×

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!

NASA Satellite Measurements Show Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Melt

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the cave-man-army-activated dept.

NASA 411

NASA reports that measurements taken from orbiting satellites indicate the Greenland ice sheet underwent melting over a larger area than they've seen in 30 years of observations. On July 8, the satellites found evidence that about 40% of the ice sheet's surface had melted. Observations just four days later showed 97% of the surface had melted. "This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland's weather since the end of May. 'Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,' said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate. Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12." Photos also surfaced last week showing the Petermann Glacier in Greenland 'calving' — some very large chunks of it broke off and started to drift away.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

411 comments

I'm not going to panic just yet... (5, Informative)

oraclese (1039520) | about 2 years ago | (#40759025)

At the risk of sounding like a denier, I'm not going to freak out just yet, since it says in the article (and partially in the summary) that this is believed to happen every 150 years or so, last time being 1889.

Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (5, Funny)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#40759147)

No, no....you DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!

2012 - 1889 is only 123 years. This is nearly 30 years too soon. This is dire!!!!

Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759197)

Congratulations, you just sabotaged the GP's point by being a complete ass. Thanks for playing.

Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#40759221)

Apparently my closing SARCASM tag did not come through in my post. Sorry.

But it's late, I needed a break from the code, and just needed to let out a little humor.

Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759487)

So, the point wasn't to piss people off into a blind rage by mocking them? Because, you know, what he's saying might actually get through to a few reasoned people with differing opinions otherwise.

It looks an awful lot like:
1. See reasoned person voice evidence apparently supporting an opinion you take exception to.
2. Wait for someone else to voice a reasoned counter point.
3. Latch onto counter point by baselessly asserting that people that believe in that opinion in #1 have to be irrational, thus devastating the chances of #2 actually getting through to anyone.
4. Point at the insult sourced anger of people that share #1's apparent opinion as proof they are less rational, and therefore less correct.

Result: #3 gets to claim persecution while creating the very enemy they are railing against, all to save their own opinion from scrutiny, thus eliminating the need to resolve the dissonance #1 initiated in a healthy manner.

Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759513)

Apparently my closing SARCASM tag did not come through in my post. Sorry.

But it's late, I needed a break from the code, and just needed to let out a little humor.

1. That's what the fucking Preview button is for.
2. If you want to make < and > characters, the sequence is AMPERSAND L T SEMICOLON and AMPERSAND G T SEMICOLON without spaces.
3. You're a dumb nigger.

Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (-1, Redundant)

haruchai (17472) | about 2 years ago | (#40759247)

I see you're up to date with the latest cooligan diatribe at WUWT

Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (1)

oraclese (1039520) | about 2 years ago | (#40759295)

Is everyone going to laugh if I admit I have no idea what WUWT is? Sigh.... and just as I was about to leave the computer and go outside....

Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (1, Informative)

haruchai (17472) | about 2 years ago | (#40759535)

Anthony Watts denialist site: WattsUpWithThat.com

Sorry, thought it was better known around here. They sure get their thongs stuck in awkward places when Slashdot posts a pro-AGW story.

Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (1, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#40759653)

Dr. Michio Kaku said [youtube.com] that physicists and astronomers underestimated the level of solar activity for 2012. (See at about the 2:00 point.)

In addition, as you know if you have been paying attention, we have in fact had significant solar activity and some rather massive solar flares.

It is not at all surprising that we are experiencing a heatwave. And it just so happens to correspond to the normal 11-year cycle peak, so it is even doubly non-surprising.

It very much remains to be seen whether this weather constitutes "climate".

Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (2)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about 2 years ago | (#40759297)

this is believed to happen every 150 years or so

"I love humans. Always seeing patterns in things that aren't there." -- The Doctor

Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (5, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#40759651)

That's why we invented maths. Statistically a heatwave like the one in TFA occurs on AVERAGE once in 150yrs, technically if we get a couple more like it in the next decade or so it could still be due to "luck", the same technicality applies even if the entire ice cap melts, it could still be just a random once in a 100M yr event. - The same unreasoning was used by the same immoral stink tanks to convince people that smoking did not cause cancer. A single extreme weather event is obviously not enough to determine a weather pattern, but that is not what they are claiming.

Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (1)

dr2chase (653338) | about 2 years ago | (#40759613)

I saw that, and thought, "have we drilled enough ice cores in enough places to know that the previous melts covered 97% of the ice cap?"

Unprecedented (2, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | about 2 years ago | (#40759941)

It's always interesting when an article provides precedence for something it labels unprecedented.

alarmist (-1, Troll)

bob zee (701656) | about 2 years ago | (#40759031)

more alarmist articles to scare us. terrorists.

You are the alarmist. (5, Insightful)

microbox (704317) | about 2 years ago | (#40759413)

Bertrand Russell: “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are so confident while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

Now, you seem awfully confident that almost every climate scientist is plain wrong about something. You must be one of those economic alarmists, who believes that reducing carbon emissions will cripple the economy -- the same shrill alarmism that was used against acid rain and CFCs (the ozone hole). In all three cases, the economic alarmists were wrong. Taxes on sulphur, CFC and carbon emissions had a negligible negative effect at most on various economies -- sometimes a net positive, because it spurred new economic activity.

But continue with your shrill alarmism that addressing climate change will somehow destroy the economy and usher in world communist government. Ye all seem so very confident about it, that you don't even have to learn what scientists and economists have to say on the issue.

Re:You are the alarmist. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759581)

So I can assume you give a significant portion of your income to third world countries that don't emit CO2 every year?

Oh, you are generous with OTHER PEOPLE'S money but not your own. I see. So your viewpoint is worthless.

Re:You are the alarmist. (2)

dr2chase (653338) | about 2 years ago | (#40759663)

Ah yes, if you're not single-handedly solving the problem, clearly, you are a hypocrite. Some problems are large enough that they require large-scale, COERCIVE, solutions. Like taxes, a military draft, limits on how stinky or inefficient your car can be.

Of course, if someone actually does live a fully low-carbon lifestyle, then they're some kinda hippy weirdo, and their experience surely cannot generalize to "normal" people.

Re:You are the alarmist. (1, Informative)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40759761)

In all three cases, the economic alarmists were wrong.

Er, what do you mean by wrong? Obviously the world didn't end. But there was, for example, a mass exodus of the steelworking industry from the developed world of that time. And CFC replacements resulted in higher prices for most things having to do with refrigeration. The point being that there were drawbacks.

The problem here is that "addressing climate change" or in other words, reducing global generation of greenhouses and in particular, reducing the burning of fossil fuels is a far larger part of the economy than the two examples you give.

Ye all seem so very confident about it, that you don't even have to learn what scientists and economists have to say on the issue.

The economists are in agreement that there are substantial costs for AGW mitigation, on the order of some percentage of global GDP hit per year. Where there is disagreement is in how big the hit is and whether it's smaller than the benefit to be gained.

Taxes? (2)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#40759905)

You don't know what you're talking about. They never taxed any of those things. They were either banned outright, emissions were limited by regulations.

Re:You are the alarmist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759949)

Same as being a Democrat. It's really hard when you actually believe in democracy...

hottest in thirty years -must be global warming (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759037)

30 years of observations, this amount of melting hasn't been seen for more than 140 years. Yep, Al Gore is right. The globe is warmer.

Re:hottest in thirty years -must be global warming (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#40759103)

NASA has been observing the entire ice sheet for only 30 years. But the summit alone has been observed for a longer time, and this is the first time after 140 years, the summit has been observed to melt significantly.

Re:hottest in thirty years -must be global warming (4, Informative)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about 2 years ago | (#40759415)

According to TFA, they observed this via ice cores, not via some sort of manmade records or anything of that sort (excluding the 30 years of satellite data of course). At this point, they consider this an interesting but non-threatening event, with the proviso that if it happens again in the next year or two, then it will be much more concerning.

From TFA:

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."

Re:hottest in thirty years -must be global warming (2, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#40759765)

"... and this is the first time after 140 years, the summit has been observed to melt significantly."

Define "significantly". According to TFA, the summit was observed to be at or slightly above 0 degrees celsius for a few hours.

That's not enough to melt a decent snowbank in someone's yard "significantly". I doubt the summit had anything to worry about.

