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!

Greenland Is Getting Darker

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the it's-not-dark-yet-but-it's-getting-there dept.

Earth 174

sciencehabit (1205606) writes "Greenland's white snow is getting darker. Scientists have generally attributed that darkening to larger, slightly less white snow grains caused by warmer temperatures. But researchers have found a new source of darkening taking hold: impurities in the snow. The new darkening effect could easily add 2 centimeters to the projections of 20 cm sea level rise by 2100—and perhaps more if impurity levels grow with time."

cancel ×

174 comments

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

Greenland Is Getting Darker (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194863)

And Leon's Getting Larrrrrrrrrrrrger

Re:Greenland Is Getting Darker (1)

jonnythan (79727) | about 4 months ago | (#47194917)

Well done!

Re:Greenland Is Getting Darker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47196167)

Mod parent (+100, Only /. comment worth reading in a decade).

"...if impurity levels grow with time." (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194865)

Of course they will grow. As snow melts the impurities at the top get added to the impurities deeper in the snow.

The only thing that can reduce it is if the melt water floats/washes the impurities way.

Re: ...if impurity levels grow with time. (4, Informative)

cjjjer (530715) | about 4 months ago | (#47195091)

Scientists have generally attributed that darkening to larger, slightly less white snow grains caused by warmer temperatures.

Actually I cannot believe that scientists are that stupid. Maybe they should visit here in Winnipeg Canada where we see this every year from the tonnes of sand they put on our streets in the winter. As warmer temps rise the snow banks go from white piles to brown/grey mud piles and as more snow melts the darker it gets and the faster it melts.

No wonder people doubt climate change when scientists say things like this.

The only thing that can reduce it is if the melt water floats/washes the impurities way.

Actual in 90% of the time this is not the case, we get rain in the spring with the piles of mud and all it does is causes the snow pack to compress more (unless the snow pack is already compressed).

Re: ...if impurity levels grow with time. (4, Insightful)

GNious (953874) | about 4 months ago | (#47195141)

Cannot figure out if you're being serious or not ..

Am fairly sure no-one is spreading sand across Greenland, in the same way they do on the streets of Winnipeg Canada [sic].

Re: ...if impurity levels grow with time. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195265)

Well, if you had RTFA instead of being a dork, you would have noted that they're blaming volcanic activity in Iceland as a contributing factor.
 
Or are you too dumb to read?

Re: ...if impurity levels grow with time. (4, Interesting)

camelrider (46141) | about 4 months ago | (#47195421)

Particulates from coal-burning, wildfires, dust storms, volcanoes, Etc all contribute to the darkening of the snow. This is true thruout the northern temperate and arctic areas, not just Greenland.

Re: ...if impurity levels grow with time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47196157)

He is being serious. In Colorado we get dust storms that leave layers of dark dust in the mountain snowpack. Once those layers become exposed the snow melts faster, sometimes causing minor flooding issues.

It would be easy for dust, pollution, or volcanic ash to get caught up in the jet stream and deposited amongst the Greenland snow/ice. Only political clowns would try to make a case that this is related to global warming.

More climate lies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194893)

More climate lies. Climate hysterics have never needed that much justification to adjust their projections up 2cm.

Re:More climate lies (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47194967)

I am 200m above sea level.

Are you?

Re:More climate lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195063)

1300m here all you below can drown.

Re:More climate lies (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47195163)

Cool.

Problem is, the jury is still out on whether I may shoot the coast dwellers when they come crawling upwards.

Re:More climate lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195563)

It's an all or nothing deal.

If you have bullets for all of them, go ahead. If not, avoid it.

Re:More climate lies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47196249)

Gives new meaning to the term "Stand Your Ground Law"

Re:More climate lies (2, Interesting)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 4 months ago | (#47195821)

Well, since the last ice age it's something like 450 feet higher but since the Great Melt its been rising at a pretty steady rate. Certainly over the last several centuries it's been a fairly constant rise. Nothing to do with "AGW". It's just natural variation.

Re:More climate lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47196205)

Actually about 20m in the last 12K years, a combo of ice melt, but more importantly isostacy.

Re:More climate lies (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 4 months ago | (#47196013)

I am 200m above sea level.

