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!

Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the what-about-Santa? dept.

Science 474

Dekortage writes in with a new study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggesting that the North Pole may be clear of ice in summer as soon as 2040, decades earlier than previously thought. From the article: "'As the ice retreats, the ocean transports more heat to the Arctic and the open water absorbs more sunlight, further accelerating the rate of warming and leading to the loss of more ice,' Holland said in the statement. 'This is a positive feedback loop with dramatic implications for the entire Arctic.'"

cancel ×

474 comments

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

Uh, no (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17213872)

No.

Sea Level? (5, Funny)

Mizled (1000175) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213882)

Does this mean the sea level will rise some?

Re:Sea Level? (1)

Deekin_Scalesinger (755062) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213942)

It can't help but raise the sea level. How much is another question...

Re:Sea Level? (2, Informative)

AP2k (991160) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213964)

Except ice is less dense than water...

No change in sea level. (2, Informative)

RingDev (879105) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214052)

Yes, which means the same mass takes more volume. When submerged ice (the majority of the ice in question) melts, it becomes more dense (same mass, less volume) which means it actually LOWERS the water level. Add in the amount of ice that is above water in the Artic channel, and the total change in water levels will be negligible.

-Rick

Re:No change in sea level. (4, Informative)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214182)

"it actually LOWERS the water level."

Wrong again. The volume of the ice submerged in the water is equal to the volume of the ice if it were water. The only difference between the water and the ice is density. Ice is less dense. Because of that, it floats. But the only part of the ice that floats above the water line is the difference in volume between it's forzen and melted states. Submerged ice melting in water leaves the water level at exactly the same place. It's not a centimeter, millimeter, or even nanometer different. It physically can't be different.

Re:No change in sea level. (0)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214256)

I believe that's precisely what he said in the sentences located directly after the one you quoted.

Re:No change in sea level. (1)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214362)

Not really - he said something contrived and roundabout, that could be interpreted multiple ways. There are much simpler and more elegant ways to state the underlying physics without making goofy arguments about this term balancing that term.

Re:No change in sea level. (0, Offtopic)

ccarson (562931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214410)

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html [space.com] ). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk] )
 
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html [fao.org] )

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html [cnn.com] )

Re:No change in sea level. (4, Informative)

RingDev (879105) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214508)

My ability to work formulas and functions far exceeds my ability to express those formulas in the english language. ;) So here's a picture of what I was attempting to express.

Ice
~~~ = No change in sea level (or extremely small change)
Ice

Ice
~~~ = Increase in sea level
Land

-Rick

Re:No change in sea level. (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214286)

Exactly. If you melt _only_ the ice that is below the water line, you will have less total volume than you did with the ice. If you melt _only_ the ice that is above the waterline, you will have more total volume than you did with the ice. If you melt _all_ of the ice, both above and below the waterline, you will have virtually the same volume. I say virtually and negligable because there will be other effects that take place in the real world that also affect local sea level. Not a huge amount mind you, but likely more than a nanometer ;)

-Rick

Re:No change in sea level. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214232)

It'll be negligible, but because the freshwater produced by melting the ice is still less dense than the saltwater around it, there will be slightly more volume. From my understanding, if the artic melts, the difference in before-and-after sealevels would be less than 3cm.

Re:No change in sea level. (2, Informative)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214258)

How does this get modded insightful? Have you EVER heard how buoyancy works? This is high school physics stuff, people - a floating object displaces exactly the same amount of liquid as it weighs - a floating ice cube that weighs a gram, displaces exactly one gram of water. It sticks up out of the water however much it needs to make this happen. When it melts, the gram of ice cube becomes a gram of water, which now changes the water level by exactly ZERO.

Of course, in real life there are very subtle points about salinity to take into question - but the way the parent post was worded shows a clear and simple misunderstanding of the physics involved, and it always makes me cringe to see such crap modded up.

Then again, the real world question is not the ice that's floating, but the ice that's supported by land - this is the stuff that's going to run off into the oceans and change the water levels. I'll leave it to the climatologists to argue how much.

Communication in question, not physics. (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214428)

I assure you my comprehension of high school physics is not in question ;) My ability to express that knowledge using the english language (I claim Pascal as my native tongue :P) can most definately be questioned.

If you melt _only_ the sumbmerged ice, the water volume will decrease. If you melt _only_ the ice above the water, the water volume will increase. Obviously this is not actually possible to do, I was attempting to express that the melting of ice over water does not matter as the total change is negligable. But if you melt ice that isn't supported by water, the total water volume will increase.