Re:hottest in thirty years -must be global warming (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#40759897)

Depends on the wind condition and humidity dont you think?

Re:hottest in thirty years -must be global warming (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#40760017)

"Depends on the wind condition and humidity dont you think?"

That's a fair statement, since ice and snow can sublimate directly into the atmosphere, if the air is dry. But on the other hand, it can do that at 10 below too.

Re:hottest in thirty years -must be global warming (1, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40759595)

hasn't been seen for more than 140 years.

Stop and think about that for a moment. That means it happened previously, and nothing bad happened, we're all still here, and Florida isn't underwater yet.

Who needs science? I have conspiracy theories! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759047)

Global warming is Al Gore's sinister plot to control the internet.

Re:Who needs science? I have conspiracy theories! (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#40759215)

I have a different conspiracy theory: Slashdot keeps posting articles guaranteed to rehash the (mostly uninformative) debate between people who support the IPCC conclusions and those who don't, because they hope to spawn a 500-comment shitfest in the comments, and maybe some social-media links, and thereby drive up pageviews.

Re:Who needs science? I have conspiracy theories! (4, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#40759273)

Yes, but it keeps traffic up, which allows for increased advertising sales. ;-)

Re:Who needs science? I have conspiracy theories! (1)

haruchai (17472) | about 2 years ago | (#40759281)

But, but, ,but, he invented the Internet - how did he not control it?

Re:Who needs science? I have conspiracy theories! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#40759813)

Al and Kipper dressed up as strangers and met at a hotel for one hell of a romantic evening. Some say this is why Al comes across stiff as a board as something they were using snapped off and wasn't ever removed. Anyways, it was during one of these sessions that Al lost the remote control pad for the internet. He is no longer able to turn it up or down or off altogether. It is perpetually stuck at the mercy of the programming on it.

OMG (0)

BlearyTruth (2692231) | about 2 years ago | (#40759081)

The Greenland ice sheet has been there for 110,000 years. They measure for 30. Seems not very representative, but that's just me. /sarc

Re:OMG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759467)

Representativeness is, well, take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representativeness_heuristic

(No, no link, get a life and get Firefox, triple-click and drag to an empty space on the tab-bar).

Re:OMG (1)

BlearyTruth (2692231) | about 2 years ago | (#40759569)

Care to explain the relevance? 30 years of 110000 is a sample size of .03, this is a *potentially* relevant data set, but you cannot draw conclusions without more data.

Hence, we have an observation.

Interesting Caveat (5, Insightful)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about 2 years ago | (#40759087)

Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H

It's scary if you look at a trend of only 30 years. And then you compare it to data that's only around 120 years old and find out it's not so bad. I'm not saying the melting isn't bad, just seems to be presumptions to say "unprecedented" and alarmist to use such language given the number of data points.

Re:Interesting Caveat (-1, Flamebait)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#40759461)

Maybe the Ice Age is ending. Or it could be all those cows passing gas.

Re:Interesting Caveat (1)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | about 2 years ago | (#40759521)

Maybe the Ice Age is ending. Or it could be all those cows passing gas.

No no, you are all wrong.

The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear error but I have no fearM
'Cause London is drowning and I,
I live by the river

Re:Interesting Caveat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759637)

The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in

How does that even work? One would cancel out the other. If the sun were "zooming in" it would get hotter and dryer (and the atmosphere thinner) FAST.

Re:Interesting Caveat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759775)

The Clash, London Calling - I suspect you know....
I never felt so much a' like a'like a'like

Re:Interesting Caveat (1)

jbengt (874751) | about 2 years ago | (#40759833)

Maybe the Ice Age is ending. Or it could be all those cows passing gas.

No no, you are all wrong.

The ice age is coming

You are wrong.
We are currently in an Ice Age.
A Glacial Period is due to start soon.
(But, for now at least, we seem to be getting warmer instead of cooler.)

Atlantic Currents (5, Informative)

gznork26 (1195943) | about 2 years ago | (#40759105)

With that much fresh water being added to the North Atlantic, we ought to be talking about the health of the Atlantic Ocean currents that are energized by the temperature difference between equator and polar regions, and the deep water exchange, which is driven by the difference in salinization. Most important of these currents is the Gulf Stream. It stopped several hundred years ago, over the course of a single lifetime, and caused the Little Ice Age in Europe. I've already heard some reports about the speed of the current slowing. An awful lot depends on those currents, and we've heard nary a peep about the implications.

