Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Global Warming Exposes New Islands in the Arctic

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the go-north-young-man dept.

Science 645

circletimessquare writes "The New York Times has a sobering article about the rapidly accelerating pace of glacial melting across the arctic, focusing on the discovery of new islands and the fact that this is occurring far faster than climate scientist's models predict. What were called Nunataks or 'lonely mountains' in Inuit, trapped in the ice, only a few years ago, are now in the open ocean by kilometers. Off of Greenland, what was known previously as peninsulas have been revealed to be islands as the ice retreats. Dennis Schmitt, a modern day explorer and discoverer of one of these new islands and fluent in Inuit, has named it Uunartoq Qeqertoq: the warming island."

cancel ×

645 comments

Islands (2, Insightful)

certel (849946) | more than 7 years ago | (#17629870)

It will be interesting to see what else is under the ice. The melting is definitely something we should be concerned about.

Re:Islands (1, Insightful)

servo335 (853111) | more than 7 years ago | (#17629922)

They said global warming didn't exist! They said there was nothing to worry about! Lets see all these "experts" debunk this!

Re:Islands (2, Funny)

pkbarbiedoll (851110) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630048)

See after denying global warming exists (because heathen liberals lie about everything) they will finally acquiesce and proudly proclaim that it won't matter anyway. Jesus is coming, repent! The End Is Nigh, save yourselves! Look at the melting icecaps we used to think were a figment of your imaginations, now they are melting and it's because endtimes prophecy is being fulfilled.

Re:Islands (4, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630666)

Nobody I know denies that the planet has cooling and warming trends, and that we are probably in a warming trend, and even that mankind has had some kind of influence.

What we argue (not deny) is how much influence mankind has had, and we call bullshit on people who think the climate would, right now, be different if only Bush had signed the Kyoto Accords.

So here's a question: if we stopped emitting burning fossil fuels entirely, right now, would the earth start cooling?

Re:Islands (2, Funny)

tritonman (998572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17629968)

China should get first dibs on any island, since they are the cause of global warming.

Eh. (3, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630124)

Just start buying up inland real estate, 'cause beachfront's gonna be moving.

It's interesting that the models are proving to be conservative...Makes the case that the current warming trend is more closely related to a solar upswing (than greenhouse gas buildup) more persuasive. Either way, I think we need to start putting less thought into "how are we going to slow down our greenhouse gas emissions" and more thought into "what steps are we going to need to take to deal with the inevitable consequences of the current warming trend."

Re:Eh. (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630294)

Makes the case that the current warming trend is more closely related to a solar upswing (than greenhouse gas buildup) more persuasive.

What reputable scientist ever argued that it was one or the other? Every recent study I've seen not funded by oil companies includes solar cycles as one factor, but which is not sufficient to explain the trends on its own. We expect the temperatures to go up due to solar cycles, but they don't come close to explaining the aberrant rate of increase unless there have been developments I haven't heard about.

Either way, I think we need to start putting less thought into "how are we going to slow down our greenhouse gas emissions" and more thought into "what steps are we going to need to take to deal with the inevitable consequences of the current warming trend."

Accepting global warming as inevitable for a time is a thing of the past. We can't turn this around in a short time period. We need to be figuring out how to deal with warming, but we also need to be figuring out if there is anything we can do to deter it before we get drastic climate shifts or before we're committed to 1,000 years of climbing temperatures around the globe.

And now the inevitable analogy. We don't look at an incident of shooting in the inner city and say, "well people have been shot now, lets not worry about catching the shooter and focus on treating the wounds." We need to work on both.

Re:Eh. (3, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630416)

I shall reiterate: "more closely related"

I don't think it's an either or situation, but if we're getting a spike that is outside the bounds of models based primarily on increased greenhouse gas composition in the atmosphere, which indisputably contribute to warming, then we might want to factor in increased solar activity into our models to more accurately predict the climate trends into the next century.

Participating in fricking global warming discussions is almost completely pointless...Whatever you say, there is bound to be someone who will latch on to one word and accuse you of being a hippy or an oil company shill.

Re:Eh. (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630564)

...but if we're getting a spike that is outside the bounds of models based primarily on increased greenhouse gas composition in the atmosphere, which indisputably contribute to warming, then we might want to factor in increased solar activity into our models to more accurately predict the climate trends into the next century.