-Rick

Re:No change in sea level. (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214440)

So does that mean I should stop advertising my Minnesota house as "Future Oceanfront Property"?

Re:Sea Level? (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214288)

Except ice is less dense than water...


True, but that doesn't, in and of itself mean much. Sea water is salty, but ice generally doesn't contain much in the way of salt. So, you effectively have two somewhat distinct substances sitting on top of each other, rather than just two forms of water. What's more, maximum density is at less that 4 C. So, once it warms past that point, the water will start expanding enough to effect sea levels. Also, there is a lot of ice sitting atop the sea level. These factors add together such that it's not at all clear from a simple demonstration that melting arctic ice will have limited effects. Also, some of the ice north of the arctic circle is on top of land. That ice will certainly lead to a sea level rise if it melts.

Re:Sea Level? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214026)

You fail it! If you put an icecube in water and it melts the level of the water will not change (and if you don't believe me I suggest you take an introductory physics course). What will change the sea level is melting of ice on Greenland and Antarctica since that ice is on ground.

Re:Sea Level? (1, Interesting)

AusIV (950840) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213978)

No. Arctic ice is floating. When it freezes it expands, when it melts it contracts. These have no effect on sea level. Antarctic ice is what could raise sea level, because it's land based.

Re:Sea Level? (2, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214090)

Because of bouyancy, melting the ice which is floating in water will not raise sea level. The ice is less dense than water, ergo it floats on the water, but it displaces an amount of water equal to its mass. So when it melts into water, the level will stay the same.

You can try this yourself with a glass of water and ice cubes. Mark the water line with the ice cubes floating, then let the ice melt and notice that it hasn't moved. This is elementary school physics.

There are two things that will raise sea level: First, any ice that is on land (not displacing sea water) that melts and flows into the ocean. Thus why Antarctica is a much bigger concern as far as rising sea levels are concerned. Second, thermal expansion of the ocean as it becomes warmer. I believe that the latter will actually end up being the dominant effect.

Re:Sea Level? (3, Informative)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214248)

The ice in the arctic is fresh water, the ocean it is floating in is salt.
http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html [physorg.com]

Re:Sea Level? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214324)

Duh, I didn't think of that. Mod me retarded.

Re:Sea Level? (5, Informative)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214312)

You can try this yourself with a glass of water and ice cubes. Mark the water line with the ice cubes floating, then let the ice melt and notice that it hasn't moved. This is elementary school physics.

And by the time you get to college, you should have learned that the experiment does not work with saltwater [physorg.com] .

Re:Sea Level? (2, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214360)

Yeah I'm a dolt. I was thinking for some dumb reason that the ice cap would be frozen salt water.

Re:Sea Level? (1)

SevenHands (984677) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214148)

Mod Parent Funny!! Or am I the only one who laughed when I read the post.

Call Your Senator, Now +1, Motivational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214244)


Dial 1-800-ALQ-AEDA [huffingtonpost.com] and ask to speak to the Number One Mr. Big Guy [whitehouse.org] about global warning.

Your efforts are appreciated.

Patriotically,
Kilgore Trout, ex-patriot

Re:Sea Level? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214316)

Yes, but not for the reason you think. The melting of the ice (which is floating) won't change sea levels. But the increased heat stored in the oceans as the cycle runs away will increase the sea level. As the water heats it expands some. But the effect is normally modest, you might not ever notice it in say a glass of melting ice tea in the summer. But the volume of water being modestly heated in such a scenerio is tremendous. So we'll probably notice it. This will of course also be compounded by the increased severity of storms which should create larger waves everywhere.

This makes my day! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17213884)

That is great news!

Like the Tundra Methane Story before this (2, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213922)

This is a tipping point. It doesn't matter if global warming is manmade or a natural cycle. Cutting your carbon emmissions will not stop this feedback loop. Once reached, this feedback loop will continue until all the ice is melted during the summer, and there is NOTHING we can do about it with current technology.

Re:Like the Tundra Methane Story before this (3, Funny)

CorSci81 (1007499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213958)

True, but at least we will get some new shipping lanes out of it.

Re:Like the Tundra Methane Story before this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17213986)

And maybe there's oil under there!

