A Crack in an Antarctic Ice Shelf Grew 17 Miles in the Last Two Months 335
Jugal K Patel, writing for the NYTimes: A rapidly advancing crack in Antarctica's fourth-largest ice shelf has scientists concerned that it is getting close to a full break. The rift has accelerated this year in an area already vulnerable to warming temperatures. Since December, the crack has grown by the length of about five football fields each day (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source). The crack in Larsen C now reaches over 100 miles in length, and some parts of it are as wide as two miles. The tip of the rift is currently only about 20 miles from reaching the other end of the ice shelf. Once the crack reaches all the way across the ice shelf, the break will create one of the largest icebergs ever recorded, according to Project Midas, a research team that has been monitoring the rift since 2014. Because of the amount of stress the crack is placing on the remaining 20 miles of the shelf, the team expects the break soon.
Well, damn (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a good thing that climate change is a load of bollocks according to the Trump administration. I'm sure a group of people as competent as the ones that are around Trump know what they're talking about. I mean, otherwise, we might have to be worried.
(THIS IS SARCASM)
Quantrump Mechanics (Score:2)
If we don't observe it, maybe it won't happen
Re: (Score:2)
EXACTLY!
This is the work of liberals! they are out there pushing on the glacier causing the crack trying to discredit our glorious leader!
Do not believe the thinkers! They will distract you from the one true path!
Re:Well, damn (Score:5, Funny)
And the penguins will pay for it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, damn (Score:5, Informative)
The linked article says that these collapses happen naturally. However, ice shelves act as buttresses holding back glaciers flowing down to the coast. The collapse will make the area more vulnerable to climate change.
Larsen A and B ice shelves, which were situated further north on the Antarctic Peninsula, collapsed in 1995 and 2002, respectively. This resulted in the dramatic acceleration of glaciers behind them, with larger volumes of ice entering the ocean and contributing to sea-level rise.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-... [phys.org]
Re:Well, damn (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it matter why the ship is leaking water? Wether it's your fault or not, wouldn't you want to prevent it from sinking?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but currently its leading in a race to the bottom
Re: Well, damn (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is not whether elected leaders should protect the interests of the nationals of their country. Of course they should.
The issue is whether they should be comfortable campaigning with slogans that echo a tragic part of world history.
World prosperity is not a zero-sum game. All nations need to protect their interests, but they also need friends, allies, and trading partners. And to keep them, it helps not to act like a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a tragic part of world history when America "was great"? Is this more from the "safe space" crowd? WWII was tragic for many in the world, so should we throw out all music, fashion, movies, and anything else that reminds us of when someone else wasn't having a good life?
Per the AC post above, "the tragic part of world history" referred to the America First organization, created in the 1940s by Americans who wished to appease Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately when things start going wrong, interest rates creep up, or inflation gets out of hand or unemployment goes up then there is a convenient scapegoat right there, and history shows us that violence is not too far away.
I still have some faith in
Re: Well, damn (Score:4)
and put us on the short end of a deal.
Kinda depends on who's "us." The corporate investors, the corporate board of directors who serve them, the workers put out of a job when the corporation switches to outsourcing, the customers who get shit when the corporation decides to make a cheap, shitty product - all four groups are US citizens.
I missed it...when exactly did it become wrong to want your country to come out on top when dealing with the rest of the world?
I also missed it...when exactly did it become wrong to want your country to hold to a better standard than that of looters during a natural disaster? Whatever happened to "I could not love you half so much loved I not honor more" ? When did we decide that our collective behavior as a nation should dive to the same level of shortsighted behavior as that of the assholes among our citizenry who switched to outsourcing, and for the same reasons?
If you want to talk about what the Chinese government builds, perhaps you'd care to look at how they tax [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The USA has been advertising itself as "The Land of the Free" for longer than anyone here has been alive. This marketing campaign has been very effective, allowing the USA to "brain-drain" most of the earth for generations. Other famous USA marketing slogans include:
"...with Liberty and Justice for All" in the USA Pledge of Allegiance.