Predictions of ice melt have a very large margin of error. To call a given instance of ice retreating a "spike" that is outside the bounds of current models, is a stretch. You're also assuming that solar activity increases are not part of current models, which is not true from what I've seen.

Participating in fricking global warming discussions is almost completely pointless...Whatever you say, there is bound to be someone who will latch on to one word and accuse you of being a hippy or an oil company shill.

I accused you of no such thing. I just pointed out that your recommendations for models were already implemented many years, your recommendations for remediation were lacking, and your evaluation of this as somehow indicating a particular oversight in current models was also incorrect. For all I know you're a hippy that works for the oil companies, but I don't care. I addressed your assertions, not your motivation.

Re:Eh. (4, Funny)

Gospodin (547743) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630750)

...is...

You freaking pinko commie oil-loving corporatist hippy! Take that back!

Re:Eh. (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630752)

But we just don't see your argument. These models have a lot of forcings that make the temperature go up, or go down. The sun's activity and atmosphere CO2 levels are obvious examples, but there are many more.

Now on some spot of the planet, ice melting is faster than predicted by these models.

What makes you say that it is the sun activity forcing that needs to be made more important?

Re:Eh. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630512)

What do you call a movie that
is both BORING AND TEDIOUS?

              BORAT!

Re:Eh. (2, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630628)

And now the inevitable analogy. We don't look at an incident of shooting in the inner city and say, "well people have been shot now, lets not worry about catching the shooter and focus on treating the wounds." We need to work on both.
To develop your analogy more, we need to work on both especially because the shooter is a known serial killer and we have 100% certainty that he's escalating and will kill more and more people unless stopped.

Re:Eh. (1)

contrapunctus (907549) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630524)

I wonder if governments will start claiming them so they have oil drilling rights...

Re:Eh. (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630562)

It's interesting that the models are proving to be conservative.
My guess is, that when scientists are pushed, they make more conservative, more solid arguments that they are absolutely certain they can argue, instead of outrageous claims that shills make.

I could be wrong about it, but make no mistake, the climate scientists know that the common people see things as a controversy and there are huge interests in trying to make it stay that way, so I'd think that they know the best way of sorting out a controversy: solid facts.

Re:Eh. (4, Informative)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630598)

Either way, I think we need to start putting less thought into "how are we going to slow down our greenhouse gas emissions" and more thought into "what steps are we going to need to take to deal with the inevitable consequences of the current warming trend."

Why would we do that? A report by the UK government said that preventing extreme climate change is much cheaper than dealing with its consequences (see e.g. a BBC news article [bbc.co.uk] ).

Re:Islands (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630214)

this is occurring far faster than climate scientist's models predict

Then the models should be considered inaccurate.

Re:Islands (4, Funny)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630266)

It will be interesting to see what else is under the ice.

The lost city of Ry'leh... Run everyone, C'thulhu is coming! AHHHHHHH!

Re:Islands (1)

LordEd (840443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630726)

It is certain death for the unfaithful. However, I for one welcome our new C'thulhu overlord.

Re:Islands (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630272)

It will be interesting to see what else is under the ice. The melting is definitely something we should be concerned about

Hopefully that icy place that superman goes too.

Re:Islands - sea floor volcanic activity.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630276)

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentati on/documentation/pressReleases/2003/pressRelease20 030718/index.html [www.mpg.de]

what.. like under-water volcanic activity..

or like..

300 degree C sea vents.. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/05081 9123850.htm [sciencedaily.com]

yea.... no corrolation.. must be my SUV causing icebergs to melt..

Re:Islands (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630394)

Well, we just declared independence from Greenland and the new country is called GWII (Global Warming Independent island) and I have installed myself as GWIIP!

Re:Islands (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630682)

Ok, so we have new islands from globabl warming. That's great! Why not get the people that had to leave their homes because their island sunk, to move to these new islands? No problem!

Renaming them? (0)

vG_NeSS_Vg (965577) | more than 7 years ago | (#17629896)

Since they aren't lonely mountains, Does anybody know the word for "lonely island"? How about "We are screwed"? Or maybe "Hawaii of the North"?

The usual steps (1)

suso (153703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17629954)

Hans Jepsen is a cartographer at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, which produces topographical maps for mining and oil companies.

Step 1: Oil companies produces global warming
Step 2: Global warming reduces ice in arctic
Step 3: Oil companies say "Cool, more room for oil"
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit

Re:The usual steps (1)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630136)

Dude, shut up. You're going to spoil everything for the oil companies.
Report for reprogramming.

