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!

Canadian Ice Shelves Halve In Six Years

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the not-cool dept.

Earth 458

eldavojohn writes "The CBC reports on new research that shows thousand-year-old ice shelves (much different than sea ice) are breaking up and have been reduced by half in a region of Canada over the last six years. 'This summer alone saw the Serson ice shelf almost completely disappear and the Ward Hunt shelf split in half. The ice loss equals about three billion tonnes, or about 500 times the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza.' More detailed pictures can be seen at The Conversation, with a quote from Professor Steven Sherwood, Co-Director of the University of NSW's Climate Change Research Centre: 'The real significance of this, in my view, is that this ice has reportedly been there for thousands of years. The same is true of glaciers that have recently disappeared in the Andes. These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural.'"

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

"These observations should dispel..." (5, Insightful)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571064)

It has never and will never be that easy, Steve. Your optimism is appreciated though.

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571112)

So I'm not one who tends to dismiss things that experts outside my field say, but this statement is quite a blatant fallacy: just because it's been that way for thousands of years doesn't mean that any change is certainly not natural. It's these types of statements that cause so many to lose credibility. It doesn't give me much faith in someone's ability to interpret complex data when he can't even construct a valid deduction from simple facts...

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571166)

Climate change deniers shouldn't go around throwing stones about being unable to construct valid deductions from simple facts... ESPECIALLY not if they're Republicans. I'm just saying, glass-houses and all that.

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571288)

ITT:
* fact and hurried conclusion
* someone questions conclusion
* namecalling retaliation
* descent into bedlam

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571326)

Ah, the good old glass houses argument. Also known as "I can't be wrong because I think you/re wrong". Always a solid argument, unless of course the opponent is particularly cagey and knows the devastating "I'm rubber you're glue" defense which, as we all know, is unstoppable.

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571672)

Assuming that I'm rubber and your glue is invincible is actually one of the most classic blunders, only slightly behind never going against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

The only unstoppable argument is The Chewbacca defense.

Double reference!

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571614)

I REALLY hope you are part of the Van Jones crowd and come marching down my street.

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (-1, Troll)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571418)

Thankfully saying that "it hasn't happened for thousands of years" is only a strawman propped up by deniers to pretend they have a legitimate beef with global warming.

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (0, Troll)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571606)

Agreed!

what kind of scientist uses their biast opinion instead of facts. F'in prove it's not natural, then open your mouth Mr. Steven, till then your just another wannabe Jesus.

I guess the problem is we're not really sure what's going on, but that still doesn't mean people should be shooting statements wherever they feel like it, then again we're talking about people here...

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (0, Flamebait)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571662)

Yeah he needs to prove the point to pin-heads like you. Earth to douche bag, scientists have concluded that man is responsible for global warming. The fact that you don't understand the science, isn't his problem.

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (1, Insightful)

surefooted (826448) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571132)

Seriously. It's matter of fact statements like this that are the problem. One feel swoop,eh. Really...

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571180)

"I do not hava a science degree, and I do not really believe that mankind is capable of altering the Earth's climate and God promised there would never be another great flood, and if we were to do anything it would be bad for the economy..."

Yes, sadly presenting evidence is just preaching to the choir. Perhaps adding the cleaving of the shelf released golden plates that you the translated with the help of an angel who told you not to show the plates to anyone would make it more compelling. It's worked before.

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (3, Insightful)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571280)

Funny, but this gives no evidence of either man made or natural climate change. These ice sheets were created in the last ice age, which is still ending, so they were likely to melt either way.

Re:"These observations should dispel..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571538)

Sounds like Professor (?) Steve needs to study the scientific method more or he's just a "Global Warming" funding whore!

Uh, Greenland redux? (3, Insightful)

arpad1 (458649) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571068)

How about a bit less in the way of hysteria? All the folks who were having kittens over the phony reduction in the Greenland ice sheet are looking like schmucks now so perhaps a few people, like the editors of Slashdot for instance, could forgo schmuckdom by not engaging in heavy breathing ahead of the facts?

Re:Uh, Greenland redux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571100)

Um, this is slashdot. This is a site where people honestly think we'll colonize Mars because some fool painted a metal tube and put some kerosene in it. You want hysterics ahead of the facts? Read the comments in any space-related story. Next best are energy stories.

