places like Antarctica, (or even continental/northern Canada and Russia). Where I live, we regularly get 2-3 weeks with highs below -20F, and you can depend on those weeks to be sunny and dry.

Re:Temperature (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630435)

The antarctic is supposed to be a desert because it is too cold to snow.

LOL! Global Warming cultists like your good self are fucking dangerous! Now run along and buy some carbon credits - Al Gore needs your money!

Re:Temperature (1)

Ronald Hummelink (1535673) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630541)

The article claims its getting colder at that specific location. Which kindof disagrees with your statement of being a snowdesert ;)

Re:Temperature (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630569)

Did a more detailed reply above. See that. Article was also about sea ice and not snow so my stuff about snow and desert does not apply.

I agree that it is colder at a specific location for a the winter.
Local cooling near the poles is expected as a result of global warming.

Re:Temperature (2, Insightful)

shadowofwind (1209890) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630613)

The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation.

Sure, but many climate change alarmists, including Al Gore, have been hyping the threat of rising sea levels due to melting ice. So if global warming is going to cause ice to grow in some areas and shrink in others, as it will, then that still weakens their argument.

Re:Temperature (4, Informative)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630727)

Sea ice has a minimal affect on sea level. So anything about more or less sea ice is to a first order irrelevant to global sea level.
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/04/ice-and-sea-level.html [blogspot.com]

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html [radix.net]
---
    In terms of the ice, there are five identifiable reservoirs, only one
of which is expected to be able to have catastrophic effects on sea
level. They are sea ice, mountain glaciers, the Greenland ice sheet,
the East Antarctic ice sheet, and the West Antarctic ice sheet. The one
expected to be potentially catastrophic is West Antarctica.
Catastrophic is taken to mean meters of sea level in a few hundred years
or less.

    First, why can't the other four be catastrophic? Sea ice cannot
change sea level much. That it can do so at all is because sea ice is
not made of quite the same material as the ocean. Sea ice is much
fresher than sea water (5 parts per thousand instead of about 35). When
the ice melts (pretend for the moment that it does so instantly and
retains its shape), the resultant melt water is still slightly less
dense than the original sea water. So the meltwater still 'stands' a
little higher than the local sea level. The amount of extra height
depends on the salinity difference between ice and ocean, and
corresponds to about 2% of the thickness of the original ice floe. For
30 million square kilometers of ice (global maximum extent) and average
thickness of 2 meters (the Arctic ice is about 3 meters, the Antarctic
is about 1), the corresponding change in global sea level would be 2
(meters) * 0.02 (salinity effect) * 0.10 (fraction of ocean covered by
ice), or 4 mm. Not a large figure, but not zero either. My thanks to
chappell@stat.wisc.edu (Rick Chappell) for making me work this out.
---

As an indicator of other things 1 year sea ice thickness is relevant on a second order. It is an indicator of the local winter average temperature. Local temperature changes are not global. I say that this indicator of a more cold winter shows an increased polar air circulation which is actually a positive indicator for global warming in general.

Re:Temperature (3, Interesting)

JordanL (886154) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630699)

Davis is not in central Antarctica. Nice try though.

Re:Temperature (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630771)

I haven't been involved in any climate research, but what matters is WHY this is hapening.

Is it, as suggested above, because water falling there as snow instead of in Australia and Texas as rain is increasing volumes? Other explanations include:

  - Thermal expansion of the ice
  - Ice melting lubricates glacial movement
  - Ice sheets detatching allows faster glacial movement
  - Lower temperatures resulting in greater freezing of seawater.

Honestly though, conceptually this isn't amazingly complex. If we see temperatures rising, as measured by reliable equipment, thats called warming. If the ice thickens as the termperatures rise, that means something interesting is happening; It doesn't mean things aren't getting warmer.

When presented with scientific data, vested interests say "Oh yeah!? Prove it!". Instead of simply suggesting that they read the science reports and papers, many have tried to find anecdotes (permafrost, ice sheet collapse, etc etc) but these things don't 'prove' global warming any more than an ice thickening disproves it.