Re:The usual steps (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630430)

Oil companies produces global warming


Oh? Think so?

I'll bet you have a car or maybe even an SUV. I'll bet it runs on gasoline, too. And I'll bet you drive it every day. I'll bet you have a home and I'll bet you have a furnace, too.

You really do have a choice. You are at least, in part, responsible for global warming, like or not. It's not that d4 3v1l 01l c0mp4n13z are forcing you to use their products. You use their products because they are plentiful, available, and cheap. It's the fact that the oil companies have made it plentiful, available and cheap and that they have used their powerful PACs and lobby groups to make sure that oil remains the most used energy product that relieves you of at least some of the responsibility.

Discoverer? (3, Interesting)

Skidge (316075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630004)

Can you really "discover" an island these days? I'm sure some arctic researchers in a lab somewhere saw these on recent satellite photos. Even more so, I bet the appearance of these islands was predictable, given melt rates and knowledge of what was under the ice.

Re:Discoverer? (2, Interesting)

OctoberSky (888619) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630364)

Why not? If C. Columbus can sail into the wrong port, land on a continent that has people and societites and history and "discover" it, then why can't these guys discover an island that no one knew existed in the first place?

Re:Discoverer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630636)

In recent years, I've discovered restaurants, music, authors, TV shows, movies, and activities. If it's new to you, it's discovery. That said, the grandparent poster seem right to me.

Re:Discoverer? (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630368)

Can you really "discover" an island these days?

While at the eye-doctor yesterday, i picked upa book about discoveries. It asked, how can someone discover a tribe, being the tribe was already there?! It said it meant dioscovery in the Western sense, that it was added to the collective knowledge (of the west).

Can the island be discovered? It matters in which way. Just proving that there is a land mass there won't prove anything other than the images, as you pointed out. Actually going there, mapping it, and seeing detail otherwise unknown, however, could be termed a discovery too.

Moo (5, Funny)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630006)

For all those interested, all the OceanLand Islands are property of me, and are being sold at $499,999,999.99 each.

Not only am i chepaer than the competition, my islands are real. Please, check them out, you'll warm up to them faster than you'd think.

preemptive replies (-1, Troll)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630018)

Some pre-emptive replies to the inevitable anti-global warming posts:

1. Yes, global climate change happened before man came around. Your implication that just because global warming was caused by factors other than man in the past, that it can never be caused by man is stupid. By implication you are stupid.

2. Please explain your assertion that climatologists have a vested interest in anthropogenic global warming being true.

3. That site is a corporate/right-wing/creationist shill, and anything it says is probably wrong.

4. Your assertion that believing that human activities can't cause global warming because believing that would be "arrogant" is even stupider than your previous statements. Presumably man-made fusion reactions don't exist because believing we could create such a reaction is "arrogant".

Preempt this, then: (1)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630164)

Two or three weeks ago "we found out" on slashdot that Exxon contributes
to research debunking man-made global warming theories. Now we'd like to
know from who is funding the proponents of these theories ...

Indulge us.

Re:preemptive replies (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630228)

"2.Please explain your assertion that climatologists have a vested interest in anthropogenic global warming being true."

Scientists need to do research. The funding for all research is limited, so more serious issues tend to receive a larger portion of funding. The more serious the climatologists make their issues seem, the more funding they receive.

And since it's how they get paid and make their living, they have a vested interest.

Your failure to understand this makes YOU stupid.

Re:preemptive replies (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630230)

Man, I am so glad you posted that. It will be a relief to not have to wade through post after post of exactly the same pointless dreck that has been in every other global climate change themed story, here and everywhere else.

A nice, refreshing, intelligent discussion of the topic, with no hyperbole from either side, will be the result I'm sure.

This is /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630248)

You're wasting your breath. We've already concluded that man is a parasite and must be purged from Mother Earth before she can heal herself. You first, though, you soapboxing fucktard.

Re:preemptive replies (1, Interesting)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630444)

Ok, I'm ready let go of my karma...

1. Yeah that would be stupid. See #4
2. Funding. This is true of many fields. It's typically viewed as harder to get funding if your results are inconclusive or show nothing. Just read any old science journal, how often do you find articles stating that experiments were done and nothing was found. Plus, in science it's fun to believe what is popular. $Popular != $Correct
3. Way to attack the source and not the science. I suppose next you'll say there is no science behind those sources- at least none non you want to consider.
4. Does anyone actually say that? If they do you're right that's pretty dumb. Then again keep in mind that 'could' and 'does' are not lexically equivalent (neither are 'can never happen' and 'isn't happening right now').