Re:Atlantic Currents (5, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40759371)

and we've heard nary a peep about the implications.

I don't know why you haven't heard a peep, scientists have taken this quite seriously and have done some research on the topic. The difficulty, of course, is good historical data is hard to find, and frankly, good measurements of the entire ocean are not easy to make even now.

In any case, the latest scientific research [nature.com] suggests little cause for alarm.

Re:Atlantic Currents (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40759647)

Erm, you know how tiny that volume of water is, comparatively?

If that kills something off, that thing was going to die the next time a fish shat in the water next to it anyway.

You said it first (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#40759115)

I love how neither the article, nor the summary mention global warming - heck, it's not even in the tags! - but in the first ten posts, half are already decrying the "AGW alarmists".

Re:You said it first (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#40759159)

Well, I can post an whole article and summary on the decline of auto manufacturing leading by to the decline of Detroit. And I am pretty sure you're NOT going to be thinking Toyota. Just saying...

It doesn't take a moron to figure the point of a /. summary.

Re:You said it first (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#40759209)

Neither the summary nor the article don't really try to make any points, they just report on a specific fact. It's kinda telling that this fact immediately triggers a slew of apologetic posts. To take your example, it would be as if you wrote an article giving only the raw numbers about how Detroit fares today, and I would make a first post there along the lines of, "all you people trying to blame GM here are liars, it was Fiat all along".

Re:You said it first (0)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#40759253)

One has to take into context the environment. This is Slashdot...and as such, articles like this are usually posted for the agenda's sake. So it's pretty pointless to point out that GW wasn't mentioned, when it was pretty much the point of the post being posted to Slashdot..

Re:You said it first (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#40759867)

You don't think the historical claims of global warming being behind the ice melt in Greenland have anything to do with the jump of comments?

In your Detroit scenario, it would be like after years of bombardment that GM destroyed Detroit, an article comes out and someone points to what they think is significant about Fiat's roles.

Re:You said it first (2, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 years ago | (#40759245)

Well, I can post an whole article and summary on the decline of auto manufacturing leading by to the decline of Detroit. And I am pretty sure you're NOT going to be thinking Toyota. Just saying...

It doesn't take a moron to figure the point of a /. summary.

Actually, one of my cousins gets about 1000 mpg with his plug-in electric car, using cheap GHG-friendly hydroelectric power to charge it, at about 1/10th the price of gasoline here in Seattle.

We could always adapt. It's not that hard. He still drives to work. Just costs him less to do it.

It's "adapt OR die" not "adapt AND die".

Re:You said it first (1)

BlearyTruth (2692231) | about 2 years ago | (#40759387)

I'm curious what formula you use to derive 1000 mpg to a car that derives it's power from hydroelectric.

Re:You said it first (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 years ago | (#40759479)

Long string of calculations by Robert A showing how he derived that. There is a little boost engine which gives you enough power to get to a station, and he's never refilled the tank.

However, we could do a PE storage calculation. Like me, he buys a full green power mix from Seattle City Light, which costs about twice as much as standard city light power, but that pays for wind farms as well as the hydro dams city light owns, and I think includes some natural gas for shaping.

If you lived in an area like Wisconsin where your power comes from coal, then you're just substituting coal power for oil power, since electricity there is from coal, unlike here where almost all of it is from hydroelectric.

Re:You said it first (1)

BlearyTruth (2692231) | about 2 years ago | (#40759687)

I'm happy for you both.

But I don't know who Robert A is nor what is a 'Long string of calculations'.

Hydroelectric uses no gasoline, therefore an MPG rating really isn't valid.

If you were to compare the cost of the power purchased to the same energy purchased in gallons of gasoline I think that would have some relevance, however if you are speaking of artificially subsidized cheap hydroelectric this really doesn't apply to the general population as cheap hydroelectric is not common at all.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with hydroelectric power or EVs at all, but I just don't see any connection to cost of transportation to the public as a whole, or what most people think of as MPG.