Re:Uh, Greenland redux? (2)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571298)

I have been a regular on this site for over a decade now. And, I have no clue what you are talking about. As for the shyster alt-e stuff, the group consensus is usually along the lines of fails basic thermodynamics, smoke and mirrors, untested/unrevised claims, cost higher/efficiency lower than existing tech, etc...

Perhaps you have this site confused with another you frequent?

Re:Uh, Greenland redux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571408)

"unreviewed claims" How nice, Firefox thinks "unreviewed" is not a word and tries to correct it to "unrevised."

Re:Uh, Greenland redux? (1, Insightful)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571328)

eldavojohn writes

Usually everything in the quote box after that is written by the submitter. The editor didn't throw in his own comment on this story, so direct your vitriol at eldavojohn, not Soulskill.

Though, I do agree with you, that comment about dispelling was utterly moronic. These ice sheets are thousands of years old...oh, they are from the last ice age, so they would melt anyways. Antarctic ice that is millions of years old would be more worrying if it was melting.

Uh oh. (3, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571078)

Now where am I supposed to keep my ice books?

Re:Uh oh. (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571170)

I too thought of book shelves made of ice that last for 6 years...

curse you subject lines of irony!

Re:Uh oh. (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571362)

I was think of ice-porn.

Re:Uh oh. (2)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571386)

That's a total Dad-joke.

There were glaciers all over Montana (3, Insightful)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571098)

... that have been gone since long before the invention of the Sport Utility Vehicle. Or the wheel, for that matter.

I blame the Tea Party.

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (4, Insightful)

asylumx (881307) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571212)

Those didn't disappear in six years.

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (3, Insightful)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571344)

These shelves (that are on the water btw) didn't disappear either, take a look at the pictures, they are the ends of the glaciers that hang out in the water, they are going to reduce over time.

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571396)

Maybe those ones didn't, but others may have. [wikipedia.org]

Actually, the link claims there is evidence of catastrophic freshwater increases in a timeframe spanning months; but I'm too lazy to track the citation.

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571704)

No, but I wouldn't be surprised if they halved in six years at some point.

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (1)

LastGunslinger (1976776) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571234)

Can you point me to the research that shows the last Ice Age ended over the span of a century?

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571296)

No, but we have documented proof that both Europe and North America were experiencing a "mini ice age" as late at the mid-1800's, and that before the early 1700's (when the mini ice-age started) it was warmer than it is now.

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571742)

No, but we have documented proof that both Europe and North America were experiencing a "mini ice age" as late at the mid-1800's, and that before the early 1700's (when the mini ice-age started) it was warmer than it is now.

However as none of these records were written by "climate scientists" the AGW lot tend to deny them.

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571728)

No, you got it all wrong. According to the AGW, it's up to YOU to prove they didn't.

So you can you show us that they didn't?

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (1, Troll)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571266)

Oh please, everyone know's climate change is a myth, it still gets cold in winter!

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (2)

tmosley (996283) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571722)

No, climate change is real, because it gets warm in summer AND because it gets cold in winter!

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571374)

Yeah. I live in Ontario. Where my house is now, was under 1mi of ice less than 7k years ago.

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (3, Interesting)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571488)

If we implement some tough emissions-controls, carbon sequestering, and maybe do a little careful climate engineering, I think we can return Ontario to it's natural state under 1 mile of ice in a century or two. Otherwise we're all doomed.

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (1)

Taty'sEyes (2373326) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571528)

Yeah. I live in Ontario. Where my house is now, was under 1mi of ice less than 7k years ago.

I call shenanigans! The world was created just over 6000 years ago!

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (2)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571534)


Ontario wimp... I'm in Winnipeg. We go under 1mi of ice every Winter.

Re:There were glaciers all over Montana (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571664)

Pfft. Go to Labrador for some REAL ice.

Amazing (5, Insightful)

avandesande (143899) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571104)

These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural.

So you are saying that if there was natural global warming these ice shelves wouldn't melt? That's pretty amazing!

Re:Amazing (3, Insightful)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571200)

I think he's arguing that the ice shelves were there through previously known natural warmings. Its still unjustified to claim its absolutely caused by human related global warming, but whatever.

Re:Amazing (3, Insightful)

avandesande (143899) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571340)

Point taken. So to be correct we would should say that whatever the cause of the current warming it is unprecedented in the last several thousand years.