In all fairness those aren't very convincing replies.

Oh- and for all you GW (and I don't mean Bush) scaremongers who continue to have haydays with warmer than usually temps make a note of this last weeks weather across the US.

Re:preemptive replies (5, Informative)

Xyleth (612523) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630662)

Actually, as far as I understand the science, what happened the last few days in the US is entierly expected as a consequence of Global Warming. YOu don't just get warmer weather, you get more extreme weather as the extra energy in the system pushes things further from it's balance point. Global Warming is a misnomer as its far too simple and encourages thinking along the lines of 'its cold here so Global Warming can't possibly be happening'. Global Climate Change is a better term.

Re:preemptive replies (1)

tiedyejeremy (559815) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630612)

1) rather than worrying about blame or calling names, shouldn't we all be planning how to deal with it?
2) Who cares about climatoligists? See #1, above.
3) Starting to sound like the Democrats claiming they have to introduce draft bills to combat the warmongering Republicans
4) See #1, again.

I know, you're just itching for a fight, so I'm responding in jest, but seriously, calling people stupid does little to help us move forward and lots to drive a wedge between two sides who should be focusing on a common enemy.

Re:preemptive replies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630632)

I think ill-informed and unduly skeptical would be a little more accurate in some cases. I was skeptical of the global warming arguments until very recently and although I of course can see my errors in hindsight that does not necessitate stupidity.

Some climatologists may not have a financial or other vested interest, but some may have idealogical ones. Idealogical interests can be just as dangerous as financial ones, and even more some if the two are combined.

Corporations, right-wingers and creationists aren't necessarily wrong. Sometimes there is a tendency to "tow the line" when it comes to certain issues, but that is no less prevalent on the other side of the political spectrum. Everyone makes bad arguments or faulty justifications at times. Blanket generalizations don't help the matter any.

Yes, this last assertion is pretty silly.

Temporary problem. (4, Funny)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630040)

Why bother putting it on the map? Soon global warming will also put it under water too.

Problem solved! Hurray!

Excellent news! (1)

joshsnow (551754) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630046)

Just before the rising water levels swamp my house, I'll be moving to one of these new Islands.

Oh, wait...

Well, it is named Greenland isn't it? (2, Insightful)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630052)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland [wikipedia.org]

The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland, and when the Scandinavian monarchs converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland as well. The settlements seem to have coexisted relatively peacefully with the Inuit, who had migrated southwards from the Arctic islands of North America around 1200. In 1261, Greenland became part of the Kingdom of Norway. Norway in turn entered into the Kalmar Union in 1397 and later the personal union of Denmark-Norway.

After almost five hundred years, the Scandinavian settlements simply vanished, possibly due to famine during the fifteenth century in the Little Ice Age, when climatic conditions deteriorated, and contact with Europe was lost.

----------------

So Greenland used to be green. Then it froze. Now it's turning green again. It's almost like it's a natural cycle.

Interesting thought (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630202)

Hmmmm. Just thinking about it, I would guess that the snow and ice has probably preserved that era quit nicely. This may be an excellent opportunity to study our relatives. I would guess that we will find a few icemen (and women) if we watch carefully.

Re:Interesting thought (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630346)

And given the previously warm climate they might even run across a few iceweasels.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it? (1)

sonofagunn (659927) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630376)

Hopefully, as ice thaws and more land is uncovered, there will be more room for plants to grow to clean CO2 out of the air.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it? (5, Insightful)

jesterpilot (906386) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630494)

If you RTFWA, you'd prabably noticed Erik the Red called it 'Greenland' for the same reason Vista is called "The most secure OS in existance'.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630740)

Self delusion?

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630704)

That would be a nice theory, except that most of the ice that's melting is far older than the medieval era.

A new location for Survivor! (1)

PoconoPCDoctor (912001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630070)

Don't let those nay-sayer global warming types make this seem like a bad thing. I see a great location for Survivor - but with a twist!

Plop down some contestants on some glacial ice in Greenland. If their piece of ice does not melt, they win! If on the other hand the island appears, those contestants have to swim to the nearest coast, ala polar bears!