If only the population at large had an education sufficient to allow public discussion of the data found through research, there would be a great deal more consensus on this and other issues.

Science is not subjective.

Re:Temperature (1, Insightful)

radtea (464814) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630841)

The antarctic is supposed to be a desert because it is too cold to snow.

False. It is never too cold to snow.

The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation.

Right, so if ice thickness is declining that is evidence that the climate is warming because the only possible cause is increased melting due to higher temperatures, but if the ice thickness is increasing that is evidence that the climate is warming because the only possible cause is increased snow accumulation due to more precipitation that results from warmer temperatures.

One has to be very careful what one looks at for indicators of global warming/cooling.

Since apparently any change whatsoever can be used as evidence for global warming it would seem that the only care required is that you never let your contradictory positions get juxtaposed too closely, as that might allow someone to notice they are contradictory.

"Environmentalists" sometimes argue that the decrease in a species' local population is evidence that humans are killing them all, and an increase in a species' local population is evidence that habitat destruction has forced it into human-inhabited areas. Anyone who makes this kind of argument is rightfully suspect.

The one signal that should be unambiguous with regard to increased global heat content is ocean heat content, which seems to be increasing and is free of most of the issues that make nonsense of so many of the climate signals that people get up in arms over. I really don't know why ocean heat content is so little discussed: anyone who actually cares about the science of global climate change will be led inevitably to it, and will be repulsed by the wild assumptions and poor science that goes into most claims about atmospheric heat content (or worse still, the thermodynamically meaningless "global average temperature".)

Re:Temperature (1, Insightful)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630889)

In other words: If it gets warmer, that's because of global warming. If it gets colder, that's because of global warming. If it gets wetter, that's because of global warming. If it gets drier, that's because of global warming. If the ice is melting, that's because of global warming. It the ice is getting thicker, that's because of global warming. If the bees are dying, that's because of cell phones, err, global warming.

Also: Global warming is caused by man, especially by those driving SUV's. The only way to save us is to reduce our energy use to zero (Algore and friends excluded, they can each use more than what 50 normal households combined are allowed without criticism).

Did I miss any important rules about global warming?

Re:Temperature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630929)

If it's hotter it's global warming. If it's colder - it's global warming. Wetter? Global warming. Drier? Global warming again. It's getting old. Any hint that things might actually be colder is met with a wizened "ah - but that just proves global warming". I call BS.

Re:Temperature (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630941)

What we need to examine is precipitation records and ice depth, if the ice is getting thicker and the precipitation is the same then obviously it's colder and less ice is sublimating.

how bout them apples (4, Funny)

superwiz (655733) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630159)

inconvenient truth?

Re:how bout them apples (3, Interesting)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630895)

For the record, I'd like to provider a short list of things that aren't cogent political arguments:

1) Television catch phrases

2) Proper nouns

3) Noises

5) Movie titles

Number juggling. (4, Insightful)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630171)

last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

So?

Re:Number juggling. (3, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630233)

Shhhh! Don't let frivolous things like logic and facts get in the way of bashing the environmentalism movement. Protecting the environment is bad for business and in a truly free market there shouldn't be any restrictions on my megacorporation's right to pollute the atmosphere. After all, people are smart, rational, and think ahead so if my company pollutes they'll just take their business elsewhere and I'll go out of business. Can't you see how beautiful libertarianism and the free market is? It solves climate change better than those silly scientists and regulations ever could.

You are confused. (4, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630733)

Like many people, you have confused Libertarianism with lassez-faire government, or even Conservatism. They are NOT the same things at all.

Libertarians believe in the least amount of regulation that is necessary to do the job. That is not even close to the same as no regulation.

For example, either of last year's Libertarian candidates for President would have regulated the "financial industry" more, not less. Smart Libertarians support reasonable antitrust laws, not unbridled corporatism as they have so often been accused of advocating. And so on.

It might pay to learn something about a philosophy before you go around publicly insulting it.