"...your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free", inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.
"This Land is Your Land", from a popular folk song.
These slogans reflect long-held USA "
Re: Well, damn (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, what exactly is wrong with our elected American leaders saying they are going to put forth and defend American interests first and foremost when dealing with the rest of the world?
You seem to be implying that American leaders were not already trying to gain advantages for American interests wherever possible or mitigating the negative effects when it's not possible. We'll just have to differ on our world view on that point.
Isn't that exactly what we elected them to do?
Maybe you did. Most people actually have a wide range of issues that they care about. Some of them even care less about America's role on the world stage than they do about the problems in front of them here and now that have nothing to do with the rest of the world. The point is, there are a lot of reasons to vote for a representative. Not everyone sees America throwing its weight around as a #1 priority.
I mean, nothing wrong with cooperating and helping out other countries in the world, as long as it doesn't go against US interests and put us on the short end of a deal.
Imagine you're in a village of 196 families. Some of them are bigger than others. Some are richer than others. Some have stronger people than others. You start wondering, why doesn't your family only ever deal with other families so long as you don't get the short end of the deal? Sounds reasonable right?
Pretty soon, everyone realizes what you're doing and stops dealing with you altogether. Why should they? The only way you ever agree to anything is when it's absolutely even (doesn't happen very often) or you're getting more than they are. In which case, why deal with you at all when there are other options?
Seriously, other countries out there are working hard for their own interests (see China especially these days, their building of "islands" and claiming more and more of the sea away from their mainland is a prime example)....yet so many in our country seem only too happy to give any advantage or thought to gaining advantage away.
How is China's island building and Russia's de facto annexation any different than what you want America to become? That's a certain pathway to war. If you want to take exception to nationalistic expansion from your enemies you'd sure as hell better have a moral high ground to speak from if you expect anyone to listen to you.
I missed it...when exactly did it become wrong to want your country to come out on top when dealing with the rest of the world?
Around the same time people realized that being a constant asshole to your neighbors isn't an effective long term strategy.
The world is a contest...every other country out there plays it to win, and yet, there seems to have somehow in recent years, been a generation of US citizens that don't perceive this...they think the world is a warm and friendly place with everyone giving their fair share, holding hands and singing Kumbaya (sp?)....
Or maybe, juuuuust maybe, the world is more complicated than "I must beat everyone totally, all the time, and if I don't then I lose!" I mean, seriously, if you really truly think that the purpose of every country is to try to rule the entire world, then there would have been a nuclear holocaust as soon as any side armed with nuclear weapons realized that they could not achieve that goal.
Was it about the same time it seems it became just plain wrong to be born a white male?
As a white male, I have experienced no personal discrimination or recrimination. Quite the opposite, really. Methinks thou doth project too much.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If that's all it meant, it wouldn't be a problem. But it's actually a dog-whistle for fascism, and you fucking know it.
From one white male to another: fuck off with your bullshit feigned victimhood. It's not helping anything, least of al
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The synopsis sounds pretty ominous, but it doesn't say if anything bad at all will happen if this comes to pass.
If nothing really happens bad as a consequence of this, who really cares?
Re: (Score:2)
"Of greater concern to scientists is how the collapse of ice shelves can affect the glaciers that flow behind them, because the melting of those glaciers can cause much higher levels of ocean rise. " https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
Re: Well, damn (Score:2)
Or unlock a considerable amount of fresh water, that would visably raise sea levels world wide. It could be enough to put some landmasses underwater.
So What (Score:5, Funny)
So a chunk of ice falls into the ocean. It'll cool the ocean a bit. I though you wanted it to be colder. Make up your damned minds!
Re: (Score:2)
Meditation for the day... (Score:2)
If the ice falls into the ocean and there's only Hellen Keller around, does it make a sound?
If the ice falls on Hellen Keller, does she make a sound?