Are you?

The Dead Sea, yes.

Re:More climate lies (5, Informative)

MacTO (1161105) | about 4 months ago | (#47195093)

Try looking up albedo, then performing some calculations to figure out how changes in the albedo changes changes the local temperature. Finally use that change in temperature to figure out how much ice will melt. While your results won't be as good as those produced by experienced research scientists, the basics are well within the grasp of someone with a high school education. Indeed, it is a common exercise for first year students in the physical sciences.

Once you've done that, you'll be better equipped to assess whether or not this is a climate lie.

Re:More climate lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195377)

Let's spray everything with titanium dioxide. Bob Ross will have a fit in his grave, but then the albedo problem goes away!

Getting extremely sick of this. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194895)

Everything we do causes global warming, and every consequence of global warming is a catastrophe. I used to read the global warming stories with interest, and agreed strongly with the bloc that says we need to take action to try to prevent it.

But over the last few years I've realized that it's all horseshit. Every story you read is meant to generate alarm at how bad things are going to be. There is never a positive consequence, EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS HORRIBLE. Statistically this is very improbably.

And everything that global warming does ALWAYS CAUSES MORE GLOBAL WARMING!

It's as if the earth never has experienced higher temperatures before and survived.

Count me out of the global warming activist crowd. They've lost all credibility in my mind. It's obvious to me that they are alarmist lemmings who only see half of the big picture, and use questionable tactics to try to get the media to help them.

Re:Getting extremely sick of this. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194955)

yeah, I hate science too. They try to force evolution, vaccines and all kinds of crap on us, but it is clear to me that we two understands this much better than they do.

Re:Getting extremely sick of this. (1)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 4 months ago | (#47196009)

That's because you're a creationist

Re:Getting extremely sick of this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195011)

Of course there are positives to climate change. For one thing, the northern United States would get an extremely prolonged growing season, and all those parts of Canada that are inhabited only by the natives will become liveable, meaning I can finally achieve my dream of growing a year-round peach farm in Connecticut (millions of peaches, peaches for me, etc). Most of the eastern seaboard and California would be underwater. Granted, I live on the eastern seaboard, but my house is just far enough in that it'd probably turn into some nice beachfront property.

The only bad news is that Ohio would still be around. Truly, there is no escaping from Ohio.

Re:Getting extremely sick of this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195041)

The only bad news is that Ohio would still be around. Truly, there is no escaping from Ohio.

As an Ohioan, allow me to say, fuck you.

Re: Getting extremely sick of this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195349)

Real classy. Typical of Ohioans though, so I'm not surprised.

Re:Getting extremely sick of this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195701)

Drew Carey?

Re:Getting extremely sick of this. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195123)

would get an extremely prolonged growing season

Except for the part in the middle of the summer where the heat kills off all your corn, so you get two short growing seasons, and shorter fall/winter growing seasons. Enjoy your stunted corn and tomato-sized jack-o-lanterns.

Re:Getting extremely sick of this. (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#47195393)

Mmmmmm stunted corn....

Re:Getting extremely sick of this. (2)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 4 months ago | (#47195911)

And Florida would totally disappear! Anyone else feel like going out right now and lighting off a coal seam?

Re:Getting extremely sick of this. (0, Troll)

r1348 (2567295) | about 4 months ago | (#47195017)

Which of the Koch brothers are you?

Re:Getting extremely sick of this. (3, Funny)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 4 months ago | (#47196039)

Groucho

China anyone? (5, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#47194911)

As long as China insists on NOT using their pollution controls (they built them on new plants per the treaty with japan, but japan forgot to require china to turn them on; besides as we have seen with their money, they really do not care about treaties; only winning a cold war ), this pollution will continue.

And yes, the pollution really carries that far. 10-15% of the western America's pollution is from China.

Re:China anyone? (0)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47194961)

Considering that most of the pollution in China is due to them making products for the "west", I dare say that at best, 10-15% of the pollution in China is not our fault in the end...

Re:China anyone? (4, Insightful)

Old97 (1341297) | about 4 months ago | (#47195025)

No. It's China not implementing pollution controls that is the problem, not who they are manufacturing for. They could continue to produce these products and still implement the controls they promised, but they haven't. China and a number of other countries compete on cost not just with cheap labor, but by not requiring their manufacturers to minimize pollution. It's bad for their citizens and bad for the world.