Electric vehicles - for the whole of society that is - are not zero emission. Fossil fuels produce most of the electricity consumed by a large margin.

Re:You said it first (0)

busyqth (2566075) | about 2 years ago | (#40759701)

Like me, he buys a full green power mix from Seattle City Light, which costs about twice as much as standard city light power...

Man, it seems like every day I'm in awe of some new technology.
Yesterday it was two-atom chemical reactions, Today it's filtering the dirty electrons out of the current flowing to your house.

Re:You said it first (2)

dr2chase (653338) | about 2 years ago | (#40759751)

If I eat oatmeal, cooked on my wood stove, for fuel calories, I get about 3000 mpg. Humans get about 600mpg if they could digest gasoline (think, vegetable or nut oil). Oats yield 5 calories of output for each 1 calorie of FF input (including fertilizer, harvest, processing). Cooking on wood stove avoids use of FF for cooking (significant, for a low-cal input like oats). Wood for wood stove comes from downed trees, all my cutting is with an electric chainsaw, splitting is with a hand-hydraulic splitter or hand-operated ax.

Cooking uses only a tiny fraction of the heat from the stove, and when the stove is in use, the heat from cooking the oatmeal is put to good use anyway.

An electric scooter, however, can probably do better than that. Humans are about 25% efficient; at 100% efficiency, that 600mpg would be 2400mpg. Call it 80% (Li battery charge/discharge, controller, motor), you get 1920mpg. From there, you have to plug in the FF costs for electrical generation and distribution, which can take that number up or down, depending on the source.

So on the one hand, yes, you could continue to drive a car if that really mattered to you, but if we needed that electricity for something else, we could use even less of it. Your cousin IS using a lot of electricity, it just happens that he has a low-FF source of electricity.

Re:You said it first (1)

BlearyTruth (2692231) | about 2 years ago | (#40759251)

Screw global warming. I'm scared to death of global cooling.

Really.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/ [foxnews.com]

Re:You said it first (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40759737)

Even if that wasn't from Faux News, it's a lot easier to survive cold than it is heat (as tool users).

Re:You said it first (2)

dr2chase (653338) | about 2 years ago | (#40759785)

Let's see, Fox News, plus a 2-year-old prediction that has been pretty well blown away by subsequent events. I very much suggest that you treat Fox News as the digital equivalent of used bird-cage liner. Studies (well, one study) show(s) that watching it makes you ignorant: http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5 [businessinsider.com]

Hmm... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#40759127)

Hottest in 30 years, since 1889....er 40% melted away, 97%...er wait. What does this really mean?

Oh, that 97% of the top layer of ice exposed to sun and warmth has melted. I am curious...how deep is this melt?

Oh...think that a warm year + drought over North America might, just might lead to a little melting. In fact, if this is the worst drought in 60 years, but only the worst melting in 30 years. Maybe it's not so bad?

LOL

Re:Hmm... (0, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#40759725)

"... er 40% melted away, 97%...er wait. What does this really mean?"

If you ask me, this is misleading in a way that HAS TO be deliberate. It states that some melting as been observed over close to 97% of the ice sheet, but doesn't say how much has actually melted... and I am guessing damned little since they make a big point of one place being close to zero or a few hours.

But when expressed the way this is, it gives the unwary an impression that 97% of the ice has melted away... but that is not even close to the truth.

truth in advertising (1)

ronpaulisanidiot (2529418) | about 2 years ago | (#40759161)

greenland is about to actually become green, with the ice breaking away. they should have named their country iceland instead and they wouldn't have this problem.

Bright future for Greenland (1, Flamebait)

GrahamCox (741991) | about 2 years ago | (#40759169)

I see a bright future for Greenland. Forget Spain or Greece, take a nice relaxing balmy beach holiday in sunny Greenland. That's where it's going to be at, if you are a property developer looking to build holiday accommodation, resorts, apartments, theme parks, restaurants and cafes. Get in now before the rush. And all that concrete and travelling there by air can only help make the dream come true sooner!

Re:Bright future for Greenland (3, Informative)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 years ago | (#40759219)

Well, remember, Greenland was originally settled during a warming period that allowed Britain to grow wine, and the Viking inhabitants only died off when it reverted to colder temperatures.