Mountains of Madness (1)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630072)

Great. Now we not only have to deal with global warming, but also the release of the shoggoths from their icy tombs [wikipedia.org] . Cthulu runs the oil companies, I say!

Re:Mountains of Madness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630352)

If sea levels rise, R'lyeh gets deeper. Shouldn't this be bad news for Cthulhu?

You just had to do that, didn't you? (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630664)

You just sent me off chasing Lovecraft related links for the past 1/2 hour.

Damn you..... :)

Global climate has always been static... (-1, Troll)

stankulp (69949) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630074)

...since the beginning of time. Everybody knows that.

The fact that climate is now changing after billions of years of being exactly the same is proof positive that the rich countries must be punished and all their wealth transferred to third-world dictators.

Right now.

So I Guess the Verdict Is In (0, Redundant)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630078)

No beating around the bush here huh? Global Warming Exposes New Islands in the Arctic...

So I guess we are not harboring any room for doubt on Global Warming here on slashdot? At this point in the whole Global Warming debate, I am still inclined to call it weather. I mean really, the jury is still out on Global Warming for many and posting articles with headlines like this is irresponsible.

Should we not read the articles and edit the headlines to be accurate and not...

My bad, forgot it was /.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (1)

raju1kabir (251972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630160)

I'm sorry, what debate? I am not aware of anyone who denies that the world has been getting warmer.

Or have you been listening to the oil companies' scientists-for-hire again? The same ones who just got finished cashing the cheques they received for saying that smoking cures cancer?

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630748)

The issue is not whether there is warming (there quite clearly is), but whether its major cause is anthropogenic or a result of natural events.

Honestly, I don't see the world's ecology getting much better almost no matter what happens. In the race to use biodiesel, Europe is subsidizing the destruction of huge swaths of rain forest in Indonesia and other Pacific island regions. In the race to become free of nuclear influence, several nations are ditching their reactors which produce no output of greenhouse gases and installing natgas plants. There are a few interesting concepts coming around for solar, but they still require proof of concept before they're usabl Coal seam fires in China put out as much CO2 as the entire US vehicle fleet, but the efforts spent to deal with that are cursory at best. Cities in India, Mexico, and South America pour smoke into the air from fires and vehicles with extremely poor (if any) emission controls.

There is no combination of courage and logic on a large enough scale to put together the right set of technologies to deal with global warming, even if it is mostly anthropogenic.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (0, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630192)

I mean really, the jury is still out on Global Warming for many and posting articles with headlines like this is irresponsible.

You are either ignorant or a shill. Either way, please stop trying to share your wisdom. You have none.

Even the Bush administration admits that global warming is occurring now. The argument NOW is not about whether global warming is occurring (it is) but why, if we can do anything about it, and what to do if we can in fact do anything.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (0)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630502)

"The argument NOW is not about whether global warming is occurring (it is) but why, if we can do anything about it, and what to do if we can in fact do anything."

Most of the "global warming" chicken littles are leftwing environmental wackos who have a political agenda against ________ (fill in the blank evil/corporation).

So, while there may be in fact "global warming" it may or may not be related to mankind. It is just as likely to be cyclical (see Wikipedia entry on "Greenland") or due to sun activity, or other long term and non-mankind effects. Or it could be a combination of all sorts of contributing factors (most likely), each part playing a small role in a bigger picture.

Mankind isn't the Star (pun intended) in this movie, no matter what Al Gore believes.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630700)

It is just as likely to be cyclical (see Wikipedia entry on "Greenland")

The Medieval warm period was fairly regional, and GLOBAL temperatures at the time were fairly well-maintained. That is a red herring. You are either ignorant or shilling.

or due to sun activity, or other long term and non-mankind effects.

The thing is that many of mankind's effects are far outstripping some of nature's effects. For example we strongly suspect that volcanic CO2 is a significant force in climate, yet we (humans) put out several times as much CO2 as all volcanoes combined, every year. We also create numerous compounds which nature would probably never create, and which there has never been any sign that nature could create - so to argue that our impact is probably negligible is to deliberately ignore several important reasons why our impact is different and probably greater than any prior species.

In fact we have had such a dramatic effect on the planet's surface, especially through deforestation, that it would be extremely foolish to assume that we have not changed global weather significantly. We do things that we KNOW affect global weather - when a huge fire sweeps through and takes out a forest for a while, we know that makes changes. Yet when we wipe out forests so that we can grow food and raise cattle, we act like that will not make any difference. Clearly this is inconsistent at best, but is probably deliberate hypocrisy in the majority of cases.