Funny how if you see a logical fallacy when you skim something you tend to ignore the rest....

Re:Amazing (1)

kernelrahl (465295) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571260)

When the next ice age hits we are all screwed anyway. When I say we, I mean some future mob of humans that are doomed of course!

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571378)

That sticks out worse than usual for warmist thinking. Ice melting proves the Earth is warming, therefore the warming is unnatural... o.O

About par for the course.

Had the ice shelves grown we would be told greater precipitation, an expected consequence of global warming, caused greater snow pack.

Re:Amazing (3, Informative)

quantaman (517394) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571388)

"The real significance of this, in my view, is that this ice has reportedly been there for thousands of years."

So we see the strongest warming cycle in thousands of years.

What's more likely?

That this unprecedented warming is natural and just happened to correspond with AGW.

Or that the AGW thing that scientists have been talking about for decades is doing exactly the thing they've been predicting.

True there's more nuance than that (not everywhere warms the same, etc) but the evidence has piled up pretty damn high.

Re:Amazing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571480)

The most likely answer is that they can't explain climate cycles at all and took a 50/50 guess. The climate has to be either getting warmer or colder, in any context where "the climate getting warmer or colder" even means anything. Unless you can explain why *and prove that your explanation describes reality*, you're not doing science.

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571602)

So it's either "unprecedented!" natural warming or it is AGW, and couldn't possibly be some combination of both? I know the mere suggestion that it could be 75% natural and 25% AGW (or any reasonable split thereof) will automatically get both sides foaming at their mouths, but it is more likely closer to the truth than pro or deniers would lead you to believe.

The ultimate question is whether or not pushing the environment with a little bit of AGW is good or bad. Good = enough of a push to avoid the next ice age (which arguably will be much more devastating than a little bit of flooding). Bad = enough of a push to hasten the next ice age. In either case I don't believe the alleged scorched earth alarmism is a possibility... short of WW III of course, but even then you'll end up in an ice age in short order.

Canadian gangsta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571108)

Bitch, I'm putting your ass on ice. See you in six years, eh?

Not year over year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571110)

The pictures in the article were take before and after summer, not at the same point in two consecutive years. I would expect that the ice be melted more after summer. Saying this is what happened, and then shouting a warcry of human global warming is misleading at best.

New measurement unit? (1)

c.r.o.c.o (123083) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571116)

What is this Great Pyramid of Giza unit?!? I demand all mass measurements to be reported in the accepted Elephant units. African or Indian, it's your choice.

Re:New measurement unit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571216)

"...weighing in at an astounding 420 kPd(kilopachyderms)..."

Re:New measurement unit? (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571292)

Approximately 551,155,655 African bull elephants.

Re:New measurement unit? (1)

avandesande (143899) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571498)

How about filled shrimp boats? They're pretty heavy too :-)

Natural? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571128)

"These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural"

The Earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years. Water has been melting and freezing for billions of years. An observation that ice melts proves that ice melts, and not much else.

Why would that dispel anything? (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571134)

Since you have no record of how fast ice shelves may have vanished in the past due to natural warming, it seems suspect to claim that this certainly proves the current rate of dissipation is due to unnatural warming...

Yes there is warming, but it appears our activities are unrelated [carlineconomics.com] .

But then what would he know? He's only the chair of a climatology department...

But my main point remains, that you are taking a rather unscientific leap with your fear-mongering statement.

Re:Why would that dispel anything? (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571226)

Im pretty sure they have some data considering they can get ice cores, and I am sure they probably have before. This would show approximately how long its been there, and there would be evidence of warming events, etc. in the ice.

Re:Why would that dispel anything? (1)

Mark of the North (19760) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571382)

[...]Yes there is warming, but it appears our activities are unrelated [carlineconomics.com] .

But then what would he know? He's only the chair of a climatology department...[...]

Wow! You picked a pretty big and ripe cherry there. Are you sure it is indicative of all the cherries on the tree?

Re:Why would that dispel anything? (3, Informative)

cosmicaug (150534) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571436)

Since you have no record of how fast ice shelves may have vanished in the past due to natural warming, it seems suspect to claim that this certainly proves the current rate of dissipation is due to unnatural warming...

Says who? At the very least, someone seems to have the idea that these particular ice masses have been around for thousands of years.

Yes there is warming, but it appears our activities are unrelated [carlineconomics.com] .