Re:You are confused. (1, Flamebait)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630885)

No. Libertarians are in favor of the least amount of regulation period. There are two subgroups: the limited government ones and the anarcho-libertarians who believe in (essentially) no government at all. Democracts and republicans would both also claim to believe in the least amount of regulation necessary to do the job. Where the political theory differs is in what exactly that job happens to be. BTW, "laissez-faire" is not the same as anarchy. It just refers to the government staying out of the economy.

Where did you learn this crap? (4, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630993)

If I had thought that laissez-faire were synonymous with anarchy, then would have just written "anarchy". What makes you think I did? Assumptions?

Your assertions about Libertarianism (at least in the U.S.) are just plain false. Of course there are anarcho-libertarians. There are also anarcho-Republicans. That does not mean that either form a significant percentage of their respective parties. Trying to divide Libertarianism into two separate groups in this fashion is as fallacious as it would be to divide the Republican party the same way.

I have been around Libertarians for many years, and I am intimately familiar with their philosophy and their literature. It is nothing like what you portray at all. If in fact they wanted "the least amount of regulation, period" then they would indeed be anarchists, and there would be no point in even having a Libertarian party!

Re:You are confused. (1)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631141)

I remember once, several years ago, when a Libertarian told me that "my type" would be put up against the wall once they came to power.

Re:Number juggling. (3, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630811)

The thing is, intelligent people realise, that being green is good for business. The middle east and a few other select areas own oil

But any place in the US, Europe, etc can become a dominate energy player by inventing new means to generate energy. The green movement, silly or not, creates jobs rather than takes jobs away.

Re:Number juggling. (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630725)

I'd assume that it's an average of maximum thickness year to year.

In other words, the average of the maximum thickness each year from the 1950s until now is 1.67m, which admittedly doesn't tell you if it was thicker recently or in the 50s, just that one or the other pulled it about 10% lower on average than this year.

Re:Number juggling. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27631071)

I'd agree, but really it doesn't matter since they still stated "its densest in 10 years." That alone should get across the point they were trying to make.

This will shortly be proven false. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630179)

There are far too many careers and research grants dedicated to global warming for this to stand.

Good data point, does not reverse slope of line (4, Interesting)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630189)

Great data and interesting if it proves out. But all the "global warming doesn't exist people" are going to jump on this like every bit of news about cold weather to claim it contradicts the idea that there's global warming, which it doesn't.

Global warming is not a powerful enough trend to counteract all other factors- it still get colder in fall and winter in temperate zones, and it's often colder from one day to the next. While the majority of ski resorts have reported a trend of less annual snowfall per year for the past twenty years or so, some individual years buck the trend, and some resorts (like Holiday Valley in New York) have experienced the opposite trend. It's a hugely complex system with a lot of random variation and unknown factors. While the satellite data tells us that the average temperature of the earth is increasing every year, that leaves a lot of room for variation from the mean, and some parts of the world are actually getting colder. Due to the complexities of weather, some areas may experience more snowfall when the temperature rises. So don't make this out to mean more than it is.

But it is very interesting, and could force changes to models claiming rapidly rising sea levels due to global warming.

Where is that data? (5, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630619)

While the majority of ski resorts have reported a trend of less annual snowfall per year for the past twenty years or so,

Really? Where is that info from?

Because the data I can see says otherwise - like the SNOTEL Precipitation Data Table [usda.gov] from Wolf Creek Pass [usda.gov] in Colorado. Or Squaw Valley [usda.gov] in California. Or Daisy Peak [usda.gov] in Montana.

We've had dry years in Colorado over the past decade, but also some banner snow years. Similarly for other places in other states.

So where does the data validating that generally ski resorts have lower snowpack over the last twenty years come from? Or is it just something everyone "knows".

In reality I think that's a data point too variable to indicate anything one way or the other.

You have to HAVE a line... (3, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630801)

... before you can reverse its slope. Can you point me to one? Not the lines presented in "An Inconvenient Truth", because inconveniently for Al Gore, those have already been thoroughly discredited.

So, where does your line come from? Show it to me, please. Credible data from one or more credible sources clearly showing this trend you claim.