Re:China anyone? (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47195153)

Yes, and as long as WE keep buying their cheap crap, WE actually reward this behaviour.

Remember, that thing called free market? Where the buyer decides what products flourish and what products perish based on his decision what he buys and what he doesn't? It's the only little bit of free market left that we have, and, well, it seems that we want China to pump out black smoke as long as it means we get to buy cheap crap.

Re:China anyone? (0)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#47195403)

Oh, I agree that we are buying their horrible junk. THat is why I work hard to NOT DO THAT.

BUT, the right way to solve this is to put a single level VAT (just between wholeseller and retailer; along with any delivery trucks ) in which goods are taxed based on where the parts are from.
BUT, it needs to be quantified and normalized logically. This idea of using values from a gov. combined with using per capita has to be one of the STUPIDEST idea going.
Instead, use the OCO2 to measure CO2 going IN and OUT of a nation. This solves the issue of how much CO2 is being generated, and does not worry about the source (that is for that nation to deal with).
Then as for normalization, it is far better to push CO2 / $GDP. That is way off since it is based on data from 8-10 years ago, BUT, if you click on the GDP/emissions, you can see how efficient nations are.

Re:China anyone? (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#47195799)

BUT, the right way to solve this is to put a single level VAT (just between wholeseller and retailer; along with any delivery trucks ) in which goods are taxed based on where the parts are from.

We, umm, call those things tariffs.

Re:China anyone? (0)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#47195853)

No, they are not. A tariff is a tax applied ONLY TO AN IMPORTED ITEM.
A tax applied to ALL ITEMS, is simply a tax and TOTALLY LEGAL PER ALL TREATIES.

Re:China anyone? (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#47195469)

BTW, it is NOT we the end buyers that are making these choices. It is the buyers at large retailers that are making these choices. Having dealt with Home Depot, I found out that the buyers are given nice business and/or first class seats to China and then put up in 5 star hotels, and then they get a nice vacation paid by the Chinese gov.
OTOH, here in America, IFF they go out (most stay in the office), it is coach, and then a motel 6.
Is it any wonder why those buyers are choosing Chinese?

Re:China anyone? (3)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47195619)

It's very understandable why they prefer Chinese.

But WE should make a difference. Yes, that often means we have to do without some goodie or some gadget, but I can live without the latest phone that falls apart in 2-3 years.

Can they survive without our money?

In the end, it is in our hands. Of course, since we're few and far between, nothing will change. But I, for one, will have the good feeling that I made the right choice by NOT buying Chinese.

Hold on, cowboy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195633)

I do NOT want to buy cheap crap. Nor do I want to buy overpriced crap that is made in China or anywhere else - like paying too much or getting a shoddy product just because it says "Made in USA".

I buy cheap stuff because that is all I can get or I cannot afford an American or European made product.

I needed a miter saw because I couldn't get parts for my old one. After calling Stanley-Black&Decker-DeWalt-Delta-Porter&Cable (All the same company), they told me that my 12 year old saw is no longer supported and I should look at DeWalt because they are "very good tools".

DeWalt makes all their stuff in Mexico or China now.

never the less, I cannot afford DeWalt. I ended up fixing the saw myself and it's chugging away - an old USA made Delta.

See? I'm buying Chinese or more comonly SE Asian made shit because my real income has fallen. I cannot afford to buy American even when there is an American product available.

Cars? I have a 20 year old Chevy that I maintain myself because I cannot afford a mechanic. It is barely passing emmissions and I don't know when the particulates per million gets to high what i'm going to do.

Do you understand?

People - us peons - are buying cheap Chinese shit NOT because we want to, but because we HAVE to.

We see our neighbors get canned because WalMart insists that their manufacturers cheapen their products even more.

Its a sprial down to the bottom - all because of Globalisation, automation [technologyreview.com] , and short-term thinking from our leaaders.