Global warming (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Not believed to be because of climate change (Score:3, Informative)
Scientists actually don't believe this particular instance to be caused by climate change. So, if people could read up a bit and post something thoughtful instead of having a knee jerk anti-Trump comment, that would be awesome.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Scientists actually don't believe this particular instance to be caused by climate change. So, if people could read up a bit ...
This seems counter-intuitive (since everything is caused by climate change). Do you have a source or link?
Re:Not believed to be because of climate change (Score:4, Interesting)
There is endless documentation about this. Even the article Slashdot linked says nothing about climate change. For a mainstream media example: http://www.usatoday.com/story/... [usatoday.com]
"There is no direct evidence to link this event to climate change, he added. Although the general ice shelf decay along the Antarctic Peninsula has been linked to a warming world, this rift appears to have been developing for many decades, and the result is likely natural, according to Project MIDAS."
Changes in the antarctic are a complicated subject, I suggest reading up before making assumptions.
Re: (Score:3)
Give us proof that the crack and the warming started before the industrial revolution and we'll believe you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not sure if you are joking, but interestingly the Antarctic has been warming up for over 50000 years (obviously, not every year, decade or century or even millennium has been warmer than the last, but the overall trend has been one of raising temperatures). However, the amount of ice on Antarctica is actually still increasing (as warming doesn't mean that it's warm).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's warm ice? Ever thought of that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
since everything is caused by climate change
Perhaps in some butterfly effect type of way, but if you turn on your oven it will get hotter in your oven, yet climate change is not a particularly meaningful factor there.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Scientists are classifying the calving as a geographic event, as opposed to a climate event. It is something that will change the Antarctic landscape and is not necessarily a result of climate change. O'Leary backs that up, saying this event "...is a natural process which occurs once every few decades (the last major event on Larsen C was in the mid-80s)."
From the article.
Re: (Score:2)
everything is caused by climate change
I'll be fascinated to learn how climate change caused you to post this utterly asinine comment.
The same way it caused yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Now there's some circular, utterly non-falsifiable reasoning. Who says climate change isn't a religion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Got a source for that, Kellyanne?
256m3 (Score:3)
Scientists actually don't believe this particular instance to be caused by climate change. So, if people could read up a bit and post something thoughtful instead of having a knee jerk anti-Trump comment, that would be awesome.
Yes, the world is divided into 256m3 chunks and z-indexed into a quadtree... at the largest chunk size no interaction occurs with adjacent chunks, this is believed to be a bug introduced by an intersection test optimisation implemented by the creator. A nice side effect is that global warming doesn't affect other things around the world.
Re: (Score:3)
256m3, quadtree, it is weird. maybe it is 256m2 squares with 1m height resolution.
With such confusing specifications, bugs are to be expected. Furthermore, this problem sounds a lot like premature optimization. And look at our world, we can't do anything without being overwhelmed by side effects. The creator certainly has good intuition but he is a lousy coder. I'd hate to work with him.
Re: (Score:2)
I read up a bit on it, and thought about it. This is on the south side of the Antarctic peninsular. 2017 is when Trump became president. If I were this IceShelf I wouldn't want to be any closer to America right now than I had to be either. It's just trying to put more distance between itself and Trump.
Ergo, Trump's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are mistaken. If you had, instead, said "Scientists actually don't believe this particular instance to be directly caused by climate change" then you'd probably have been correct, though even then you'd be better off qualifying which scientists you meant. E.g., I wouldn't count the opinion of a solid-state physics researcher as any more valid than my own. So perhaps a better phrasing would be "Scientists in the field actually don't believe this particular instance to be directly caused by cli
Re: (Score:2)
As I asked in the comment, please read up instead of giving wildly incorrect speculation based on your gut feeling. There are very good reasons I used that wording. If you believe that you know better than the scientists that spend their lives studying these issues, without even reading up on the reasoning, then you are no better than Trump who similarly denies valid research because it doesn't fit his narrative.