I recommend getting there by steamship. Maybe aboard the Titanic II?

I'm sure it's safe.

Re:Bright future for Greenland (4, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#40759469)

You don't watch much SyFy do you? I guarantee a cheesy-looking, man-eating Yeti with a taste for swimsuit models (who will conveniently be waiting to be rescued by the rugged, misunderstood, loner biologist doing research in town) is slowing thawing out. We're just one summer break from a Greenland turning into BloodLand :(

Enjoy massive crop failures and lowland flooding (0, Troll)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 years ago | (#40759185)

To all those who ignored the actual scientists who warned about global warming in favor of the very very few oil industry sponsored hacks, enjoy your global warming and oceanic acidification that is destroying shellfish and crops worldwide.

It's called consequences.

Adapt or die.

Re:Enjoy massive crop failures and lowland floodin (-1, Troll)

Vermonter (2683811) | about 2 years ago | (#40759331)

My bad, I was still listening to the scientists in the 1970's who were warning of global cooling. On the plus side, we seem to have managed to stop that.

Re:Enjoy massive crop failures and lowland floodin (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759347)

how about this? We give the global warming deniers a win. With one caveat: everyone has to go on public record whether they are firmly in the denial camp, or have publicly argued for inaction. Then, if at some point in the future, the evidence DOES rise to such a level as to completely erase the deniers legitimacy, we get to kill them all (and their children of course). are they willing to vote with their lives? they sure as hell appear to be willing to vote with poor peoples lives.

Re:Enjoy massive crop failures and lowland floodin (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 years ago | (#40759485)

Nah. I got a better idea.

How about we just laugh at the global warming deniers while they fry in the heat and storms as their homes are flooded?

Re:Enjoy massive crop failures and lowland floodin (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about 2 years ago | (#40759449)

Adapt or die.

"Bye-bye, California. Hello, new West Coast. My West Coast. Costa Del Lex. Luthorville. Marina del Lex. Otisburg... Otisburg?"

melting.. in summer OMG!!!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759189)

GLobal warming is a hoax.

Someone needs a dictionary. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759201)

"not seen in 30 years" is not "unprecedented".

Re:Someone needs a dictionary. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#40759869)

Does "not ever recorded before, and provably absent in the past 30 years" sound a little closer to the word in question?

Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759289)

This is the wettest winter since 1974 in Australia according to the Bureau of Meteorology, so for there to be stuff like that up north is unsurprising when you consider this little blue ball as a single complete system.
Give it 20 years and we will have droughts again whilst the glaciers will be the thickest on record...

Weather or climate? (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | about 2 years ago | (#40759349)

So is this weather or climate? Because if it's weather isn't it just the equivalent to having an unusually warm winter in Eastern Europe or something? Did Greenland have an unusually warm winter or an unusually hot summer this year? That wasn't mentioned in the article. Perhaps someone at NASA is in the market for an oceanfront home? If global warming will reduce the market price for oceanfront property I'm all for it.

Re:Weather or climate? (-1)

tsotha (720379) | about 2 years ago | (#40759403)

It's weather when things are cooler and OMG GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! when it gets warmer.

Re:Weather or climate? (0, Redundant)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#40759743)

We have been having an unusual amount of solar activity this year. Didn't you notice the news about yet another flare the other day?

Hint, folks: it tends to get warm when that happens.

And considering that it's right at the predicted peak of the current 11-year solar cycle, I'd say it's a good bet this is weather, not "climate".

Re:Weather or climate? (2)

dr2chase (653338) | about 2 years ago | (#40759889)

The analogy I've seen elsewhere is "loaded dice". If I roll the dice and it comes up 12, are they loaded? Can't say for sure. If I roll the dice and they don't come up 12 always, are they not loaded? How about if I roll the dice 360 times and get 100 twelves (instead of about 10)?

One likely climate-vs-weather cause I have seen proposed is a change in "Rossby Waves": http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/04/slowing-rossby-waves-leading-to-extreme.html [blogspot.com] This one thing would make weather "more extreme" simply by making it change more slowly; hot weather would come, and rather than moving on in a day or two, might stay for longer. Same goes for cold weather, too.