Re:China anyone? (3, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#47195225)

Gads, What a total FUCKING IDIOT you are. The far right combined with you far left, are the real reason why we are not able to solve the CO2 problem. Look, China puts out over 33% of the emissions today AND RISING. And America is at 15% and dropping. Hell, China burns more than 50% of the world's coal.
BUT, that is not the real problem. The problem is that you far lefties scream that you want America to lower our emissions, while you give nations like China and South Africa a pass on building massive new coal plants. These are plants that will NOT come down for the next 50 years. And most of China's emissions are NOT from old plants. The old ones were small plants. China will be killing those and building new much bigger ones to replace them. And in addition, to replacing the current ones, you will note that China opens 1-2 new ones EACH WEEK. CHina has plans to continue that until 2018, and I am sure that they will not slow that down because of idiots like you that give them a pass.

Why does China do all this? So as to win a cold war against the west. They basically pollute heavily so that their electricity is cheaper. Hell, they have laws that say that western companies that employ chinese will pay a minimum, while their companies have laws that say that they pay a maximum (which is less than the western company).

And before you scream that America has done the largest pollution 'historically', let me point out that the bogus studies only look at emissions from 1904 onwards. Worse, they simply allow the other govs, such as china, to declare how much coal that they burned. Yet, the majority of coal that was burned was NOT in the last 100 years, but more than 1/2 of it was from BEFORE 1900, of which nearly all of that was in Europe through asia.

There is no doubt that the far right is wrong, know that they are wrong, and simply want to move the problem over to others (similar to china).
BUT, you far lefties are just as wrong in that you are seeking to give China a pass without realizing that they are now the most destructive nation going and it will continue for the next 50 years.
Grow up and learn to fucking think.

Re:China anyone? (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47195293)

Your sig coupled with how much more you know about what I think than me myself makes it kinda comical, you know?

I honestly cannot remember me saying anything about the US lowering its emissions. Actually, if I was the US, I'd DEMAND global emission standards since that would mean China has to struggle to get its emissions at least close to where the US already is, boosting the US economy. But I guess I expect too much from politicians who are bought and sold by the same companies that profit from China NOT having to put up with rigid ecological standards.

The pollution I blame on the US (and Europe, don't feel left out on the Asian peninsula!) is that WE let them get away with it. We buy their cheap, pollution producing crap. We buy it. And as long as we buy it, they will produce it. It is our pollution, whether you like it or not. It's not pollution we create here, allright, but still that pollution is done "in our name", for the sake of us getting cheap crap to buy.

And if you stopped foaming from your mouth for just a moment and read my comment above again, you might notice that this leftist idiot here said exactly that from the start.

Re:China anyone? (1)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 4 months ago | (#47195561)

The pollution I blame on the US (and Europe, don't feel left out on the Asian peninsula!) is that WE let them get away with it. We buy their cheap, pollution producing crap. We buy it. And as long as we buy it, they will produce it. It is our pollution, whether you like it or not.

Don't forget that we also sell them the coal. [thinkprogress.org]

Re:China anyone? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#47195745)

Not even close. China does the majority of their own coal.

Re:China anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47196151)

I see nothing in the OP's comment which says Anyone is looking to give China a "pass". Also, I suggest adding citations to make Your claims more believable.

Re:China anyone? (0, Flamebait)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#47195731)

BTW, exports are about 20% of China's GDP. And America's share of that is around 15%. So that means that exports to America accounts for at most 3% of their emissions. AND NONE OF THAT takes into account the fact that China made the decisions to put in coal as well as not run their pollution control.

This goes back to you far lefties not using any logic in how you approach such an important issue. I really wish that you would learn to THINK.

Re: China anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47196115)

Perhaps you could talk about the solutions your big brain came up with instead of just insulting people. The objective of the "far left", or rest-of-the-world as I call it, is to avoid climate change. Any solution short of "kill 3/4 of the world population" will do. Share your wise insights to us sheeples please.

Re:China anyone? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47194971)

I'm incredulous of that claim, not because it seems improbable, but because "pollution" is a multi-variable entity and reducing pollution as a whole to a simple percentage is the kind of claim I'd expect from someone with an agenda, and them picking a simplified metric that maximizes(or minimizes) that percentage.

Where did you hear that number, and how did they establish it?