But then what would he know? He's only the chair of a climatology department...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/murray_salby_and_conservation.php [scienceblogs.com]

Re:Why would that dispel anything? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571468)

Yes there is warming, but it appears our activities are unrelated [carlineconomics.com].

Yet another case of 1 study showing conflicting results of 100 other studies. Hmm, which has more chance of having made mistakes?

Mostly debunked, anyway: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html [skepticalscience.com]

I know its true! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571140)

My 32bit signed integer based FORTRAN compiler told me so!

Its the solar cycle! (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571142)

God wants it this way.

The sky is falling!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571148)

To quote Sherman T. Potter. "Horse Potatoes!" One fell swoop. Give me a break.

Bad phrasing (2, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571162)

'The real significance of this, in my view, is that this ice has reportedly been there for thousands of years. The same is true of glaciers that have recently disappeared in the Andes. These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural.'"

How's that saying go, past performance is no guarantee of future results. The Andes used to be under water for thousands of years; the continents used to all be one big land mass. If we lived back then I'm sure we'd be hearing about Anthropogenic Tectonic Drift.

Dont jump from "There used to be ice, now there isn't." to "We did it"

These unique and massive geographical features that we consider to be a part of the map of Canada are disappearing and they won’t come back

Alarmist.

The researchers say their disappearance suggests a possible return to conditions unseen in the Arctic for thousands of years.

So there used to be conditions where they would have melted anyways, climate changed and they appeared, now they're disappearing again and you say we'll never see them again?

Re:Bad phrasing (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571310)

If it takes thousands of years, we probably wont see them again.

Re:Bad phrasing (3, Insightful)

cosmicaug (150534) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571588)

'The real significance of this, in my view, is that this ice has reportedly been there for thousands of years. The same is true of glaciers that have recently disappeared in the Andes. These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural.'"

How's that saying go, past performance is no guarantee of future results. The Andes used to be under water for thousands of years; the continents used to all be one big land mass. If we lived back then I'm sure we'd be hearing about Anthropogenic Tectonic Drift.

Assuming this is not some pathetic attempt at humor which I am pathetically entirely missing, do you even have any idea of the timescales involved here or are you one of those 'the earth is 10000 years old' folk?

erroneous conclusions (2, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571196)

"These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural."

Really? Because climate has never, ever, not even once, shifted quickly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [wikipedia.org]

Note the huge uptick in average temperature starting roughly 11.5k years BP. I'm pretty sure the foot-powered cars the Flintstones drove didn't warm the earth, so this must've been a natural event. Saying that it's impossible for current temperature trends to be unnatural flies in the face of something that has already happened once, almost within recorded history; not to mention all the times when it happened outside of recorded history.

This is why some people, like myself, do not take climate alarmists seriously. They make these grandiose pronouncements that have little, if anything, to do with the facts.

Logical fallacy (2, Interesting)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571208)

"These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural"

Why?

Ice melting fast != humans at fault. Honestly, I've seen a lake go from "safe to walk on" to "no trace of ice" in a few days. I never once thought "Holy crap, some dude must have caused this!"

Certainly, that's the ASSUMPTION, and there are a lot of credible reasons for believing that to be true. But I don't see how A logically follows B unless you're already certain that B is true and just looking for more reasons to say it.

Re:Logical fallacy (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571290)

Ice melting fast != humans at fault. Honestly, I've seen a lake go from "safe to walk on" to "no trace of ice" in a few days. I never once thought "Holy crap, some dude must have caused this!"

That's what happens when someone pees in the lake.

Re:Logical fallacy (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571322)

That person is me.

Great unit, that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571218)

I've never seen the Great Pyramid, so that's completely meaningless to me. I mean, I assume it's big. Otherwise, Not-So-Great Pyramid.

Re:Great unit, that (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571632)

Is that a metric Giza Pyramid, or a US/Imperial Giza Pyramid?

The Happening vs Natural Argument (5, Insightful)

ChrisKnight (16039) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571230)

Summaries like this irk me. It ends with "These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural." This is a complete invalid conclusion.

"These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming is not happening." is a more reasonable statement based on the facts presented.

As to proving that it is not natural, that is a different argument that needs to be made by demonstrating the causes not reciting the symptoms.

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571244)

How did Harper let that bit of news slip by him?