Big splash (Score:2)
I wonder how epic of a splash that's gonna make? I'll have to invest in a surfboard so that I can travel the world. Assuming, of course, that this doesn't cause a ginormous tsunami that wipes out all the coastal areas in the southern hemisphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it will at least be *ahem* titanic.
Thank you, thank you, try the veal :)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.sadtrombone.com/?a... [sadtrombone.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Always look on the bright side of life (Score:5, Funny)
1) Florida will be completely underwater. Not just Miami, but the "Florida Man" parts too.
2) So will large chunks of the Middle East (though admittedly they'll probably be a bit more worried about the heat than that).
3) Lots of currently undervalued inland property will become valuable beachfront areas. And without having to fire nuclear missiles at the San Andreas a la Superman!
4) Huge swathes of inhospitably cold Canadian land will be sunny, warm, and liveable, which will be good news for those of us fleeing the future American hellscape.
5) Make the Great Lakes Great Again - there will be a new Great Lake, right about where Montreal currently is. (French Canadians underwater? Bonus!)
Sure, there will be some downsides. The Netherlands will wind up completely underwater, though I'm sure they can build a wall to keep the North Sea out, since they've been doing it for decades already. Install some tidal power generation, and they can even make the North Sea pay for it, too!
Re: (Score:2)
4) Huge swathes of inhospitably cold Canadian land will be sunny, warm, and liveable swamps.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
The Netherlands will wind up completely underwater,
A whole lot of it already is. Netherlands has been completely preparing for the worst possible scenarios of global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
This looks like a job for (Score:3)
Get United Arab Emirates to sponsor hauling it ... (Score:3)
... north to flood the desert. It's something that has been talked about for decades. Now there's a opportunity!
In short (Score:3)
"Earth changes, sometimes these charges are not great for the seething mass of 7 billion hairless apes that think they're all that. News at 11."
Nevada! (Score:2)
No Thanks (Score:3)
You may have an ocean view, but it will still be Nevada.
Personal experiences (Score:3)
I spend a lot of time in the ocean and this summer it has been following the trend started in 2010 of being really cold when outside temps are 42C.
I know people are about to say that it's because I'm getting older and more sensitive however I spend an average 2 hours body surfing which means, apart from my head, I am fully immersed, treading water the whole time. I've surfed the same break for years usually about 3-5 metres deep and that has always been the same for the last 20 years. I've been in the water during winter too when it is so cold it feels like your skin is burning, so I can tolerate really cold water. My entire body tells me it is wrong for the ocean to feel the way it does now.
Second thing is bushfires. I few years ago we had bushfires go through *rainforest* and burn the roots of the trees down to about a metre below the soil line. These rainforests have been unburnt for thousands of years and are not adapted to fire as opposed to normal bush, which is adapted to fire. This has nothing to do with my personal experience because soil strata core extracts tell us that is how the rainforest has behaved for a lot longer than we have been around for.
Some people out there like to use their personal experiences as a way to falsify and invalidate the work being done to warn us that our civilization has to mend it's way.
My personal experiences tell me something quite different. They tell me the world is changing in a profound way, the work of the climate scientists explain the experiences I've had and news like this makes me wonder what is coming next.
Ice shelf collapse (Score:3)
Gorilla Tape (Score:2)
Re:Even more fake news (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of course the big money is in being a scientist. All those CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, CTOs and institutional shareholders, why they're basically peasants! Poor dears, won't someone think of the Billionaire Oil Barons?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The nations were angry,
and your wrath has come.
The time has come for judging the dead,
and for rewarding your servants the prophets
and your people who revere your name,
both great and small—
and for destroying those who destroy the earth.
NIV
Re: (Score:2)
Seems that have to do quite a lot of research & fieldwork for years & years to get to that point when they could do just as well or perhaps much better on the opposite side. Jason Box, Eric Rignot, Julienne Stroeve, et al spend a lot of time roughing it or freezing their asses off.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no AGW cabal (Score:5, Insightful)
"traditional" $100-$200 million? Traditional since when? Traditional since the 19th Century when CO2 was first recognized as a potential problem, or traditional since 1959 when it became clear that there was a global issue with rising CO2 levels? Or would that have been any time in the past two centuries when the fundamentals of atmospheric physics were being worked out?