Re:China anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195081)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/study-pollution-from-chinese-factories-is-harming-air-quality-on-us-west-coast/2014/01/21/225e9b1e-8281-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/20/health/pollution-china-pnas/
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/5/1736 [pnas.org]

Re:China anyone? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47195201)

Ah, sulfate pollution. So we're getting acid rain from China. Thanks. Not the same as 15% "of pollution" but a problem, nonetheless.

Re:China anyone? (3, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#47195521)

And SO2 comes out of the air fairly easily (rain). Things like CO2 does not. And actually, 12-14% of SO2 being here from China is a great marker of how much other things are here.
And yes, 10-15% of their pollution (CO2, etc) IS FROM CHINA. I have friends that are doing air pollution work (they developed a number of the sensors) and have determined that more than 5% of the pollution in Colorado is from China.
In addition, these ppl have been to China and did actual measurements without the gov. interferring, BUT, were not allowed to report it to the world (only to them). What they found will be astounding to the world when OCO2 finally launches and starts making measurements. At that time, ppl will find out that China is already close to 50% of CO2 emissions (yes, it is going to rise that much).

Re:China anyone? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#47195243)

Yes, apparently, you kan reed, but you will not.

Re:China anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195045)

Go plant some trees instead of blaming others for cutting them down. War-mongering is not beneficial outside the scope of conflict.

Re:China anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195065)

http://slashdot.org/~WindBourne

Re:China anyone? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#47195219)

Interesting, I have not heard that story but it makes some sense because electrostatic precipitators, bag filters, scrubbers etc do have non-trivial running costs - have you got any links?
Also there are plenty of sources of pollution in China that are not coal fired power stations or similar where exhaust goes up a nice easy to control stack. It's been twenty years since I've been near a blast furnace and don't have a clue what happens with the exhaust, plus there are a lot of vehicles in China now.
Even though the coal burnt in China has buggerall mercury or sulphur (which US coal is cursed with), what they do have adds up, plus if all that NOx is not getting removed by scrubbers that's a vast amount of nasty stuff that can drift a very long way.

Re:China anyone? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#47195551)

look at what AC posted above.
Most of my information came from some friends that took real measurements there, without guards (nearly all scientists that go there have guards with them; discrete, but they are still there to make sure of what instruments they have). They were not allowed to publish.
BUT, as I said above, when OCO2 comes out, the world is in for a shock. Hopefully at that time, the far left will realize what idiots they are. Somehow, I doubt it.

Re:China anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47196131)

There's Your solution: tax Chinese imports unless the Manufacturer adheres to certain pollution standards.

Re:China anyone? (1)

WhoBeI (3642741) | about 4 months ago | (#47196259)

So where does 85-90% of the pollution come from?

I'm assuming the impurities in the snow, except for the odd volcanic eruption, are black carbon emissions. This chart [typepad.com] suggests Europe, China and the US are equally responsible. China and the US emit the most carbon dioxide [wikipedia.org] which, since it is also emitted when burning fossil fuel, is a good second indicator of where the black carbon is coming from. The second graph seems to blame the US and China more then any individual European country but the EU still has their part to play.

China is burning more coal than the US, CN 65% - US 37%. However, they are also using more renewable energy sources then the US, ~28% vs 12% (US). Both China and the US are expanding their nuclear sectors to double capacity, currently China has 1% vs the US 19%. Worth to note is that the US uses a lot more natural gas then China does (%-wise) which adds to their CO2 emissions but not black carbon. Values for China [wordpress.com] and for the US [eia.gov] .

Point is: everyone's to blame. Besides, Europe and the US have had 100 years to develop their industries so they should already have gotten past the 40 year old upstarts problems, right?

srsly? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47194913)

I just took a poop. Scientists predict this will increase sea levels an additional millimeter by year 3,000.

So... (1)

Roxoff (539071) | about 4 months ago | (#47194989)

... when do we rename it Dark Greenland?

Re:So... (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47194997)

Maybe we should call it Brownland in a bit. Or, eventually, Blackland.

Thinking about it, if that global warming keeps going, maybe Iceland should start pondering a new name, too...

