backtop


Print 232 comment(s) - last by AlexWade.. on Apr 24 at 12:50 PM


The collapse of 220 square miles, or 4 percent of the current surface area, of the Wilkins Ice Shelf can be seen in NASA satellite photos.  (Source: NASA)

The British Antarctic Survey shot this picture showing that the backside of the shelf is "hanging on by a thread" and is on the verge of full collapse.  (Source: Jim Elliott/British Antarctic Survey)

In Greenland, water pours into the sea as glaciers melt at an unprecedented pace.  (Source: NASA)
Another sign of global warming rears its ugly head

While North America remains just on the edge of spring, just feeling the last vestiges of winter, in the southern hemisphere the summer is just about to end.  This time of year in Antarctica is the time at which the effects of the summer’s warmth are most seen in terms of melting. 

This week the British Antarctic Survey gave a shocking report that 220 square miles of ice collapsed and that the Wilkins Ice Shelf, an ice shelf the size of Connecticut, was "hanging by a thread".  The British Antarctic Survey blames global warming for these turn of events and says that its witnessed an undeniable increase in melting and temperatures despite what critics may say.

Professor Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, believes that such events are only beginning.  He states, "We are in for a lot more events like this."

Scambos first detected the breakup, which started in February, on NASA satellite images and called up the British Antarctic Society to investigate.  Scambos says that February, the last month of summer, is when the most heating stress on ice shelves occurs.  Scambos emphasizes the impressive nature of the event, stating, "The amazing thing was, we saw it within hours of it beginning, in between the morning and the afternoon pictures of that day."

The British Antarctic Survey also points out that a decade ago; the Wilkins Ice Shelf already lost about six percent of its ice surface.  More may soon be breaking off, according to the Survey.  The group says, "As of mid-March, only a narrow strip of shelf ice was protecting several thousand kilometers of potential further breakup."

The total ice shelf's area is currently at about 5,282 square miles, placing the February loss at about four percent.  The British Antarctic Survey used aircraft to assess the ice shelf and melting from an aerial view.  Jim Elliott, a researcher with the Survey states, "We flew along the main crack and observed the sheer scale of movement from the breakage.  Big hefty chunks of ice, the size of small houses, look as though they've been thrown around like rubble -- it's like an explosion."

The breakup is a landmark event according to the Survey, and the largest to date.  David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey noted on the group's site, "Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened.  I didn't expect to see things happen this quickly. The ice shelf is hanging by a thread -- we'll know in the next few days or weeks what its fate will be."

Fortunately, ice shelves are already floating, so the break-up will not affect world sea levels.  For the most part, Scambos says this breakup will have minimal effects on tourist ship routes and wildlife.  He states on the latter, "Wildlife will be impacted, but they are pretty adept at dealing with a topsy-turvy world.  The ecosystem is pretty resilient."

Among the Antarctic ice shelves which already collapsed are Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and Jones.  Larsen B, which collapsed in 2002, was particularly large, being almost the size of Rhode island, and was among the events referenced in Al Gore's movie an Inconvenient Truth, which won him the Nobel Peace Prize

The western Antarctic Peninsula, the piece of the continent stretching out towards South America, has received more warming than anywhere else on Earth, according to scientists.  Its temperature has risen approximately 0.9 degrees F per decade for the last 50 years.  Scambos warns that polar warming may have serious consequences, stating, "Even though they seem far away, changes in the polar regions could have an impact on both hemispheres, with sea level rise and changes in climate patterns."

The news of the breakup follows hot on the heels of a new United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report, which states that the world's glaciers are melting at a record rate.  According to UNEP, "Data from close to 30 reference glaciers in nine mountain ranges indicate that between the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 the average rate of melting and thinning more than doubled."

UNEP states that the worst melting occurred in Europe, devastating the ski industry.  Norway's Breidalblikkbrea glacier was the hardest hit, losing 10 feet of snow and ice in 2006, after only losing a foot the year prior.

Greenland has also been experiencing severe melts according to recent NASA research.  Researchers stated in 2005 that Greenland's glaciers are dumping 200 gigatons of water into the ocean per year.  UNEP's report indicates this may have worsened with record melts in 2006. 

A research camp on the ice sheet reports that temperatures rose 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 30 years -- more than double the world average.  The researchers are studying how the melting will affect the local population and the effects that it might have on the world in general.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

More ice
By cochy on 3/28/2008 12:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
How does this relate to reports that total ice coverage in Antarctica were at records highs just some months ago?

Should we blame global warming for that as well?




RE: More ice
By eye smite on 3/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: More ice
By James Holden on 3/28/2008 12:59:05 PM , Rating: 5
This is Antartic. What's a difference of planetary poles among friends though.


RE: More ice
By Owls on 3/28/2008 1:05:14 PM , Rating: 5
Iceberg breakup?

I'm ready to Tanqueray!


RE: More ice
By Ammohunt on 3/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: More ice
By JKflipflop98 on 3/29/2008 9:01:38 AM , Rating: 2
What if we find some ancient temple under all that ice? I'd want my condo right next to it.


