Slashdot Log In
Global Warming Exposes New Islands in the Arctic
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:18 AM
from the go-north-young-man dept.
from the go-north-young-man dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Discoverer? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Moo (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Temporary problem. (Score:5, Funny)
Problem solved! Hurray!
Start donating (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't Panic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't Panic (Score:4, Interesting)
The sam, on an even more massive scale, could be true of Antartica. A huge mass of ice suddenly is no longer pressing down on the continent, distorting the earth's crust. The surrounding sea floor could drop.
Net effect? Unknown.
Parent
Re:Don't Panic (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Google Maps (Score:5, Interesting)
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=10&ll=71.476542
Still shows it as connected.. but only barely.
Fossils? (Score:4, Interesting)
SHOTGUN! (Score:5, Funny)
Is it obvious yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seeing as how this is the 10,000th time this sort of thing has happened, can we at least all agree that:
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? (Score:5, Informative)
The climate model I work with (EdGCM [columbia.edu]) doesn't have a dynamic ocean, but that is because it needs to be simple enough so you can download it and run it on your laptop. It does have a 9 layer atmosphere and is in general agreement with the ensemble runs of most of the other GCMs out there.
The EdGCM [columbia.edu] project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2 or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM.
Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.
Parent
Global Warming in General- why debate? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Proper usage of "Inuit" (Score:4, Informative)
Inuit is the general term for the people (it literally means "The people")
Inuk is the singular
Inuktitut is a general term for the languages of said people (for the Inuit living in northern Canada.. apparently in Greenland it's a different one)
It's a little more complicated than I'm making it out to be.. but it's certainly not correct to say that "such and such is a word in Inuit"
Nonsense (Score:4, Informative)
More detail than you ever wanted: here [realclimate.org], here [realclimate.org], here [realclimate.org] and especially here [realclimate.org], from last week.
solution? (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone else seeing a way to kill two birds with one stone here?
Why not start creating man-made lakes, and towing icebergs into 'em? Yes it's a lot of work, but if we're going to need the water anyway, and we don't want to lose too much of our shoreline...well, why the hell not? It'd be extremely easy to do in north america, and much of northern europe and asia. And if we're feeling really charitable, we could start towing the southern ice-caps up to africa and the middle-east. They could certainly use some fresh-water.
Eh. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 th
Re:Eh. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Eh. (Score:5, Funny)
You freaking pinko commie oil-loving corporatist hippy! Take that back!
Parent
Re:Eh. (Score:5, Informative)
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]).
Parent
Re:Eh. (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt we'll do it though. You can put me on the record for saying that we'll stop using fossil fuels only when a cheaper alternative is created and widely accepted, and that we won't do a damn thing to prepare for the side-effects of climate change until it's already a serious issue.
Parent
Clarify (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:5, Insightful)
(a) Pollution does f*cked up things quite apart from global warming. Remember those picture of forest in Germany and Sweden, algae blooms, "clean" rivers and streams etc etc, so what's wrong with trying to reduce it?
(b) Why would anyone want to be so dependant on another countries resource? The oil is finite, it's going to run out, this is a bad thing. Developing new tech and their associated industries, this is a good thing. What's the problem?
Look, if it helps all the naysayers, claim you're being patriotic, claim that you want to wean your country off the petrochemical teat, claim that you want to save you glorious forests and lakes for "the kids". You don't have to say you're doing it because you've changed your mind about global warming, you just have to do it.
Parent
MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Insightful)
p.s. No offense to the residents of Staten Island
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:5, Interesting)
Easy: because they figure they stand to lose more than they gain by taking action: they either think it'll cost a lot (which it might) or that they won't be particularly affected by the result of no action.
I live in Colorado. I don't give two hoots about houses being designed for earthquake surviveability or tidal wave warning systems. Why should I pay for research into these areas? I'm in good health: why should I pay for surgery for someone who can't afford medical care? I'm young: why do I care about age discrimination? Same mindset.
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:4, Insightful)
As a member of the "Man has [little] effect" crowd, I'd rather see everyone focus on issues that we actually have, rather than fabricating new ones.
As for reduction: I'm all for electric vehicles, nuclear/wind/solar power (though those wind-powered turbines are ugly, IMO), and I live in oil-rich Alberta. The best I can do, personally, is to get the best use of the gas I use: house was built in 2001 so it's pretty energy efficient already, and I just bought a hybrid vehicle (no EVs that I know of to purchase). Yes, it's an SUV, but I also need space to hold all that comes with having an infant (car seat, stroller, diaper bag, and still gotta carry the groceries or whatever we're going out for).