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195071)

Since "Iceland" comes from nordic "Island" -- i.e. the word describing a land mass surrounded by water -- the name can stay.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195175)

if global warming persists (per M.Twain way of extrapolation) 'soon' it will not be an island at all....

Re:So... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47195179)

Depends. What's the tallest mountains on Iceland? I don't doubt the "water" part, it's the "land mass" part that may become problematic.

Re:So... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 4 months ago | (#47195453)

I can't decide if you're serious, since your comment appears idiotic, but may be just a case of abysmal ignorance.

Suffice it to say that when sea level rise reaches the 1,000 cm range, Iceland may start noticing....

Re:So... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47195631)

I stopped caring a while ago. What's left is cynicism and quipping.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195193)

Light Greenland Paradise on Earth.

Go with the naming convention already established.

So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195031)

That's totally racist. Claiming "whiter is more pure".....Obama needs to use an executive order to ban the term white. Only then can things be not racist!

Living up to it's name (0)

dcmcilrath (2859893) | about 4 months ago | (#47195067)

I find it hard to get angry or excited or frustrated by environmental programs, in much the same way that I don't lose sleep over the inevitable heat-death of the universe. If there's one thing that Americans, (producers of most of the world's CO2 emissions) hate, it's "going green" (e.g. wearing sweaters in the winter, taking showers less than 10 minutes, turning lights off, and not buying Jeeps). Problem? Yes. Bigger problem? The rest of the world covets our "lifestyle" and has near 20x as many people. Just look at the mess China is making and they aren't even close to the emissions rate per capita of the U.S. (Though they are certainly headed in that direction). As for international agreements, yeah right, many American politicians are basically owned by the oil industry and the rest of the World isn't going to take "only the U.S. gets to pump CO2 in the air." Tragedy of the commons, really. My advice? Move inland, preferably north as well. I head Canada has a great beach climate, or at least will soon. Scotland and Sweden are also nice if you don't mind the respective haggis and socialism.

Re:Living up to it's name (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195115)

So basically Americans are self-entitled douchebags who don't give a rats ass about the rest of the world.

And since the prevailing opinion in the US is that as long as some greedy asshole is making a profit, it's all good, and since Americans are making sure profits are entrenched in international law ...

American ideology is pretty much destroying the environment, and every economy in the world.

From this, we conclude Americans are either imbeciles, or the actual enemy of the entire world.

Fuck America.

Re:Living up to it's name (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#47195597)

Considering that the vast majority of this pollution comes from China, it shows that you are just a general idiot.

Re:Living up to it's name (2)

Virtucon (127420) | about 4 months ago | (#47195213)

Well China is number one in CO2 emissions [wikipedia.org] but per capita you're correct the US is higher per capita than China in CO2 emissions. Now, GHG is one variable in the multidimensional entity you reference but also look at PM10 concentrations [worldbank.org] which really can screw up your health and surprisingly, Mongolia is the worst at 284, China 82, the US 18. But there are worse offenders such as Saudi Arabia 108, Botswana 199 and I was surprised to see the UAE at 132. Living in those places will definitely shorten your lifespan.

20cm of stupidiy (0)

NetNed (955141) | about 4 months ago | (#47195097)

The measured rate of rise has been averaged out at 1.1 millimeters per year, so who in their right mind with the credentials to back it up would predict 20cm by 2100? Desperate people trying to keep the funding going and con people in to dumping billions on the study and "solution" to it. With all the money that has been spent on global warming/climate change with little to no results do they think the American public will keep pushing billions their way with no results? The whole thing reminds me of a gambler that has "a sure thing" bet on some team or something.

Re:20cm of stupidiy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195171)

The measured rate of rise has been averaged out at 1.1 millimeters per year, so who in their right mind with the credentials to back it up would predict 20cm by 2100? Desperate people trying to keep the funding going and con people in to dumping billions on the study and "solution" to it. With all the money that has been spent on global warming/climate change with little to no results do they think the American public will keep pushing billions their way with no results? The whole thing reminds me of a gambler that has "a sure thing" bet on some team or something.

Let's do a little math shall we? Maybe we should start by pointing out that in the metric system, you only have to multiply by 10 to change units. So ~100 years of 1.1mm = 11cm. Guess what? This is the correct order of magnitude. Now add in that the increase is accelerating somewhat and voila: 20cm! Now was that hard?