Mankind isn't the Star (pun intended) in this movie, no matter what Al Gore believes.

Even if we didn't CAUSE this problem we have to deal with it. We can be part of the solution, or part of the precipitate (and that means we drop out and are left lying around on the bottom of the flask, just a bit of excess, rejected sludge.)

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630656)

I realize you think the science is fully conclusive on the subject, and that no debate is required, but ask yourself, is scaring the population (which, to steal a quote is comprised of "panicky animals") really the responsible way to go about making the point? I fear an overreaction that could make things vastly worse.

Ultimately my point is, people like me who desire intelligent, open minded discussion don't bother listening to people like you anymore, because even if I had stone-cold dead on proof Global Warming wasn't happening, you stopped listening to ME a long time ago.

I don't know why you think rushing to a conclusion about the how and why of CLIMATE CHANGE which is what real scientists call it these days, is a good idea. All you do with your vitriol and fear mongering is to shut out discussion of the topic. Which as we all know is what science is about...

And you'll notice, at no time did I even imply Global climate change wasn't occurring, I simply asked why you think forcing your conclusions on those of us who desire intelligent discussion of the subject is a good idea.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630194)

I mean really, the jury is still out on Global Warming for many and posting articles with headlines like this is irresponsible.

My bad, forgot it was /.

That's right ... if you want to post head-in-the-sand shit, do it on some right-wing fundamentalist blog, so those of us who aren't blinded by religious wishful thinking/delusions can ignore it.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (4, Funny)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630240)

You're right. We need to stay open to the possibility that temperatures staying the same (or even cooling) may be the cause of all this ice melting. ;-)

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (0, Troll)

PoconoPCDoctor (912001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630296)

I think this dude, along with many others, get paid by the post by ExxonMobil, etc, to respond to anything here with regards to GW. Then again, they could just be uninformed.

BTW, still no skiing on REAL snow in the Poconos, but don't worry, that snow'll be right along.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630396)

It appears libertarians and objectivists like the grandparent poster for some reason find global warming inconsistent with their religion - er, sorry, politics - and feel the need to mouth off against it at any given opportunity, whether or not they get paid for it.

I guess you can't expect much from a mind that actually thinks Ayn Rand is insightful.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (1)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630544)

Or that Global Warming is some word the media pumped up to represent so much more than it really should.

To me, it seems evident that the Earth is indeed warming and the Arctic is melting. It also seems reasonable to think that we have done nothing but aide and hasten that process. At the same time, we are naive to think we have any control over the weather and that we can stop, or curve the effects of what has been set in motion, man made or not.

That being said, we will and should continue to look at the facts and figures as we move towards a green society. At the same time, we are not certain what is causing this heating, be it greenhouse gases, or just weather. Earth has seen numerous global weather changes/ice ages and it will see many more.

Global Warming or Global Weather Change? They are different in my eyes. Perhaps one aides/causes the other(probably), but nonetheless, in the end, it is weather.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630620)

Ok, you're downplaying the seriousness of the issue at hand, but you're not outright denying it, at least. Here's the bit you're still missing:

Weather can kill us.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630570)

I guess the jury is still out on the heliocentric solar system, keep your stock in the flat earth society! Oh wait, this is slashdot, stupid people still post here. What was I thinking?

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630764)

I mean really, the jury is still out on Global Warming for many and posting articles with headlines like this is irresponsible.
A good lawyer (corporate shills) might be able to convince the jury (the public) that we have reasonable doubt (controversy) that the suspect (human CO2 contribution) didn't commit murder (global warming), but as we all know making the jury believe something does not make it the truth, it is only a dependent on the skills of a lawyer, the intelligence of the jury and the available evidence.

As the evidence mounts the intelligence of the jury has to decrease in order to the lawyer to reach the result he wants.

And there they go again. (1)

jdh41 (865085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630118)

Its OK, they'll go under again when the sea level rises. If they don't then we can use them to put the displaced population on.

Start donating (3, Interesting)

raju1kabir (251972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630120)

When can we expect the announcement about Pirate Bay trying to buy one of the new islands?

Excellent (0, Offtopic)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630132)

I hereby claim all the newly emerged islands as part of my own kingdom. The name, flag, and anthem are not yet finalized, but it's certain that I'll be the King.