You're arguing against AGW, by using a political argument. If you want to argue that AGW is not a serious concern then you need to do it in the language of science, not allege some sort of cabal. Roy Spencer is still getting up and delivering contrarian screeds to Congress and being lead author on the sections of the IPCC report related to his specialty -- it's not like the opposing voices aren't being heard. It's that they're not persuasive in the face of the evidence. If you don't like what the science says, do better science. This is, really and truly, a meritocracy, where reproducible results are all that matter. We can prove it, because the consensus was *against* CO2-induced warming until the 1950s, and then everyone changed their mind and no one was fired. Because we didn't have jackasses like you trying to inject politics into a scientific topic by insisting that the entire field is comprised of avaricious liars. Honestly, this is just you being intellectually lazy. Go and look up the evidence for AGW. Go read about radiative transfer equations, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the atmospheric window, carbon 14 ratios, and all the rest. When you do, come back and tell us what you think is wrong with *that*, not some irrelevant horseshit about some conspiracy of white-haired professors. The basics of AGW were worked out in 1896, and they have been supported since then by thousands and thousands of people working in cooperation around the globe since that time. We respect your right to disagree with the science; the whole point of science is to argue about models of reality. The rules of this game are mandatory and not up for debate: if you arguing against science with something other than empirical evidence, you are fighting reality itself, and you will lose. Now, do you have some novel observations on the nature of CO2 that you would like to share with us?
Re: (Score:2)
Since 1988. After Hansen's testimony in 1988, that quickly ramped up to $1-2 billion per year.
Nowhere have I argued "against AGW". AGW is clearly happening and I have never disputed that.
I don't know what you do for a living; if you fancy yourself a scien
Re: (Score:2)
Then on what grounds do you argue that the concerns are overblown? The H2O feedback is strongly positive and no negative feedback of anything close to the right magnitude exists. There's not a lot of room for situations that don't have levels of warming that we would consider to be catastrophic. As it happens, I am not a scientist, merely an empiricist, which means that I don't care about your politics one way or another. If you think you can prove whatever your assertion is about the physical world, I woul
Re: (Score:2)
In this thread, I haven't argued about AGW-related concerns at all. I simply pointed out that, contrary to what MightyMartian was implying, AGW researchers have a strong personal and financial interest in the conclusions they reach.
Otherwise, I base my thinking about the scientific aspects of AGW on the IPCC reports [wikipedia.org]; you should read them some time.
As far as I can tell, you're a loudmout
Re: (Score:2)
We're having the same discussion in two different threads. If I am a liar, prove it. If I am a fool prove me wrong. Show evidence. Cite sources. Tell me what's wrong with the research papers. Or, with all due respect, kindly consider shutting the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
You said:
"on what grounds do you argue that the concerns are overblown"
"You're arguing against AGW, by using a political argument."
Which part of Nowhere have I argued "against AGW". AGW is clearly happening and I have never disputed that. do you not understand? You keep misrepresenting my position.
I have no idea which "research papers" you are referring to. When it comes to climate change, I generally just stick to the IPCC reports. Do y
Re:There is no AGW cabal (Score:5, Insightful)
Insults are also not scientific evidence, and you saying that something is so doesn't make it true. If it's not real, prove it to me, and tell me what's wrong with the science, even if that is, "something unexplained happens in step x and we need more research into y".
I have a low tolerance for bullshit on this subject. I grew up in Alaska, and it is already ruined. It would be nice if there were any hope of putting things back to normal there, but unfortunately the science is unequivocal. So now you have burned down my home, lied about doing it, and insulted me for saying otherwise. I suppose that's only fair, but what are you going to do for an encore?