Perhaps if you were more desperate to get funding for your local school system to actually teach science and arithmetic instead of to take a few pennies away from researchers who are trying to save your butt, you could have worked this out for yourself instead of having to suck the wrong answer out of the Koch brothers' um...bodies.

Re:20cm of stupidiy (0)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 4 months ago | (#47195183)

The measured rate of rise has been averaged out at 1.1 millimeters per year, so who in their right mind with the credentials to back it up would predict 20cm by 2100?

You mean aside from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [www.ipcc.ch] ?

Honestly, at 1.1 mm per year, in a hundred years that gives you 11 cm. A projection of 20 cm is entirely reasonable. But don't actual numbers stand in your way or anything, because, you know, Benghazi. Or whatever.

Re:20cm of stupidiy (3, Informative)

AC-x (735297) | about 4 months ago | (#47195273)

With all the money that has been spent on global warming/climate change with little to no results do they think the American public will keep pushing billions their way with no results

All that moneyspent on climate change? The fossil fuel industry receives more subsidies than renewables by a wide margin [wikipedia.org] (70% of US energy subsidies goes to fossil fuels).

Maybe if we didn't give the fossil fuel industry hundreds of billions of dollars every year it would be easier to meet emission targets?

Re:20cm of stupidiy (1)

AC-x (735297) | about 4 months ago | (#47195363)

Oops, forgot to quote the figures

Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[1] Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011.

Re:20cm of stupidiy (2)

es330td (964170) | about 4 months ago | (#47195463)

Did you actually read the wiki article to which you linked? As stated in TFA, "...many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses." The value of subsidies specifically targeting fossil fuels is only a small fraction of the total subsidies received. If you take away the subsidies available to all businesses we can just lower emissions by crushing the economy at large. I'm sure Silicon Valley would love to see the R&D expense credit go away in the name of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.

Re:20cm of stupidiy (3, Interesting)

AC-x (735297) | about 4 months ago | (#47195549)

As I said in a follow-up comment as I forgot to quote it first time:

Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[1] Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011.

Whatever the source of that money, we are currently spending over 5x more on fossil fuel than on renewables which makes the argument that we're spending a lot of money on renewables and not seeing much in return pretty moot.

Re:20cm of stupidiy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47196021)

We're seeing a lot more energy from FF too. Put your numbers in the frame of produced energy and tell me where the better ROI is.
 
I'm not saying green doesn't matter but unless you're willing to ante up and pay more money for green then you're just going to have to wait for someone to come and build a better technology.
 
So keep crying while you sit in your dirty diaper, waiting for big government to tell you how to live.

I suspect (4, Insightful)

Gonoff (88518) | about 4 months ago | (#47195127)

The chronically uninformed and uninformable* will find some way to deny this is happening.

* - people who feel that their ignorance outweighs the knowledge of any scientist and so nobody with an IQ over 125 has anything to tell them.

Re:I suspect (1)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | about 4 months ago | (#47195435)

Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

Re:I suspect (2)

tp1024 (2409684) | about 4 months ago | (#47195581)

Everybody who disagrees with me is an asshole. Even an idiot like you should know that.

IQ? Please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195705)

...IQ over 125 has anything to tell them.

IQ doesnt impress me - accident of birth like big tits. Just because someone scores well on a test that was designed to find deficiencies and was NEVER inteded as a measuring stick doesn't mean they are automatically correct.

What impresses me is years of study and data. And the cliimate scientists impress me.

Volcanos (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195235)

The Kamchatka peninsula in the far eastern Russia is a very active volcanic place. more interesting the dominant wind direction goes directly towards Greenland.

Nasa article with pictures of 4 Kamchatka volcanos erupting at the same time in 2013.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=80226
This article doesn't actually say when they started erupting. I'm having problems finding historic activity for those volcanos, but I know they were somewhat active during the Icelandic eruption in 2011 meaning they have been on and off for a noteworthy part of the 2009-2013 period where Greenland's reflection was studied, possibly more or less the entire time.

For some reason the article only mentions volcanic activity in Iceland.