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630298)

I see this is from the NY Times. Has anyone seen this in a reliable source?

Heh, water cooling! (1)

digitalgoddess (1051762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630148)

Well the good news so to speak is that we'll all be dead by the time global warming, if that's truly the cause, gets serious. Makes me wonder about the state of some of the other planets in our system in relation to what's happening to ours. on another note, I want to learn Inuit...

rapid change fans the flames of evolution and (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630166)

those who fear it lack the sense of adventure which led man out of the dark ages.
The past has seen tropical rainforests in Canada and glaciers in the southern USA.
IMO the whole global warming brewhaha is centered in power and control. It's nothing
more than another means to wealth and prestige for those who's only life skill is
massaging the emotions of the ignorant.

I for one welcome mass extinctions and greater stress on human life!

Come now... ignorance is bliss (0)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630168)

there is no such thing as global warming!!! Its just El Nino!!!

Inuit Scrabble (1)

Basilius (184226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630186)

"Uunartoq Qeqertoq"

I really want to see the point values for Inuit Scrabble.

Re:Inuit Scrabble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630492)

Uunartoq Qeqertoq

U,T,E,R,A,0,N = 1
Q = 10 (0x0A)

Uunartoq Qeqertoq
1111111A A1A1111A = 52 points!

Unless you get some triple word scores or something

Re:Inuit Scrabble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630766)

gonna be really hard to form that word given there is only ONE Q tile in Scrabble. I suppose you could use the two blanks, but you cant count points for blank tiles. So it wont be a good score either way.

Don't Panic (3, Insightful)

ibirman (176167) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630204)

According to the article, Greenland has 630,000 cubic miles of ice. If all of it melted it will raise ocean levels by 23 feet, but the article also says we are losing only 80 cubic miles per year. At that rate it will take over 300 years to raise sea levels by a foot. This is reason for concern, but don't buy that inland beachfront yet!

I lost count. (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630222)

Are we breaking even? [slashdot.org]

Someone should tell the car companies (1)

erko (806441) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630258)

Someone should tell the car companies about this global warming "theory".

"Chrysler questions climate change"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6247371.stm [bbc.co.uk]

The mainstream press should also be more critical in situations like this. The public should know that a blowhard's comments don't compare to scientific data. If anyone still disagrees, there is more than enough data presented in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth".

Arrrr! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17630260)

Pirates and the sea! Aye, this be a perfect match if ever there be one.

Denver (1)

Arrowroot, son of Ar (707454) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630290)

Please bear in mind as you spread your FUD, that although global warming is a given, you can't look at some islands in the Arctic and proclaim "The world is melting! The world is melting!". You have to look at the entire model. I'm sure the people of Denver and the Midwest would like some of their global warming

Re:Denver (1)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630644)

Denver is cold? In the winter? APOCALYPSE!!

Fossils? (3, Interesting)

KidSock (150684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630336)

Not to detract from the issue but is this not a good opportunity to go fossil hunting? Covered in ice there might be more than just fossilized bone as well (but we'd better be quick about it because once exposed to air there really won't be anything but bone).

Re:Fossils? (1)

tiedyejeremy (559815) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630456)

I'm feeling a rare foods smorgasbord...

SHOTGUN! (4, Funny)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630340)

Canada calls Shotgun! Those islands are now the soverign soil of Canada! Hurray!

I'm not worried. (2, Funny)

headplant (1044408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630370)

By the time global warming gets really bad, I'll be kicking back in my condo on the moon [slashdot.org] .

Is it obvious yet? (4, Interesting)

inviolet (797804) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630374)

"The New York Times has a sobering article about the rapidly accelerating pace of glacial melting across the arctic, focusing on the discovery of new islands and the fact that this is occurring far faster than climate scientist's models predict.

Seeing as how this is the 10,000th time this sort of thing has happened, can we at least all agree that:

  • global warming is real, and its consequences are mounting, but
  • climate models are teh suck

Seriously. Every year there's a new twist that the models missed by a mile. Most recently, it was the 2006 quiet hurricane season. Anyone who claims to predict planetary weather by studying past correllations and making guesses at future causations, is doing the academic equivalent of hunting for venture capital.

But, nevertheless, the planet is getting steadily warmer.

Re:Is it obvious yet? (3, Interesting)

SaDan (81097) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630626)

Exactly. I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.