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa! What exactly is "ruined" about Alaska?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Even more fake news (Score:5, Insightful)
There would still be climatologists whether AGW was real or not. The value of tracking regional and global climate is pretty high. The actual fact is that it has been know for over a century that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would inevitably lead to more energy being trapped in the lower atmosphere. You can make all the claims you want that climatology is some of grant boon, but the fact of the matter is that is how most research works, particularly basic research.
Do you have an actual critique of the science, or is this just yet another "scientists are warped and twisted". You do understand that grants aren't just handed out based on the topic heading. Grant applications actually require researchers to make a strong argument for why the grant should be made. You act as if it is some sort of popularity contest, but I get it, you despise the research in question, hate the results it provides, but can't really debunk it, so it's time to attack the scientists. I fail to understand how defunding climate research will make human-caused climate change go away. When you're racing towards a brick wall, I know of no evidence that closing your eyes means you won't hit it.
Grow up. The universe is what it is, and CO2 has the properties it has, and not studying those properties and there large scale effects won't make those effects go away. Reality cannot be argued away.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have actual evidence of profiteering and dishonest dealing by climatologists, then by all means provide it. You're clearly making an accusation, so you must have actual evidence of this vast cabal of grant fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These numbers don't add up. The entire NSF budget (NSF is the primary federal source of funding for science research... individual state funding combined contribute around a third what the NSF does) for 2016 was just over 7 billion, with 6 billion of that for research. The allegation seems to be that about a third of that went to AWG research. I find the prospect that a third of their funds go to any single category difficult to believe without any evidence. (Reasonable minds may differ. Unreasonable minds
Re: (Score:2)
NIH is a rounding error. Funding is through about a dozen agencies. Use Google and stop asking stupid questions. It takes about a minute to find the official budgets.
Re:Even more fake news (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have any evidence at all that this is in fact a career path of any researcher? This looks more like one of those "Researchers are lazy, evil and greedy" lines of thought.
For the record, want to make lots of money, in general, don't go into the sciences. Yes, there are a few science careers that can make oodles, but for the most part, science is not a path to fame and fortune.
Re:Even more fake news (Score:4, Insightful)
AGW is supported by evidence, your statements are supported by political conjecture. We don't have to ask scientists if AGW is correct. We can look at the science, which as it happens is over 100 years old and quite mature as a field. It's wonderful of you to call an entire academic discipline liars with just some rhetorical argument though. So did these climate researchers also go back in time and jog Tyndall's hand as he measured the thermoptic characteristics of atmospheric gases? Are we missing a carbon-dioxide-eating term in our atmospheric physics equations? Or is it that this whole "greenhouse effect" thing is a liberal myth (like the moon!)? And if we are this badly wrong about how the atmosphere works, why do the atmospheric physics laws work just fine to explain the temperatures on Jupiter and in the Solar atmosphere? And if you can't answer any of these questions, why should we listen to the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the subject?
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere did I dispute that AGW is occurring. Nowhere did I call an "entire academic discipline liars".
You, however, are a liar and a blind partisan.
Onus (Score:2)
If I'm a liar, prove it. It should be as obvious as 1+1, and I will not only admit my faults with good grace, but thank you honestly from my heart. I would shed every drop of blood I have for any small comfort about the fate of my homeland. Go ahead, comfort me. Tell me how despite seventy five billion tons of ice loss per year for the last thirty years, is a good thing. Tell me how happy I should be about the tundra melting. I want to believe. In all seriousness, I would be ecstatic if there was even the s
Re: (Score:2)
If you're from one of the Nordic countries, your "homeland" is melting. The Arctic will be mostly ice free in 2100. The permafrost will be gone in large parts of the northern hemisphere. Sea levels will rise by about 2ft by 2100. Many species will go extinct. Those are the facts; learn to live with them.
I'm not "alleging" a distortion of science.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not "alleging" a distortion of science. I simply pointed out that climate scientists have strong financial stake in the conclusions they reach, nothing more and nothing less."
So either you're contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next or there is no problem here. The warming will be catastrophic, but you don't care because you think it won't affect you. For the sake of the world at large, you might want to reconsider that one.