Re:Like the Tundra Methane Story before this (0)

MilSF1 (710927) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214048)

Sure there will be more shipping lanes. Charlotte, NC will become quite the busy seaport. Right along with Austin, TX and Atlanta.

(yes, exaggeration, but not by that much!)
---
Caution: Attempting to understand this poster's comments had been shown to be hazardous to one's health.

Re:Like the Tundra Methane Story before this (1)

9mm Censor (705379) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213998)

Refrigerators dude. We just need to build a really big one.

Re:Like the Tundra Methane Story before this (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214284)

Refrigerators need a place to dump the heat. In fact, a giant refrigerator is exactly what is happening right now to melt the ice!

Re:Like the Tundra Methane Story before this (1)

uab21 (951482) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214512)

Refrigerators need a place to dump the heat
...so we need to dump it outside the system - maybe another application for space elevator technology - put a big radiator on the orbiting end to rid heat from the ocean into space.

Gotta think big when you're talking about systems the size of a planet.

Re:Like the Tundra Methane Story before this (1)

jdh41 (865085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214228)

Once reached, this feedback loop will continue until all the ice is melted during the summer, and there is NOTHING we can do about it with current technology.
I choose Thermonuclear War! - We could always try and block out the sun, after all the last climate threat was global cooling due to particulates in the atmosphere.

Re:Like the Tundra Methane Story before this (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214358)

I choose Thermonuclear War! - We could always try and block out the sun, after all the last climate threat was global cooling due to particulates in the atmosphere.

Nothing to hit where we need it- there ain't no dry land up there to dig up with our nuclear weapons to create the particulate matter.

Re:Like the Tundra Methane Story before this (1)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214476)

We could do a scientific experiment. Nuke Here: +33 20' 24.00", +44 23' 24.00" with a couple Megatons and see how far into the arctic the particulates get.

Slashdot: late as ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17213934)

Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040
Posted by kdawson on Tue December 12, 2117

Re:Slashdot: late as ever. (3, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214290)

No, no, no you have it all wrong, lets imagine a real future:

Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040
Posted by kdawson on 13:40 Tue December 12, 2043

Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040
Posted by Zonk on 12:10 Tue December 14, 2043

Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040
Posted by cmdrtaco on 17:40 Tue December 15, 2043

Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040
Posted by Zonk on 17:49 Tue December 15, 2043

Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040
Posted by Zonk on 23:34 Tue December 19, 2043

Oh please (-1, Troll)

hsmith (818216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213936)

come on now. some aspects of global warming i can buy, but this?

Re:Oh please (1)

CorSci81 (1007499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214002)

Do tell, what is so hard to comprehend here? Sea ice has been retreating at an ever-increasing rate. This is well documented.

Re:Oh please (5, Insightful)

Paltin (983254) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214112)

Ever notice how people that are skiing wear sunglasses?

That's because ice reflects sunlight.

Take all the energy that the polar regions reflect because of sunlight, and instead add it to the ocean in polar regions.

That's the math they're saying they did, and the answer they came up with is : the polar cap melts fast!

If you don't want to buy it, do a counter study. As is, their results seem fairly clear and robust. Not saying that they're exactly right, but a counter argument needs to be more then you saying "NOOOOOOO".

Re:Oh please (1)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214486)

I can think of a counter argument.

The Gulf Stream is partially fuelled by the temperature gradient oop north (I'll be lazy and admit I forget the details) and has apparently already declined recently. This should kill it altogether. In the past, the North Pole being ice free has triggered ice ages.

How? Once the ice is gone, the sea can evaporate more easily which increases precipitation in the far north. A lot of this is snow. Eventually the icecap reasserts itself.

Apparently there was a time in the very distant past where the oceans were almost totally iced up, something made possible by the then alignment of the continents. This can apparently not happen again the way things are now.

I'm a step ahead... (3, Funny)

Lord_Slepnir (585350) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213944)

I've already started buying beach front property in Nevada.

Re:I'm a step ahead... (2, Funny)

sponga (739683) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213980)

Mehhhhh I decided to invest my money into concrete industry and building bigger walls.

OH NO!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17213948)

With all that ice melting the conveyer belt will stop and create super cold "hurricanes" ... I thing I recall watching this one.

I am buying up land in Appalachia (0, Redundant)

Palefrei (773895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213954)

... hoping for some choice beachfront property!

Woo Hoo !!! (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213968)

Time to start buying land in Florida...

You mean georgia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214378)

why would you buy florida swamp land?