RE: More ice
By DASQ on 3/31/2008 3:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
Facehugger Blvd?

Not exactly hot real estate, I'd think.


RE: More ice
By James Holden on 3/28/2008 12:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure Masher has a few things to say about this. I'm guessing these ice sheets are small in comparison to the rest of Antartica


RE: More ice
By TheDoc9 on 3/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: More ice
By cochy on 3/28/2008 12:58:54 PM , Rating: 4
Sorry gonna go watch some kids playing on mountains of "Global Warming" during the final days of March.


RE: More ice
By VahnTitrio on 3/28/2008 1:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well this March is 10 degrees cooler in Minnesota than last March was. Global temperatures don't vary much so that warm air has to be somewhere, and I think we found it. I could really go for some rapid global warming about now, winter has been sticking around forever.


RE: More ice
By Polynikes on 3/28/2008 1:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, it's the end of March in upstate NY and we just got 3 or 4 inches of snow dumped on us last night. What the heck?


RE: More ice
By Samus on 3/28/2008 1:29:42 PM , Rating: 1
Yea, but yesterday it was like 60 degrese. It's these extremes that demonstrate global warmings impact.

We're not suppose to have snow and freezing temperatures one day then 60' and sunny the next, then freezing and snowing the next, etc. Climate instability is one of the most concerning side effects of global warming because it causes massive damage to concrete, underground piping, etc.


RE: More ice
By cochy on 3/28/2008 1:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
Where's the proof that Global warming causes extreme climate instability? Then where's the proof that humanity's contributions to green house gases cause this?


RE: More ice
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2008 2:01:05 PM , Rating: 4
Al Gore said so. Manbearpig told him to.

All hail Manbearpig!


RE: More ice
By sdsdv10 on 3/29/2008 8:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
Listen to him, he is totally serial!


RE: More ice
By nstott on 3/31/2008 7:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
OK, FITCamaro, but can we leave Michael Moore out of this? :D


RE: More ice
By mxnerd on 3/28/2008 2:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
It's really pathetic so many people keeps denying global warming and denying the human's causes.

Since U.S. consumes 1/5 of oil on earth daily and 40% of wood of the whole world yearly, a big portion of Americans just keeps denying it, no matter majority of the scientists have showned the studies, the statistics, the pictures.

Even with pictures in front of them, they probaly can still claim that it's aliens who cause this.

How about Katrina, the flood of Mississippi reiver happening now, probably no water to drink in Southern California in just afew years, and Alps ski area is getting smaller and smaller, ice in north pole and south pole is disappearing.

Evidence is everywhere. You just don't want to admit it.


RE: More ice
By FITCamaro on 3/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: More ice
By ObiDon on 3/28/2008 2:40:41 PM , Rating: 4
check your quote again... we're using 100% of earths oil every 5 days! ;)


RE: More ice
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2008 2:45:15 PM , Rating: 1
EVEN MORE AMAZING!


RE: More ice
By mxnerd on 3/28/2008 3:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
English is not my native language, but you know what I mean.

If you want to critcise my grammer, I have no problem with that.


RE: More ice
By gramboh on 3/28/2008 2:53:55 PM , Rating: 5
He obviously means 1/5 of global daily consumption.


RE: More ice
By phattyboombatty on 3/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: More ice
By mxnerd on 3/28/2008 3:55:16 PM , Rating: 2
English is not my native language, but you know what I mean.

If you want to critcise my grammer, I have no problem with that.


RE: More ice
By HOOfan 1 on 3/29/2008 2:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
maybe he means it like a half-life

We use 1/5 on 1 day...then 1/5 of the remainder the next day and so on and so on.


RE: More ice
By hubajube on 3/28/2008 2:41:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Evidence is everywhere. You just don't want to admit it.
You're a funny guy. Sounds like something I'd say.


RE: More ice
By hubajube on 3/28/2008 2:44:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
probably no water to drink in Southern California in just afew years
I don't care I'm on a private well.


RE: More ice
By ObiDon on 3/28/2008 2:49:09 PM , Rating: 5
that's funny! you just reminded me of the picture of the guy holding up a cardboard sign that says "who needs oil? i ride the bus!"


RE: More ice
By hubajube on 3/28/2008 6:49:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"who needs oil? i ride the bus!"
What's funny is that the water that SoCAL is claiming to be on the verge of running out (for the last 30 years) and my water aren't from the same source. Like I said, PRIVATE well meaning not shared and not public. Considering that I just raised my pump 75 feet, I'm in no danger whatsoever of running out of water. Thank you, come again.


RE: More ice
By rebturtle on 3/28/2008 9:55:43 PM , Rating: 3
So I assume that you don't buy any commercial goods and you grow all your own food? Do you really think that if the world starts having issues you won't be affected just because you're on a well? If there's less rainfall, where do you expect to get groundwater from?

That's alright, sit in your bunker all day while the voices remind you to clean your guns.....You may want to check your well for lead content.