The planet has been warmer than it currently is plenty of times before. We've also had glaciers down to the Ohio River (in the USA) before too. Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle.

I conserve where I can, and encourage others to do the same. However, I'm not a fan of the whole "global warming" agenda. My personal thoughts are that we are witnessing the transition from one phase of our climate to another, and entirely too many people are jumping to conclusions about what is the real cause. It's all politics, FUD, and money at the moment.

Oh, no, new islands! (1)

jdavidb (449077) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630410)

I recognize that global warming may be a serious threat, and this may be a good sign that there is a problem, but it's just hard to feel that a sentence like "something is occurring faster than models predict" is a tragedy for anybody other than the modelers.

The end is nigh (2, Insightful)

ZombieSquirrel (978302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630414)

I saw some ass hate on Fox New the other day saying that global warming was good for the economy. Knowing that there are many in this country (including our own freaking president) who feel similarly, I can't help but think it might be too late. I honestly don't think the human animal can over come its greed and hunger for power. It might be time to accept the great purge is coming. Now, if only there was away to make sure that only the idiots perish.

Will this bring out the Alien Hunters? (1)

tiedyejeremy (559815) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630504)

I know that that meteors are supposedly easy to spot on ice fields...
I know the extra water will be bad for the coastal cities and such, but I tend to be a half full kind of guy and am interested about what things might be discovered.

Phonetic translation required (1)

Cartack (628620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630568)

Inuit is not my native language, and i am having pronunciation trouble.

water, water everywhere (1)

The Fun Guy (21791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630660)

Carl Egede Boggild, a professor of snow-and-ice physics at the University Center of Svalbard, said Greenland could be losing more than 80 cubic miles of ice per year.

"That corresponds to three times the volume of all the glaciers in the Alps," Dr. Boggild said. "If you lose that much volume you'd definitely see new islands appear."
.. .. which would subsequently disappear again as the oceans continued to rise.

People laughed at me when I bought coastline in Kansas. Who'll be laughing last?

Global Warming in General- why debate? (3, Insightful)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630670)

Since this will devolve into a debate about global warming in general, I'd like to jump the gun a bit.

I'm not entirely certain if global warming is entirely the cause of humans. The limited research and reading I've done makes me learn towards the side that says it is, but my degree-in-earning is Computer Science, not Environmental Science, so I won't rule without doing far more research.

However, I think there are two facts that can't be denied by anyone:
1) The Earth is, in general, becoming warmer.
2) Polution and trash from humans is affecting the environment in some negative manner.

I know of no person who will deny that CFCs [epa.gov] (Chlorofluorocarbons- say that three times fast) affected the ozone layer (oddly, I haven't heard much about that in the Global Warming blurbs I see on Slashdot daily), though I'm sure a few exist, mainly in the industry that made their money off such things. No one thinks smog is a good thing.

So, whether we like it or not, humans are contributing in some form to the degredation of the environment, which can include global warming- I'll let the scientists hash out just how much. So, with that in mind, something should be done. Perhaps not the far-reaching suggestions some of the more "hardcore" environmentalists suggest, but a gradual process to decrease trash and pollutants would be useful.

As the saying goes, "A pinch of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Or something like that.

The End Is Nigh! (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 7 years ago | (#17630762)

We can all run around saying "The end is coming", or we can actually figure out what is happening. When climatologists believe there is a linear trend and there is evidence of an exponential trend it is clear someone hasn't figured out the system behind the observations.

We can then either make up stories about what might be happening or we can devote significant resources to learning. As of yet, I have heard of nothing being done to figure out what is going on. The entire debate is political/religious. You either "believe" in Global Warming or you do not. If you do not, you must be some right-wing Christian nutjob that thinks the Earth is 4,000 years old. If you believe in Global Warming, you must be a sandal-wearing unwashed hippy and so on and so forth. Either way, the "other side" is composed of nuts and heretics.

It is clear from the last three years that nobody has a model for what is happening. Sure, it might be human induced, but if it is nobody has a practical idea for what would make it stop. The only real solution on that would be a return to about 1850 levels of population and energy use. Unlikely we are going to really implement a plan to kill off 90% of the world's population next week. Or that the West is going return to subsistance farming real soon.

So how about some real, non-political studies where the people aren't going in to prove what they "know" is happening? I don't see this happening and I don't see any motivation for it to ever happen.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...