Bad News for Santa (4, Funny)

Alaren (682568) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213984)

Well, kids, the good news is, you'll be grown and jaded long before Santa closes up shop for good.

What I want to know is, when will the ice in the antarctic melt? Real estate is just too expensive, we could use another continent, especially once we flood the ones we've already got. d^_^b

Re:Bad News for Santa (1)

HAL9000_mirror (1029222) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214070)

its cheap only in your dream...the British have already sent agents to lay their flag there...
--Ram

Re:Bad News for Santa (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214156)

What I want to know is, when will the ice in the antarctic melt?

I've heard that even though it is calving a lot of icebergs these days, it's getting enough snowfall that the total ice in the antartic is actually increasing. It's just increasing in a different place than the icebergs are coming from.

Besides, once you melt the ice there isn't much land left, and it's not very good real estate. But at least there is land under all that ice and snow, unlike in the arctic.

This will be devastating to Wildwood, NJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214016)

They may have to replace all those plastic palm trees with real ones.

Skeptical. (3, Insightful)

d2_m_viant (811261) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214040)

Who can even make heads or tails of all this global warming stuff?

We get reports like this, within a day of getting reports like cows cause more greenhouse gases than cars, planes, and all other forms of transportation put together [foxnews.com]

Say what you want, but I'm quite skeptical of their ability to accurately forecast this stuff...haven't there been sensationalist reports like this for the last 40 years? All of which were disproven when more accurate methods of forecasting came around?

Re:Skeptical. (1)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214100)

Say what you want, but I'm quite skeptical of their ability to accurately forecast this stuff...haven't there been sensationalist reports like this for the last 40 years? All of which were disproven when more accurate methods of forecasting came around?

No.

Re:Skeptical. (1)

HAL9000_mirror (1029222) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214124)

but hey its from foxnews...
--Ram

Re:Skeptical. (1)

d2_m_viant (811261) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214172)

one more [scotsman.com] another [desmoinesregister.com]

Re:Skeptical. (4, Insightful)

dasunt (249686) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214128)

So you would also be skeptical of the claim that I may be a billionaire by 2040?

Huh? (4, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214190)

What does that have to do with it?

If I'm bleeding to death, the fact that the knife wounds are bleeding out faster than the gunshot wounds, and the fact that in the past I've gotten nosebleeds, so its not unusual for blood to be coming out of my body isn't really all that important. Dealing with the blood loss is.

Re:Skeptical. (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214240)

So, on the one hand you have scientists reporting on melting icecaps, changes in weather patterns, and gross ecological damage. On the other hand, you have the Fair and Balanced(TM) network reporting random crap to refute the scientists. Sure, that balances out!

Cows recycle carbon. (1)

Paltin (983254) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214254)

Cows recycle carbon that originally was taken out of the exact same atmosphere by the plants they eat. The problem with petroleum usage is that it reintroduces carbon that has been out of the cycle since (largely) the Carboniferous epoch (roughly 300mya).

The carbon effect of Cows is like trying to fill a bucket by taking water out of the bucket... and pouring it right back in.

In any case, how does your argument about cows having a significant effect have any bearing on the argument relating to ice melting??? Is the fact that cows create methane (which is a greenhouse gas) going to slow down global warming?

Re:Skeptical. (1)

CorporalKlinger (871715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214262)

Even if cows are responsible for the production of more greenhouse gases than "industrialization" and automobiles (doubtful, but I'll argue with it anyway), the fact remains that animal agriculture *is* a man-made industry - thousands of years ago, people did not have mass-production farms that we have today. Regardless whether it's industrialization, cars, or mass-production agribusiness that's causing the problem, the real source is the same: human activity.

Re:Skeptical. (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214336)

>haven't there been sensationalist reports like this for the last 40 years?

So look at the science and ignore the sensationalist reports. They're not sitting around speculating, they're measuring sea ice. Use your own critical thinking skills too. How much evidential weight should a Fox News opinion piece get that doesn't have a link to the report it talks about?

Re:Skeptical. (1, Insightful)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214342)

I'm pretty agnostic when it comes to global warming (usually arguing against it because someone has to) and I recently began to wonder what the consequence of a (very small) error would be in a computer simulation. Suppose that you (as a climate researcher) underestimated the effect that a warming trend caused by CO2 would have on plant growth, or overestimated the impact of CO2 on warming; in this situation wouldn't your model come to an equilibrium point much earlier and much higher than would be the case in reality?