The Alarmism misses a key detail (3, Interesting)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571250)

I'll just point out the corresponding lack of sea level rise. I'm going to have to put this in the same category as the atlas maker that said 15 percent of Greenland's ice melted. If that had actually happened the oceans would have gone up by feat. That hasn't happened so 15 percent of greenland's ice didn't melt. Likewise if this ice pack is so significant in canada there must be a corresponding rise in sea level.

Over the last century we've had a rise of about 8 cm in sea level. That means ice has absolutely melted. Just not as much as the alarmists would have us believe.

We can take GW seriously without getting hysterical about it. What we're seeing is SLOW melting and SLOW sea level rise.

Re:The Alarmism misses a key detail (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571330)

I'll just point out the corresponding lack of sea level rise. I'm going to have to put this in the same category as the atlas maker that said 15 percent of Greenland's ice melted.

15% could have melted and someplace else grew by 15%

Re:The Alarmism misses a key detail (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571474)

Except that it didn't. They used an inaccurate Atlas.

Re:The Alarmism misses a key detail (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571710)

The atlas makers relied on a US data set that they misinterpreted. They inferred that a reduction in 15 percent of the area of the ice was equal to 15 percent of the volume of the ice. A very very stupid mistake... and they're paying for it.

Re:The Alarmism misses a key detail (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571478)

Oops, sorry. That was me. I added 15% more ice to my freezer. Didn't think anyone would care, guess I was wrong.

what do Canada's growing glaciers prove? (2, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571254)

Other glaciers in Canada are *growing* (an inconvenient truth), like Helm, Pace and on Mount Logan. In one swoop, this proves......

Re:what do Canada's growing glaciers prove? (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571618)

It proves that some Canadian glaciers are eating too much processed American-style fast food. And I, for one, would like to know what we are going to do about it!

Re:what do Canada's growing glaciers prove? (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571666)

Ten percent of the glaciers in the world are growing. Draw your own conclusions.

Re:what do Canada's growing glaciers prove? (5, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571688)

Other glaciers in Canada are *growing* (an inconvenient truth), like Helm, Pace and on Mount Logan. In one swoop, this proves......

I like it when people post references for their claims.
I tried to verify yours on my own and was not successful.

The claim that Helm Glacier is growing seems to be out right false. [wordpress.com]

The claim about Mount Logan seem to be based on an increase in height [iceagenow.com] - the assumption being that it's due to ice accumulation, but that does not translate one way or the other to the total mass of the glacier, just the thickness at one point.

I couldn't easily find what "Pace" refers to since the word "pace," as in speed, is commonly used with the word "glacier" so I couldn't verify your claim either way.

Re:what do Canada's growing glaciers prove? (1)

buglista (1967502) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571734)

If they're like the ones in NZ, it's because of increased precipitation which is how glaciers happen. If the input is greater than the rate at which the snout is melting, then it gets bigger - doesn't say whether it's hotter or colder, so please think for 2 seconds before you type.

No sequitur detected (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571256)

These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural.

Oh? How? By the way the Island of Krakatoa had been in the Sundra strait for thousands of years, and then it disappeared overnight. This would dispel in one fell swoop any notion that volcanoes could be natural.

Ward Hunt Shelf (1)

sbrown123 (229895) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571276)

The Ward Hunt shelf started melting close to 100 years ago.

s/natural/gradual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571308)

s/natural/gradual. There. FTFY.

Conversion To Busses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571318)

Is it possible to get a conversion function to go from GPG to Yellow School Busses or maybe Football Fields?

Why is this on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571320)

Reminds me of when Hollywood actors mistake their fame for wisdom and start espousing political views.

It doesn't matter... (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571394)

There are 2 basic threads to anti-anthropogenic global warming arguments...

The first is, "It's not really happening, you've cherry-picked your data and/or misinterpreted it." and the refutation usually seems to consist of cherry-picked data with very specific interpretations.

The second is, "It's not anthropogenic, it's natural, because of..." with some reason or other.

For the moment I won't take sides on either thread, but I'm going to take very serious issue with the second. However I get the very distinct feeling with both threads that the real message is, "Since global warming is not real / not anthropogenic, we don't need to modify our actions. We can keep our fossil-fuel-based energy and transportation, unmodified." (and business models, might I add...)