And as an aside, the "research papers" I mentioned would obviously be the foundational evidence for the theory. The IPCC is an excellent summary of current understanding, but it's not really possible to discuss the evidence for the theory without
Re: (Score:3)
The statement was that rural Alaska was beset by grinding poverty. As in, the thousands of communities only reachable by bush plane, although technically in Alaska the term is applied to all but the three largest cities (Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau). The population of Juneau is about 30,000. Fully half of the State's citizens live in the Greater Anchorage Area (ANC+Mat-Su), and the overwhelming majority of economic activity is concentrated in due proportion in these three major cities. The smaller Alaskan
Re:Even more fake news (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, it's all just a big conspiracy in order to keep otherwise worthless scientists employed. When climate changes never happens you can be smugly satisfied.
On the other hand if when we're relocating major cities because of the encroaching wasteland, we'll be sure to send assholes like you to the bottom of the ocean.
Re:Even more fake news (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it's just the National Review passing along an "expose" by The Daily Mail [youtube.com]. This is the same "newspaper" that claimed a 63 year-old woman became pregnant with baby squid after eating calimari.
If you look into the objections, they're rubbish. The paper in question (Karl et al [sciencemag.org]) is part of an ongoing back-and-forth by scientists over the degree of warming post-1998, so if it is part of a conspiracy by the scientific establishment to cover up contrary data it's a pretty lame conspiracy because it let both sides of the data out.
As for Karl et al, it's a highly technical paper, but to cut to the chase the reason it has the denialists in an uproar is that it proposes a method that erases their precious, cherry-picked post '98 "hiatus". That hiatus didn't exist if you smoothed the data or chose any other starting point but the record setting '98, and it was was blown away by 2014-2016 anyhow. So this is beating a dead horse that was barely alive to begin with. The method in the Karl paper also suggests that the rate of warming since the early 20th C is actually lower than previously believed. Alarmist!
The thing about this kind of bullshit response is that the attraction of a conspiracy theory is that it's quick and easy to understand, as long as you don't try to square it with actual events. People find CTs credible because it says the people bearing bad news are out to get them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So why did the Chinese just sink a shit-ton of money into Solar energy?
Maybe the Chinese aren't concerned about global warming, but something else. I'm thinking solar is probably a good alternative to burning coal if most of your cities look like this [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Even more fake news (Score:4, Informative)
So you mean pollution from burning fossil fuels....
Yes, but the pragmatic goal is air quality, not stopping AGW. That is probably more of a side-effect as opposed to the primary motivator.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Pollution and CO2 are different things. Coal sucks for both, but especially for pollution. Plus, China really wants energy autonomy (and I agree that's a great goal for any nation). I'd like to see the US do more mixed-solar (solar when the Sun is out, natural gas otherwise) plants for just this reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Millions of years ago continents broke apart, volcanoes erupted, shit fell from the sky and killed everyone
And here you are, getting upset about a slashdot article.
Re: (Score:2)
damn sticky mouse, negating an inadvertent mod
Re: (Score:3)
If you want that kind of dynasty .. I hear travel isn't banned to and from Saudi. Feel free.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh ohhh someone's a little triggered. Did you forget to take your nap today, bud?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on exactly how you mean that, and which scientists. Some of them are concerned because it means that walking around where they're studying is a bit dangerous. Others because their climate model didn't predict this happening so soon. Others because when an ice shelf breaks off, it stops slowing down the movement of the glaciers currently on land out onto the ocean. Others because.... well, there are lots of reasons, and lots of degrees of concern. One base/lab/residence had to be dragged a long
Re:Who cares? (Score:4)
Similarly the children of a hoarder can just build a wall around it.
Its no worse a challenge than building a wall along the Canada-Australia border.
Simple solutions for simple problems. And if that doesn't work, sign an executive order to do something about it. Heck, maybe a few tweets can fix the crack.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Australia moved about 15 years ago [satirewire.com].