Re:Skeptical. (2, Insightful)

Hankenstein (107201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214344)

Who can even make heads or tails of all this global warming stuff?

Ummmm, scientists? Just because what you want to believe doesn't fit with the
consensus [nwsource.com] , doesn't mean it is confusing to the rest of us.

Re:Skeptical. (3, Informative)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214382)

There is a slight difference in the academic and scientific quality between the reports appearing in major scientific journals that note the correlation between record high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing global temperatures, compared to the sort of "research" that appears on Fox news.

The story appeared on "Fox news" in the USA, and references a story appearing in the British newspaper "Daily Telegraph", both of those news organisations are known to be the main global warming deniers in each of those countries. They both love running sensationalist, unscientific articles in order to discredit the real scientific research going on.

Re:Skeptical. (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214394)

actually, the fact that cows release so much greenhouse gas fits right in with the fact that mankind has had a negative effect on the atmosphere.

the reason why cows release so much greenhouse gas is because, thanks to us, there are so damn many of them. the effect is man made b/c of meat and dairy production.

Re:Skeptical. (1)

Nutty_Irishman (729030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214432)

Dude, your mistake was in quoting Foxnews as a reliable source for global warming news. This is the same station who claimed that Happy Feat was a propoganada attempt set forth by liberals to undermine American children http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/21/happy-feet-inc onvenient-truth/ [thinkprogress.org]

Re:Skeptical. (1)

Philotic (957984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214446)

First off, the cows only increase methane concentrations, which is just one of the greenhouse gasses. Although a very potent greenhouse gas, it does not contribute as much to global warming compared to CO2, because CO2 emissions greatly eclipse those of methane.

Secondly, this article makes it seem like the cows are to blame, when the only reason there are so many of them out there releasing gas is due to human farming practices.

Re:Skeptical. (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214510)

Fox news? If you think Fox News is anything other than entertainment, then you have much bigger problems.

"Nothing to see here" (1)

bjorniac (836863) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214042)

Move along... never seemed more relevant.

Blame it on (1)

aliabadi (1018798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214058)

La'Niña.

What about the penguins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214140)

My only concern is will the emperor penguins be effected by this? Like which pole are they on anyways?

Don't worry (-1, Troll)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214144)

No need to worry. We only have 10 years of oil left, and then there will be no more carbon going into the atmosphere. I've been preached that fact since the early 70's, so it must be true, just like the coming global cooling (oops, it warming now).

Re:Don't worry (1)

UdoKeir (239957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214392)

Funny, I was told in about 1980 that we had about 40 years of oil left. Presumably that was based on the known reserves and usage at the time.

Big Fucking Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214146)

I'll never understand the hysteria over rising sea levels. So a few beachouses will get flooded, boo fucking hoo. Relocate, problem solved.

Re:Big Fucking Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214292)

That is true, but also the fact of the matter a lot of poverty ridden areas are at just about sea levels and would also be nailed hard. There are a few islands in the Pacific where the elevation is just a few feet above sea level and would be wiped off the face of the earth. I may be for screw the rich beach house pansies, but not the poor people who would suffer far worse than a few silver spooned brats.

Well the rich people are scared. (0)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214328)

They paid a shit-load for that ocean front property. If the waterlevel rises, not only do they lose their property but the regular joes behind them will see quite a windfall. If they can afford the new taxes.

kdawson vs Zonk (2, Insightful)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214152)

Am I the only one who notices that as soon as Zonk goes "off duty" for approving front page articles, the quality of the articles themselves immediately improves?

Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214154)

and all my low cost realestate in northern michigan will go way WAY up as people look for living in the climate they enjoy... florida and southern locations will become too hot, the rich will move north into my wide open arms selling rare 1/4 acre plots for $190,000 each (I paid $75,000 for the 1000 acre location that butts a lake and has a river through it)

Muahahahahaha!

come my rich idiots, I have your dream community waiting for you!

What happens when your land is flooded? (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214372)

I mean, people spent alot of dough on beach-front living. WHat happens when the mean old sea rises?

Do they still own the land, but have to build on stilts? Snce the beach would back up, that would suck for beach-goers, eh?

I think the answer should be "Tough Titty", and they take a huge loss.

But, since rich people tend to own this land...they'll lobby the gov't and we will all reimburse these poor rich people for their lost property.

Wow...pretty cynical today!