By the way, according to your pet satellite data, the upper atmosphere has not been warming in the way predicted by any of the greenhouse-gas warming models.

Why not the one in the documentary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27631115)

It came from the IPCC. Where people called scientists who investigate this sort of thing put their results.

If you won't accept that because "they're biased", then you'll not get any other result either, since any that don't say what you want them to are from biased people too.

To "Anonymous Coward" (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631143)

I am quite familiar with the IPCC and its reports, and that is about the worst example you could use.

And your assertion about bias is simply false. Whether bias exists is not a matter of personal opinion. Bias is a real quality, that can often be proven.

Will these do? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27631137)

There are some lines on these charts [nasa.gov] from NASA.

I think most people will agree that the folks at NASA kinda know what they're doing. Despite a couple of monumental fuckups over the years (which were generally management fuckups, not the technical kind), fundamentally, getting rockets into space repeatedly & successfully is a very hard thing to do, and overall they do it well.

So I see you your assertion that global warming is crap, and raise you 17 charts that indicate that something quite significant is happening to our climate. :-)

Oh, and the upper atmosphere thing? Well, you know, seeing unexpected things happen in systems as complex as the earth's atmosphere is how scientists (real ones, not those clowns from the Discovery Institute) learn stuff. They look at what's happening, and modify their models to try and explain it. That's called the scientific process. Real scientists don't ever claim to know all the answers, just to having a really good guess.

Climate Change - not global warming (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630213)

It has always been known that some areas will get colder. The point is that the greenhouse gasses, etc, upset the way climate has been recently. This will change air flow, sea currents, etc. This means that some areas will get warmer and some will get colder. The overall effect is warming.

Another example is the North Atlantic Drift (or Gluf Stream) that gives us a mild climate in England. It is expected that the currents will wane with the result that we will have colder winters.

Don't anyone think ''Ohhh! look, something got colder therefor all of this talk of global warming is rhubarb!''. Unless we take drastic action we are in for some nasty changes.

"Global Climate Change" exists because ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630313)

"Global Climate Change" exists only because those not funded to shill have debunked global warming. However, those funded to shill have the funds to shill.

Re:Climate Change - not global warming (3, Informative)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630789)

People don't realise that global warming never meant that the whole world turns into the tropics but that weather patterns shift (ie cold places get warmer but other areas could very well get colder) and that it's still a negative thing because everything in those environments depend on certain temperatures.

Not that it really matters. it's fact that pollution has a very negative impact on human beings so we should care even if there is no negative effects on the environment.

Oh, no, global cooling, we're doomed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630217)

Ice caps will grow up to Cape Town on South and Amsterdam on North, wave of emigrants from frozen Europe and North America will try to settle in Africa and Mexico, wars will run all over the planet and most of us will die. Ugh, sorry, wasn't that meant to be the other way around?

West-Antarctica (4, Interesting)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630235)

To my knowledge, it is already known, that the ice thickens in West-Antarctica (News from 2002 [bbc.co.uk] ). Davis-Station seems to be located there.

I am interested, what new findings in West-Australia lead to Dr Allison's evaluation on the development of the whole continent of Antarctica. The posted article itself is a bit sparse on facts.

Whoop de doo! (5, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630257)

Global warming exists, but it doesn't scare me. The earth wasn't always this temperature, and if things get hotter we will just have to deal. An Ice age would scare me but not global warming, the earth was much warmer than it is now several million years ago, if it gets that warm again it doesn't mean we are all gonna die. Sure things might get hairy for a while but seriously global warming isn't that dangerous to our survival as a race. This how ever doesn't mean we should abandon working towards more energy efficient and cleaner sources of energy. This has to happen for us to progress forward as a race and while it should happen naturally I've no problem with a bunch of alarmists freaking out and spurring the desire for better sources of energy. When these alarmists start infringing upon my freedoms though I'll have a problem.