As for dependent on another country's resource: I think we're pretty self-sufficient on the oil here in Alberta ;-) However, you're right - there are other technologies that can and should replace this. Great. Let's look at them. Let's develop them. I like nuclear - too bad the eco-wackos prevent their very salvation. I'm kind of unsold on hydrogen, mostly because we need another technology to create the hydrogen. To me, it looks like the potential to become a large capacity battery - nothing more. We need the other energy source to create it. I'm afraid, however, that if we don't get another technology in place, we'll end up using more fossil fuel to create the hydrogen than we'll get back out of the hydrogen, which will make things worse rather than better. I get that it's like a stepping stone - but it's a risk to take that the next generation of energy creation will be here really soon thereafter.
Personally, I'm doing it to save $$ - on my energy bills and at the pump ;-)
Parent
Man has little effect? (Score:4, Informative)
So, why do you think that Bill O'Reilly [foxnews.com], GW Bush [timesonline.co.uk], and (gasp, finally!) ExxonMobil [climatesciencewatch.org] disagree with you? Is it just because they're a bunch of envirowackos trying to destroy the economy?
Parent
Who needs an SUV to carry a car seat? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just love this kind of self-justification. You don't 'need' an SUV. I think you could carry all that stuff pretty easily in a small hatchback - or a minivan - or any of several vehicle types that have plenty of room for such everyday suburban needs. You bought an SUV because the culture, fed by the car companies, taught you to *want* an SUV.
Now you may *need* 4 wheel drive up there in Alberta, but you certainly don't *need* a big, heavy truck.
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:4, Interesting)
So here's a question: if we stopped emitting burning fossil fuels entirely, right now, would the earth start cooling?
Nope. You need to define your "we" better though. Is we the US or the entire human population? If it is the entire human population, there is no telling what effects stopping or removing massive human influence would have on our environment. If it was just the US population? Pretty much the same thing. The only way to "fix" this issue is for someone to build some nuclear plant and use the energy from that to mine carbon out of the atmosphere and make oil out of it. The more that I think about it the more that the whole hydrogen fuel economy that Wired and others have been feeding us lately misses the point. Oil works fine. All we need though is to figure out how to remove the massive quantities of carbon in the air and use that to make oil, diamonds, or any thing made out of carbon. We need to research into that sort of thing rather than thinking just reducing or stopping our carbon emmisions. Why stop them? We need someone our there that will mine that carbon and sell it to complete the cycle.
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:5, Insightful)
All that said, yes, Kyoto is not going to deal with the problem. However, given that we have enough poeple, such as yourself, who refuse to acknowledge the extent of the climate change problem, I hardly expect that an international treaty which includes more strict emmission curtails will ever come into being.
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:4, Insightful)
Comments like this really make me look forward to when DisneyWorld is underwater. Unfortunately that requires that Calcutta will also be below the new sea level.
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:5, Insightful)
"we certainly are not as significant as the political rallying groups would like you to believe"
says who? you, according to what analysis of what data? Or is it just your opinion, based on the feeling that you like being counter to "the liberal agenda"? You see, the "rallying groups" might be wrong, but don't go taking the high ground without actually contributing knowledge or, you see, you are just like them.
I've *never* flamed anyone personally on Slashdot before (call me on it, please), but it's part of a wider symptom that's going to be a real problem for US. You and me and everyone we care about.
Listen, learn, read. Scientists are not out to bring America down, or trying to stop us having fun in cool cars. They're totally regular people whose only crime is knowing about the frickin topic they're talking about, and smart-arses like you seem to hate them for it.
Parent
An agenda to "bring America down"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who are these people with this agenda, and how are they influencing scientists? Do you realize how paranoid you sound?
It's clear to me that *one side* is horrendously guilty of twisting the facts, and that occasionally media types (who are hardly on the other side) are guilty of playing chicken little. However, if you actually RTFJs, you'll find the side that does not tend to twist the facts nor exaggerate the consequences. (I'm talking about the science, not the literal politics. Gripe about Kyoto to your hearts content, but don't paint scientists as pawns.)
Seriously, try reading a journal dedicated to climatology. If you're not able to understand it, then please don't argue about the science.
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the centrist fallacy in action. "Well, both sides have lied (or have been wrong on some points) so the truth must be somewhere in the middle." Except, you take it one step further and cast doubt on the efficacy of the pursuit of clarity. You use the fact that the issue is political to write people off as "tools" and despair of ever having access to unbiased truth, when it is in fact staring you in the face. Like with any issue, insight is gained through the critical examination of the claims presented, and the merits on which they attempt to be relevant. Inventing an unknown median state of "truthiness" based on some notion of intellectual responsibility to maintain doubt and respect "both sides" is simply avoiding the responsibility to actually think critically altogether.