Headlines 2080 - Global Cooling Threatens Millions (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214160)

With the reduction of Green House gases that began in the early 21st century, the rise in global temperatures has abated. But that has some folks in a bad spot.

In the last 60 years, after the permanent sea ice melted in 2040, dozens of thriving communities have taken hold in the previously uninhabitable northern areas of Canada and Siberia. With the opening of the sea lanes all year long, milder winters and downright balmy summers, these areas attracted millions of people seeking a new way of life and a return to nature. The last census counted over 20 million living along the Canadian and Siberian coasts.

Now, with global temperatures returning to 20th century norms, these communities face the bleak prospect of being cutoff from the outside work for more that 9 months out of the year.

Economic loses are estimated to be in the trillions.

Re:Headlines 2080 - Global Cooling Threatens Milli (1)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214278)

Adapt or die.

Of course its going to melt away... (1)

toupsie (88295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214168)

We are supposed to be hit by Asteroid MN4 between 2035 & 2037 [slashdot.org] and it is all George Bush's fault!!!

Global warming denial zealots (0, Flamebait)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214178)

Ahh another global warming story.

Await the dozens of posts by global warming denial zealots on why this is all natural and actually good news.

Hello?? (2, Funny)

jam244 (701505) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214214)

HELLO? CAN ANYONE SEE THIS?

I'm writing from the future to tell everyone that the polar ice caps melted in 2045, and Atlantis was found underneath what was once called the North Pole. The earth's magnetic poles are in the middle of swapping, so it's about 135 degrees Fahrenheit there today.

Good news, though: Duke Nukem Forever is being released next year!

Before we die (2, Interesting)

Cygnus78 (628037) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214224)

If this turns out to be true then those guys with comments like "I will be dead anyway before the environment changes significantly" do really have something to worry about.

Also it's estimated that two-thirds of the coral reefs will be gone in 30 years which is about the same timescale as the melting of the ice in the article.

Arctic Ice Retreat May Speed... (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214242)

I may win lottery within next two decades...

Positive feedback loops (1)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214246)

"This is a positive feedback loop"

Well, if it's positive, then it's good, right? Nothing to worry about here, folks. Good job.

Re:Positive feedback loops (1)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214374)

How can it be a positive feedback loop? If the Arctic Ice were to disappear then the loop would be broken.

Q: how did life on Earth ever survive without the Ice Caps we think are so important?

Who Cares!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214302)

Britney has a new boy friend... (ducks)

Hi... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214318)

I'm John Q. Public and I don't know what your problum is!

I gots my SUV and Pickup, nott'un is rong here!

Ice from Halley's comet (1)

OK PC (857190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214338)

We'll just got more ice from Halley's comet, thus solving the problem once and for all

business plan (1)

dosle (794546) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214350)

Time to finalize my business plan to sell fridges to Eskimos.


who's laughing now?

UN: Global Warming Mostly Vlad-Related (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17214366)

In a statement released this morning, the United Nations Committee on Climate Change blamed the problem of global warming primarily on the gaseous emissions of a Joliet, Illinois resident. Hans Zimmer, the committee chairman, issued a dire warning: "The UN is extremely concerned about William Lockwood's flattulence and its effects on the environment." Forty-two pages of charts and graphs detailed the devastation done to the Earth's protection from the Sun's deadly rays. "When Mr. Lockwood emits a typical expulsion", Zimmer explained, "it causes a hole in the ozone layer the approximate size of a snooker table."

"Jeepers creepers", continued Zimmer.

Lockwood refused to comment on the UN allegations, but did ask where the nearest bathroom was, because (in his words) he needed to "go blow some mud".

Within my lifetime! (1)

Nonillion (266505) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214398)

Cool, polar ice gone within my lifetime. Assuming I live to the ripe old age of 84 that is.

Mr. Inhofe? (1)

Gilatrout (694977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214434)

Comments? Excuses? Or do you give a crap sitting high and dry in Oklahoma?

What an asshat.

Bah, that's nothing! (0, Flamebait)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214492)

Back in my day, we had Polar Bears in lower Michigan! I didn't hear anybody complaining when the Arctic ice expanded to take up over 1/2 of the northern hemisphere!

All kidding aside folks, isn't it possible that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and this type of thing has happened hundreds of times over?

UFOs (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17214504)

I love the headline. Looks like a description of rearden metal from atlas shrugged.

Remember, alien UFOs may land tomorrow as well.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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