Re:Whoop de doo! (1)

alexibu (1071218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630797)

Wow you are a unique specimen, I love discovering people with unique value systems.
Your not being afraid of things unless they threaten the extinction of your species is probably unique in the animal kingdom. It requires a high level of consciousness to distinguish whether the threat is in fact a threat to the species or just to your self. It also requires a level of altruism not observed before in even the most social of insects.
You don't fear car accidents, AIDS, sharks or any other threat that doesn't threaten the species.
I suggest that this value system can be proved to be an evolutionary dead end for two reasons :
1) Without knowing the fate of the rest of the race, the last member will still not recognise the threat to the species.
2) Inheritance of this value system is unlikely because of the lack of fear individuals possess almost certainly will result in their deaths.

When these alarmists start infringing upon my freedoms though I'll have a problem - Not exactly consistent with former "survival of race is all that matters" position. This is more consistent with a position of : I can't be bothered implementing the tiny changes to my lifestyle necessary to avoid dangerous climate change , so I will construct irrational value systems in order to justify my position.

Re:Whoop de doo! (5, Insightful)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630807)

>Sure things might get hairy for a while

Look at where the coastline was during warmer spochs. "Hairy" is a polite word.

We also weren't trying to feed six billion humans last time it was seriously warm.

When it was warmer in the past (2, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630847)

it also tended to be wetter. The amount of arable land that could be used for growing crops was larger, not smaller.

Re:Whoop de doo! (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630977)

"Sure things might get hairy for a while"

What if this happens:
hairy - temperatures rise high enough to boil the oceans off and dry our the earth
a while - a few hundred years

The earth in past has done so. I mean it is perfectly natural so who cares? We'll adapt I'm sure. I'm not saying I think that is likely to happen anytime soon. But saying it like wellll we'll have some longer summers w/e. It won't change your air conditioning bill. It could end up making it unsafe to be outdoor more than a few seconds at a time. Just because we have a comfort range doesn't mean the planet has to stick to it.

Oh boy! (4, Funny)

Virak (897071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630287)

Time for a mature, enlightened debate on climate change, by people with thorough knowledge of the field who don't parrot long-discredited bullshit at all! I do so enjoy these discussions. They're almost as intelligent as Slashdot discussions on economics.

Re:Oh boy! (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630967)

I'm sorry, they've already voted (that's what a condenses means). We don't need any of your scientificy crap, like knowledge and research and junk like that, when we can just vote on it.

Re:Oh boy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27631139)

Amen!

Subject (1)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630289)

This is totally predicated by our climate model, and it is consistent with a warming globe.

global warming cannot be proven wrong.

OH LOOK! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630305)

The timothy/kdawson/ScuttleMonkey/Zonk bot has posted yet another Australian story. How cute.

One day the world will wake up and finally discover just how incredibly important and significant Australia truly is, and then all this hard work will be rewarded!

"The timothy/kdawson/ScuttleMonkey/Zonk bot for President of the United States of Australia!"

(Cue the Aussie National Anthem, 'Advance Australia Fair', which just happens to have almost the exact same basic tune as 'The Star-Spangled Banner', but that's purely coincidental of course. Right?)

People don't seem to understand (5, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630341)

People hear "climate change" and "global warming" and think all the ice is going away. Thing is, while there are certain large ice masses that are almost certainly going to melt - the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, for instance - it's an open question how the bulk of Antarctica and Greenland is going to respond to a warmer climate. There will certainly be increased summer melting around the periphery, but there is some speculation that the total ice volume in these places will increase due to warmer (but still below freezing) temperatures. Thing is, for much of the year the air is so cold there that it just doesn't have the carrying capacity for much total water volume. Warmer air can simply carry more water than colder air, which can mean more snow and more ice pack. I say "can mean" because climate change can also affect weather patterns, which can alter the amount of precipitation that falls or even alter the source region for the precipitation that eventually reaches a given location.

However when it comes to smaller glaciers and ice fields, where the average annual temperature was significantly closer to freezing to begin with, it's more obvious that they're shrinking or completely going away.

FWIW up until a few years ago I worked in a climate research lab where we studied the climate records in ice from Greenland and Antarctica.
 

Re:People don't seem to understand (4, Funny)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631003)

Wait you actually worked in a research lab. I'm pretty sure here on /. that makes you biased. Since if you worked in a climate research lab you are pro-climate change. All them researchers are pro climate change so clearly your opinion is worthless.

