Global Warming Exposes New Islands in the Arctic 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."
Discoverer? (Score:4, Interesting)
Start donating (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re:Discoverer? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:preemptive replies (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Is it obvious yet? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Eh. (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually as far as I know none of the data on historic global warming is able give details accurate 50 or 100 year periods. We know that the earth's temperature cycles between Warm and Cold, but we don't know for sure what causes it. This leaves the scientific community unsure as to the role of natural processes and the activities of man in global warming. It is because the scientists of the world cannot completely agree (they do however agree that the planet is heating up) on the cause of global warming that politicians can sell various "solutions".
Of course in terms of additional land becoming available in the arctic this is all eventually irrelevant, because the end result of global warming is the next ice age.
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.
Re:Islands (Score:1, Interesting)
Lack of information (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Someone should tell the car companies (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
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.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is it obvious yet? (Score:3, Interesting)
It never mentions 'climate change' or 'global warming'. It simply says that hurricanes are "...strongly related to a climate pattern known as the multi-decadal signal". This is neither weather prediction nor making estimates of the effects of climate change. We know that when the Pacific is in an El Nino or La Nina phase and also depending on Atlantic currents that certain global patterns are more likely. Is it a local effect within 10 days to 2 weeks? No, then it isn't a weather forecast. It also has very little to do with GCMs, as you don't need a predictive model to tell you this, we can look at historical trends of hurricanes correlated to ENSO events.
Now, will a global change in climate have an effect on the El Nino / La Nina cycles? Will it change them? Will it change what happens when they occur? Will it affect Atlantic currents day-to-day or these year-long trends that come and go? Will it change the wind patterns? That is an entirely different question and not discussed by me nor in that article.
Note that the article does support my original statement that warmer ocean temperatures are positively correlated to increased hurricane strength, and also that
Hope this helps.
Re:The end is nigh (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Islands (Score:3, Interesting)
- It devotes resources to fighting a strawman. Many of the "man has no effect" crowd still believe that global warming is happening, and even possibly could be due to CO2 emissions. However, the only evidence of such is correlative, the same kind of evidence used to show that carry/conceal laws reduce violence or the rise of secularism leads to moral decay like school shootings. If global warming is really caused by increased solar output or the natural flow of climate change, resources need to be dedicated to mitigating these risks instead of an all-out war against a strawman.
- It assumes that alternative energy sources are environmentally better. Nuclear is great, but still carries the risk of meltdown (almost nil with modern reactor technologies), the problem of waste, and the security risk of the reactor or its materials being used by enemies in an attack. Hydro is clean, but absolutely rapes the upstream and particularly downstream river ecosystems where it is placed. Wind is clean but unreliable, and also has a yet poorly understood effect on the planet's natural energy transfer.
- It assumes that the as of yet poorly understood effects of global warming are worth drastic costs or lifestyle changes. Even rabid environmentalists are loathe to change their lifestyle in anything but a token fashion to reduce energy usage.
I am all for reducing our impact on the environment. I drove a grand total of 400 miles last year (yes, that's 4 and two 0's, or less than two tanks of gas). My electric bill is under $60/mo even in the dead of winter when I use heat. I am all for investing sensibly in alternative energy sources and environmental research. What I am not for is putting all of the eggs in one basket for a sensationalized, polarized, poorly understood response to something we have not even confirmed is the enemy.
Re:Islands (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't it suck to learn years later that we could have prevented the destruction of our home planet if only we had tried? It's not hard... we just have to try. And instead of having the bean counters decide everything, why not have a few engineers look at the waste problem. Yeah, I know, I'd rather watch American Idol and eat bonbons until I explode, too. It's a shame really. The neo-cons are really destroying everything that has made America great. Maybe the Information Age(tm) will come to the rescue, though I'm not holding my breath.
So there is no confusion (Score:1, Interesting)
I can't say I am suprised that it was modded down so. People insecure in their beliefs often have knee-jerk reactions to things they find threatening. For whatever it's worth (and it's not worth much) I am a Christian myself. I believe in evolution and big bang, no problems reconciling that with my understanding of God. But some of my fellow believers need a MAJOR attitude adjustment and reality check when it comes to current events.
In any case, Thanks for responding. :o)
Re:solution? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now consider that if Greenland lets go, we're looking at 6m-7m sealevel rise, so multiply your figures by 600 and 700.
Re:YOU are part of the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Some people aver very photosensetive. Thankfully I am not.
I access my PC 24/7. Don't laser printers go to sleep?
SUV drivers might be sociopaths, but eventually gas will get so expensive that there ways will change.
I don't race to the red light but I defend all those that do, especially taxi drivers in Manhattan (New York City). If you are making a right on a corner, race to the red light. There are parking lots on the side streets and someone pulling out might get ahead of you. If your behaviour gets too aggressive, a pedestrian will kick your fenders. Eventually you will almost hit someone in combat boots and a trench coat. That person will hopefully have the good sense to drop kick the hood. You will then re-evaluate your driving methods.
The true sociopaths are the double parkers and those that park in bus lanes. That is truly antisocial behaviour. If I were Mayor of a town I would make those people all spend a night in jail. Repeat offenders would eventually spend a year in jail.
Re:Is it obvious yet? (Score:3, Interesting)
Glaciers are ice, the ice is melting almost everywhere, must be the temperature. Ice was 11,000 years old. Must be the hottest we've encountered in 11,000 years. See, no models needed. It's not that difficult.