This is the same thing that bugs me about "South Park Republicans", whose basic M.O. is to ridicule both parties for the worst behavior of their respective adherents, and then pat themselves on the back for reaching some kind of moral compromise.
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:5, Informative)
The earth and sun have very long cycles that span eons and looking at a mere 100 years of semi-accurate data is very myopic.
Try hundreds of thousands of years.
I can go along with the current theories that we are having an influence on the climate but we certainly are not as significant as the political rallying groups would like you to believe.
How about the scientists?
IF they were correct after all, the ozone hole would not be getting smaller.
The situation with the hole in the ozone layer is improving because we took note of what the scientists were saying and reduced our release of CFCs. And this does of course have absolutely nothing to do with climate change.
Anyone who thinks the Kyoto accords were only about reducing greenhouse emissions needs to really look into the politics behind it. Most of the nations that signed it didn't have significant emissions to begin with.
Every nation of note except the USA and Australia signed and ratified it.
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:4, Informative)
Don't worry, he was lying. About half of industrialized nations reached and even exceeded their goals. More than one third have gone significantly beyond their requirements for emission reductions. David Suzuki has a nice writeup [davidsuzuki.org] on his website.
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:5, Informative)
Why was this comment modded flamebait? I thought it was an insightful and important post. Half the American population (45%) believes jesus is coming within their lifetimes. Furthermore, they believe A)this will be the best thing that could happen to them, and B) many of them believe, because it says so in the bible, that the end will eb accompanied by a warming of the earth. Given this, why should we expect them to care a whit about global warming? global warming is gods will, and furthermore it is a signal of the final (glorious) chapter in a prophecy laid down by god.
I think it is easy for slashdot users to look at a post such as the one quoted above and declare "thats flamebait -it was only intended to annoy people", because most of them are incapable of understanding where the christian nuts in the US are coming from -their views are so ridiculous that it is hard to fathom that they actualy believe what they say they do -but they do! And furthermore, so does George Bush, who sees himself as a warrior for God, appointed by divine prophecy.
Wake up and smell the coffee slashdot users. Christian beliefs are a big problem. How can you expect someone to do anything about the end of the world when, not only do they not care, they think it would be a good thing, and a fulfillment of their prophecy. This is a self-fullfilling prophecy of the worst kind imaginable.
Parent
Re:So there is no confusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Islands (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (Score:4, Insightful)
It has long been known that the Greenhouse Effect exists, causing temperatures to rise by trapping heat. The more gases that trap infrared radiation that exist in the atmosphere, the more heat is retained and the faster the atmospheric temperature rises. This is mitigated by other factors, but the basic mechanism is pretty simple. I think the why question has a pretty decent answer, making the real question: Is this part of a natural warming trend, part of the natural fluctuation that happens after an ice age, or has the current warming trend been triggered, or is it being accelerated, by the rate of Greenhouse emissions?
I think it's safe to say that claiming our activities have no impact is facetious at best; adding Greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is altering a natural process by overloading the atmospheric system and causing the other systems that provide re-uptake and moderation of these gases to be stretched to their limits more quickly. In the end, the question becomes: is the natural system capable of absorbing the extra gases we create, or are we pushing the global systems toward catastrophic failure?
Parent
Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.)
Parent
Re:The usual steps (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it? (Score:4, Informative)
Greenland used to be covered in ice with a few small areas in fjords that were habitable. What evidence we have of the Norse settlements (and there is a reasonable amount) shows that they were a farily marginal colony. For instance their cows were the smallest known, due to such a short period when they could be outside in pasture. There is evidence that while kept inside barns in the winter they had to be forcefed kelp to help fatten them up/keep them alive. Doesn't sound like a lush paradise.
And on the other hand, its not as if today the Norse settlements are just starting to melt out from under the ice. The areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse are and have been since they were rediscovered) quite green and habitable. Try looking at photos of the ruins: Hvalsey ruins [judithlindbergh.com], another shot of Hvalsey [demon.co.uk], ruins at Gardar [galen-frysinger.com], another shot of the Gardar ruins [stalvik.com], ruins at Brattahlid [ucsd.edu], a general shot [mortbay.com] (I can't identify the location), and to round things out, a couple shots of modern day Greenland [stalvik.com] in summer [arctic-adventure.dk]. Things have looked that way for a while - the ice was always inland from these fjords. It didn't take anything special for the Norse to be able to settle there - just a little determination to survive the winters.
Parent
Re:preemptive replies (Score:5, Informative)
Parent