Re:People don't seem to understand (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631131)

People hear "climate change" and "global warming" and think all the ice is going away.

Didn't you hear. The north pole completely melted away last year. You did get the memo from the "climate change" scientists last year. It proved that global warming existed. They proclaimed it in all the papers and everything.

Or, are all the "climate change" scientists proclamations just like the predictions in the National Enquirer? When they don't come true, you just ignore them and make some more.

East v.s. West Antarctic (1)

Omeganon (104525) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630459)

Nothing too surprising here. The East Antarctic isn't expected to show dramatic melting due to Global Warming. It's the *West* Antarctic that's the worry and always has been.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227036.400-driller-thriller-antarcticas-tumultuous-past-revealed.html?full=true [newscientist.com]

Weird given global glacier trends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630513)

Not all glaciers are in retreat globally either. Some are advancing, and the trend varies over time on multi-decadal scale. But the advancing ones are a small minority in recent history and the overall trend is pretty obvious [wikipedia.org] . The interesting question is whether Antarctica might be an exception to the trend because it is already so cold and dry -- warming up could introduce more precipitation, thus expanding ice sheets.

Even if that turns out to be the case it wouldn't do much for water supplies dependent on glaciers in the rest of the world, unfortunately.

I'm going in a circle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27630753)

East Antarctica? Where the hell is that?

How do you keep an idiot busy and cold? Put them in Antarctica and tell them to pee off of the eastern edge.

Let's forget the environment for a momnet... (5, Interesting)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630763)

Let's pretend that human activity has no effect on the environment.

With that in mind there is still no reason not to be more green.

Pollution shortens your life: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7946838.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Pollutionis linked to Pneumonia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7347065.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Pollution affects birth weight: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7988619.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Pollution alters brain function: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7288176.stm [bbc.co.uk]

So why in the hell would anyone support polluting this planet?

Installing solar panels and using water butts and various other green things can save money so why wouldn't people want to save money?

You can't (shouldn't) drive while intoxicated so increased public transportation makes it better for me when I want to socialise with my friend with alcohol and what not. Riding on buses and trains I can sleep, read or use my laptop while going to work rather than just sitting behind the wheel stressing out. Those who insist on driving get the benefit of less traffic when more people use the train or bus So it's nothing but a benefit all around

My main concern is looking out for number one and looking out for the environment results in nothing but benefits for me as it does for most people. Ignorant people should realise this and stop focusing on just the planet. This isn't about tree huggers. This is about saving money and improving your life. So even if you have a "fuck the planet" attitude making certain change benefits yourself as well as the tree huggers.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet... (1, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630883)

No, it isn't about saving money and improving your life. The "anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming" debate is about expending a huge amount of resources on futile exercises, when those resources could be better expended elsewhere.

It has been estimated that the amount of resources it would take to reduce CO2 emissions significantly over 100 years, is enough to completely solve the world hunger problem, in the same amount of time, even taking into account predicted population growth.

So... which do you think is better? Sweating a little from about 1 degree extra warmth, or millions of starving children? THAT is what we are discussing here.

So when did you stop beating your wife? (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631067)

So why in the hell would anyone support polluting this planet?

Because we are the purest form of evil! Anyone who thinks slightly differently from you, must be the spawn of Satan.

You see, no-one wants to "pollute the planet". None of us like it because of the reasons you list. But in the real world it's a complex relationship between people living and the impact they have. Your edict to "reduce pollution" is all well and good, but in what ways? If the way you choose means a 10% increase in job loss, is that really OK? Disallowing all car travel in a state forever and ever would be a great way to reduce pollution - and to really screw over a lot of people.

There are ways to reduce pollution and/or save the environment that are less impactful on people's lives. So rather than claiming everyone really wants to pollute, help people to understand how they can pollute less without losing much in return.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet... (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631081)

How about, let's base your future tax rates based on the number of fairies that Obama sees. If he sees 20 fairies, then the taxes increase by 20%. If he sees 100 fairies, then the taxes go up by 100%. Also, you cannot ask for any proof of the number of fairies that he has seen. Ok, took a vote and Obama has seen 3000 fairies, so your tax rate is now 3030%. We are backdating this rate for the last 10 years, so be sure to pay your back taxes.