But assuming you're on the second thread, and assuming you're saying that global warming is real, just not man-caused, it must be apparent that we simply cannot keep going the way we are. We must come to grips with a changing environment. Global warming means more energy into the atmosphere, and that means more water evaporates and moves from place to place. Some places get even more water, some places get even less, storms get stronger, and it's not even a smoking-gun kind of thing, it's statistical. No new killer drought or killer flood or killer tornado, just a slow ramp on the severity and frequency of the ones we have.

All the while people living in marginal areas get stressed, our agricultural systems get stressed, our emergency response systems get stressed. It's not "a disaster", it's more of the disasters we've had all along.

Not planning for it, not studying it very carefully to understand the extent, not taking some action to mitigate it, is hiding our head in the sand, and waiting to get smacked in the butt.

When you get flattened by a giant rock, you're just as dead if the rock rolled off a cliff as if it was dropped by a crane. One is "natural", the other "anthropogenic", but you're still dead.

Re:It doesn't matter... (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571576)

Not planning for it, not studying it very carefully to understand the extent, not taking some action to mitigate it, is hiding our head in the sand, and waiting to get smacked in the butt..

In order to plan for it, one must be able to predict it. I don't have any confidence in climatologists to be able to predict the temperature increase, nor (to any useful level of detail) the effects of any temperature increase.

When you get flattened by a giant rock, you're just as dead if the rock rolled off a cliff as if it was dropped by a crane. One is "natural", the other "anthropogenic", but you're still dead.

In the anthropogenic case, maybe you need better cranes or better operators. In the natural case, you better move your butt out of the way -- and no amount of scapegoating and restricting crane usage will help one iota. The cause makes a difference to the solution.

Re:It doesn't matter... (2)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571682)

Both sides have their fair share of bullshit. Furthermore, getting oil and coal out of the ground and refining it (or in the case of Coal the byproducts of burning it) aren't good for the environment anyway, so their reduction should help certain things regardless of human CO2 output affecting global warming.

Sea ice extent the last few years (0)

Kohath (38547) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571430)

This year doesn't seem too unusual or alarming:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png [uaf.edu]

More info:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ [wattsupwiththat.com]

Re:Sea ice extent the last few years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571542)

Interesting. You picked a graph that doesn't contain any baseline for comparison or clearly indicate what kind of trend is happening over time. I wonder if you did that on purpose?

Here's a graph of the same data that does contain a baseline for comparison and does indicate what is happening over time: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png. Same data, different presentation. But notice how all of a sudden the trend is blatantly obvious.

People killing the world!!! Ooh well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37571446)

How many inches of loss do you think slashdot and it's readers are responsible for?
If only there were a carbon neutral way to transfer information, like telepathy, or teaching messages to parrots and training them to home like pigeons.

No !! It possibly cant be due to Global Warming !! (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571564)

it must be something else. maybe baby farts, or honky tonk truck drivers. but it cant definitely be due to global * gasp * warming !!!

1816 called (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571590)

It wants its long-johns back

Gary Cooper. High Noon. (3, Interesting)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571624)

Global warming is happening.

Why do we care whether global warming is human-caused, or not? Are we all Catholics trying to assess guilt? What does it matter whether or not global warming is human caused or not? Global warming is here and it is happening. The cow is already out of the barn.

What's relevant is whether or not humans can alter the course of global warming.

Answer is obvious! (2)

hilldog (656513) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571650)

We have had enough of voodoo science and liberal agenda dweebs! The answer is obvious why the ice is melting. Bird poop and pee! That's right migrating sea birds land on the ice and after a meal of fish poop and pee to their hearts content and that my friends warms the ice and that is why its melting. My name is Rick Perry and I endorse this message.

Totally Faulty Logic (-1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#37571736)

These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural.

Talk about fallacious Cause & Effect logic. How did the Slashdot editors ever let this one through in the first place?

These ice shelves have been around for thousands of years (prove it) and now they're half gone in the last 6 years - therefore Global Warming is real and everybody start writing checks to Al Gore again. QED.

I think that the global warming zealots are getting a bit desperate. Why don't you prove to me instead how human-caused global warming has caused a shrinkage of the polar caps ON MARS!

And, btw, the oceans have gone DOWN in the last 2 years, just like Barrack Obama promised us that they would (or something like that).

What I see is more human habitable farmland previously covered by ice -- and this is a good thing.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?