Re:Weather or climate? (1)

styrotech (136124) | about 2 years ago | (#40759945)

So is this weather or climate?

Weather. A specific atmospheric condition (a heat dome - never heard that one before) moving over a specific area over a specific time is weather.

Climate is trends and cycles in longer term averages of weather statistics and the probabilities of stuff happening.

eg the el nino / la nina cycle and how that relates to the probabilities of storm frequencies or intensities is climate - any actual storm is weather.

From the Article (3, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40759407)

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."

What does this have to do with Muslim comfort? (-1, Flamebait)

109 97 116 116 (191581) | about 2 years ago | (#40759441)

The same agency tasked by Bolden to build relations with the Muslim world is now supposed to be the same agency that we can trust with firing off a satellite to measure something on earth we could measure cheaper....wait for it... ON EARTH... When pigs fly I say.

This is not time to talk about that (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759497)

During a time when the US is facing its most serious drought since the 1930's, its no time to talk about ice sheets melting or global warming, just like its no time to talk about gun control just after 70 people get shot in a theater. Its not the right time to talk about it! You are welcome to talk about global warming in the middle of the mild winter, or droughts in the rainy season (whenever that is), or shootings and gun control when all is peaceful. A public pandemic is no time to talk about health care, and forest fire season is no time to talk about children playing with matches! People with vested interests could have their vested interests changed. That's just not right.

Re:This is not time to talk about that (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#40759957)

Or we could have emotions demanding completely useless and ineffective solutions that do more harm in the long run then any good perceived or not.

The reason we wait until something has played down a bit is not because everyone will forget about it, but because the emotions have died down and you don't end up banning dyhydrogen monoxide simply because it is used in the process of making guns and ammunition and destroys millions of dollars of property each year.

I love these kind of news posts... (1, Insightful)

firesyde424 (1127527) | about 2 years ago | (#40759691)

.... they always make me laugh.

What makes me laugh is that people from both sides are trying to take a measly two centuries(roughly) of climate data and make it mean something significant in a world with a history that is several orders of magnitude greater than humanity's entire existence.

I, for one, plan to spend my time, not freaking out or sticking my head in the sand, but instead, I plan to track down the location of the fountain of youth. There I will wait out the years, recording climate data for the next 500 millenia. When I have completed my mission, I will teleport down to the local Spacemart, purchase a "Made in Sol" time machine that was actually built from parts manufactured in the Beta Epsilon system(complete with lead paint), and I will travel back in time to let the /. community know if humanity was really responsible for global warming or not.....

Got to look at the data as a whole (5, Interesting)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#40759705)

Everyone is really good at rationalizing specific data points like "it's part of a 150 year trend". The problem is there's world wide evidence and not just glacier melts. There's a measurable trend going back to the industrial revolution when the CO2 release started. It accelerated in the 80s as growth in third world countries kicked in. It's everything from glacier melting to weird weather and from sea level rise to a severe drought in the US to the worst one in Australia in several thousand years. What I keep hearing is every time a piece of evidence shows up is "I can explain that". At what point do we accept that all the "I can explain thats" add up to we've got a problem? Long term what we are staring at isn't a hot planet but one that overreacts to a spike in CO2 causing a worse ice age than the last one. Rationalizing is a little like sticking your head in the sand. Each rationalization is another inch. Eventually your head hits China and the planet is still warming whether you like it or not.

NASA = Nerds And Socialist Assholes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759753)

global warming is a myth

Greenland used to be... (2, Interesting)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 years ago | (#40759783)

Greenland used to be farm land. It was called, "Green" land for a reason. But then about 600 years ago the planet cooled and Greenland farmers had to abandon their land. Harsh, and no, it wasn't because of humans causing climate change. Rather climate change has happened on a regular basis in cycles over the last several billion years. Now it is warming up and can be farms again.

The reality is that during periods of warming there was greater diversity. People need to stop focusing on climate change and focus instead on the real problems like toxic pollution and war. Global Warming is a just a distraction.

Fuck It ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40759839)

Fuck the glaciers, I hate cold, it's time for these bicthes to melt down already!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...