Greenland Is Getting Darker (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195333)

Greenland Is Getting Darker - its the niggers arriving

Greenland darker still. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195351)

GREENLAND IS MOST SUICIDEDS!!
NO ONE WANTES TO LIVE THERE!!
Germany. ...
The following is a list of suicide rates by country according to data from the World Health Organization, in which a country's rank is determined by its total rate deaths officially recorded as suicides in the most recent available year, last updated in 2011. The WHO statistics are based on the official reports from each respective country, and therefore, no more accurate than the record-keeping in the specific country.

Incidence of suicide tends to be under-reported due to both religious and social pressures, and possibly completely unreported in some areas. Since the data might be skewed, comparing suicide rates between nations is statistically unsound.

Male and female suicide rates are out of total male population and total female population, respectively (i.e. total number of male suicides divided by total male population). The total rate of suicides is based on the total number of suicides divided by the total population, rather than merely the average of the male and female suicide rates, because the gender ratio in most countries is not 1:1. Year refers to the most recent year that data was available for a particular country.
A world map showing countries according to their number of suicides per 100,000 people.

——————————————————————————————————————————
Suicides per 100,000 people per year[1] Rank Country Male Female Average Year
1 Greenland[2][3] (more info) 116.9 45.0 83.0 2011[4]

Enjoy your life (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195355)

Enjoy your life, keep consuming faster and faster. Consume toxic plastic products that go in the landfill 6 months to a year after you buy them. Continue to consume as inefficiently as possible the last of the oil that makes everything in our modern society run including mechanical farm equipment, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizer. Buy a giant unsustainable house and fill it with crap that doesn't make you happy. Maybe someday you will burn that house and the crap in it to stay warm.

Global warming is just one of our problems. If we run out of coal and oil without a suitable replacement for most of us what happens next won't matter...

Re:Enjoy your life (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47195907)

Yes, we will enjoy. Fossil fuel use has greatly extended human lifespan, dramatically improved health, and driven forward progress and civilization in the last 400 years There are millennia of supply of coal, and it can be made into any type of other fossil fuel. So we have to time switch over to alternatives. No such thing as unsustainable, engineering will adapt to whatever resource supply changes occur. Of course, resources don't magically disappear from our planet, despite whatever alarmist nonsense you may have read about helium or "rare earths" or potassium or phosphorous. There is plenty of all of that in the earth's crust, and that will not change in thousands of years.

America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195395)

America is the best country.
Other countries are not as good.

Snowflakes start with impurities (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 4 months ago | (#47195465)

Right? Doesn't the moisture initially form around ash or a dust mote like with sand and a pearl?

I'll just file this... (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 4 months ago | (#47195709)

...under "Even MORE of the sky is falling!"

News at 11.

The sky IS falling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195741)

Well, No Shit. With every tanker jet spraying the chemicals, heavy metals, nanochips and radioactive compounds into the atmosphere and boiling the ionosphere with HAARP technology, its just a matter of time before someone powerful enough gets completely pissed about it. Wars between great nations have been started for a hell of a lot less.

Re:The sky IS falling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195797)

your tinfoil hat fell off... and it seems to be rather brown and smelly...

No evidence of "chemtrails" exists, contrails yes.. but no evidence of chemical spraying at altitude would even reach the supposed targets. HAARP closed down... and was never boiling the ionosphere... but was studying it...

so get your head out of your ass (that might be why your hat is brown...) and stop being such a sheep for following the stupid conspiracy theories that have no evidence to support them.

Mmmmh.... (2)

nospam007 (722110) | about 4 months ago | (#47195743)

Will they have to rename the country Dark-Greenland?

Melting snow freezes at night (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 4 months ago | (#47195789)

Melting snow freezes at night making a shiny reflective surface. Have they factored this into their estimates?

Old news (2)

tomhath (637240) | about 4 months ago | (#47195831)

The primary cause of glaciers shrinking is particulates in the atmosphere. This has been reported many times [scientificamerican.com] , but it doesn't fit with the whole Global Warming [scientificamerican.com] sound bite so it's generally ignored.

I am without ending (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47195845)

I have existed from the dawn of time, and I shall I live beyond its end! In the meantime, I shall feed, and this time I do not need a knife. You will all die horribly in searing pain!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?