This makes as much sense as your idiot whining monograph. We shouldn't base laws on bad science. It's like making laws based on fairies. It's a stupid idea. How can you properly fix something that you aren't even sure is broken? Instead of fixing "global warming" with your idiot schemes, you may just cause an ice age.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet... (1, Insightful)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631169)

Installing solar panels and using water butts and various other green things can save money so why wouldn't people want to save money?

Last time I did the numbers for installing solar panels, it in fact cost a lot more money over the lifetime of the solar panels than just buying the electricity from a power company. Granted, it's been several years, but I doubt it's changed much. There's also the fact that buying your power from the company spreads the cost out over a long period, while solar panels have a ridiculously high initial investment. Then there's the matter of storing energy for when it's dark outside...

If you want cheap and green energy, build nuclear reactors. Lots of them.

Water butts? I hope you don't mean for any water that's going to come in contact with my body in any way. Yech. I'd rather not base my water system off of a third-world model.

You can't (shouldn't) drive while intoxicated so increased public transportation makes it better for me when I want to socialise with my friend with alcohol and what not.

Or we'll use a designated driver. Or we'll call a cab. Or we'll drink at my house. Either way, we can come and go on OUR schedule, not the schedule of some transportation union.

The public transportation in San Jose was useful when I visited... Except when we left the bar, the trains were no longer in service. Go figure. Walking 20 blocks in the rain to our hotel really taught us the value of public transportation.

My main concern is looking out for number one and looking out for the environment results in nothing but benefits for me as it does for most people.

You really should try convincing people like Al Gore of this. Maybe they'd stop flying in private jets, driving SUVs, and building 20,000 sq ft houses...

So even if you have a "fuck the planet" attitude making certain change benefits yourself as well as the tree huggers.

Not the changes the tree huggers want me to make. They'll inconvenience me more than anything else.

Praise FSM for increased piracy (5, Informative)

Ranger (1783) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630849)

It's scientifically proven that there is a direct inverse correspondence between the number of pirates and global warming [venganza.org] . As the number of pirates decreased global warming increased. Now that piracy in Somalia has gone up the ice in that one tiny spot in Antarctica. It'll surely compensate for the rapid flow of glaciers in the West Antarctic icesheet as they flow unimpeded into the sea now that more of the iceshelfs are gone. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster in his infinite wisdom for making that happen. He was none to happy about Obama killing those pirates.

Solutions? (-1, Flamebait)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27630999)

The idea that we can significantly alter the climate is a bit arrogant. Worse still is the idea that some minimal amount of "conservation" is going to make a difference.

You see, the problem is 6 billion people and the energy they use. This is going to generate heat that is not all radiated into space. The part that is held within the Earth's atmosphere is going to have an effect. If you choose to believe that this is something that Mankind can change, good luck.

We are going to have to make some difficult decisions. One of them is real simple - fewer people. Lots fewer. On the order of maybe 200 million instead of 6 billion with the regulation and enforcement to ensure that it never, ever gets past that point again.

The other option is to limit the energy use of 6 billion people to that of 200 million.

There really are no other options, if you want to treat the Earth as a closed system with only the resources that are here now.

Consider the facts (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631021)

East Antarctica is claimed by Australia. Australia runs a "glaciology program" there. West Antarctica is slowly shrinking, while East Antarctica is slowly growing.

Clearly, Australia is stealing West Antarctica's ice for their own, hoping that no one will notice because of the craze over global warming.

Consider the source (0, Troll)

cwolfsheep (685385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631083)

This is a story from one Murdoch news source, citing another (The Australian). Same thing as the New York Post citing the Times of London.

Headline more accurate than article?! (4, Funny)

Greg Lindahl (37568) | more than 5 years ago | (#27631097)

This must be a first.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>