RE: More ice
By callmeroy on 3/31/2008 1:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's funny is that the water that SoCAL is claiming to be on the verge of running out (for the last 30 years) and my water aren't from the same source. Like I said, PRIVATE well meaning not shared and not public. Considering that I just raised my pump 75 feet, I'm in no danger whatsoever of running out of water. Thank you, come again.


First of all I don't believe the BS that SoCal is out of drinkable water anytime soon.

Secondly, don't get too prideful with your "private" things in this country -- ultimately in cases of emergency the government has the right to cease even "PRIVATE" things (land, homes, water sources, etc.).

Just so you don't think if the need arised your "private well" would really still be "private".


RE: More ice
By callmeroy on 3/31/2008 1:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
oh and I forgot....

even if SoCal did run out of water I'm with the other guy -- so where's the downside to that?

;)


RE: More ice
By BarkHumbug on 3/31/2008 8:55:20 AM , Rating: 2
Good for you. Now, if you could only be on a private tech site as well...


RE: More ice
By cochy on 3/28/2008 2:49:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
How about Katrina, the flood of Mississippi reiver happening now, probably no water to drink in Southern California in just afew years, and Alps ski area is getting smaller and smaller, ice in north pole and south pole is disappearing.


There's no proof any of that is caused by anything you'd associate with "Global Warming" or "Climate Crisis". I'm not denying anything besides the fact that people like you claim false facts or claim theories as proven. They are not. All I will claim is that we are quite ignorant still on the Global climate system and that I'd like rhetoric such as yours to go away.


RE: More ice
By phattyboombatty on 3/28/2008 2:55:00 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, you'd think that there was never a hurricane or flooding prior to 2005.


RE: More ice
By mcturkey on 3/29/2008 1:24:38 PM , Rating: 5
I am highly skeptical that global warming is caused predominantly by human actions. However, we cannot prove it either way. Thus, it is extremely prudent that we take action to curb any possible contribution we may be having to the problem. Even if it is proven that humans aren't causing the current global climate changes, we will have at least cleaned up a lot of pollution that we know for a fact we've caused.

Without time travel to place monitoring systems around the globe to record a million years of climate change, we will not be able to determine with 100% certainty that humans are responsible. That debate is irrelevant to me. What does matter is, what can we do to ensure that it's not us causing any more damage?


RE: More ice
By masher2 on 3/29/2008 11:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "Even if it is proven that humans aren't causing the current global climate changes, we will have at least cleaned up a lot of pollution"

I hear this a lot as justification for action. However, there are several serious problems with this attitude, not the least of which is that reducing CO2 often stands in conflict with reducing pollution. For instance, our current emissions controls on cars have cut levels of dangerous pollutants such as VOCs, NOx, and particulates to a tiny fraction of what they were 30 years ago. However, they lower engine mileage, and thus they increase CO2 emissions. Personally, I find clean air in our cities a good thing, despite their "carbon unfriendly" status.

Or take biofuels. They were sold to us as an easy means to reduce carbon emissions....but they're now one of the planet's major sources of deforestation, and are not only causing far more environmental damage than an equivalent amount of fossil fuels, they're also likely resulting in higher overall levels of greenhouse gases, rather than less.

> "it is extremely prudent that we take action to curb any possible contribution we may be having "

It is certainly prudent to take certain actions, such as increased research to determine what effects, if any, we're actually having. And that is, in fact, exactly what most scientific bodies are recommending we do.

It is not prudent, though, to spend tens of trillions of dollars on a problem which not only may not exist, but even if it does, is very likely to be less dangerous and costly than the so-called "solution".


RE: More ice
By nstott on 3/31/2008 1:49:55 AM , Rating: 3
All the ice is melting so we're running out of water! Don't you get it?! Yeah, me neither...


RE: More ice
By Mojo the Monkey on 3/28/2008 3:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
probably no water to drink in Southern California in just afew years


right, i live in socal. our 2-year-away water crisis has been looming for 30 years now. i'm not worried.


RE: More ice
By Screwballl on 3/28/2008 3:26:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's really pathetic so many people keeps denying global warming and denying the human's causes.

Humans have little to no impact on the environment. Almost every study has proven this. It is those that "cherry pick" data to support their warming cause (such as Al Gore) that is causing more damage than good. when the mean temperature at any given location when averaged over the past 50 years, yes it may show an increase since the 40s-50s were at the valley or low end of the warming trend. when you take into account the past 100 or 1000 years, we are pretty much on the normal heating then cooling then heating trend, We just happen to be coming to the height of a natural warming trend that has been happening long before man became industrialized.
Try this on for size: the earth goes through normal heating and cooling. there can be a 5ºF temperature difference between the coolest and warmest time period on a small scale of 50-100 years. Expand that to 500-1000 years and there can be a 10ºf difference. This means the difference between a green Greenland and an ice covered Greenland. Prior to the 13th century, norse vikings and sea traders were able to farm and ranch on a very green and lush island we now know as Greenland. Around 1300 the summers got cooler and less dependable. This continued its downslide until the peak around 1600 where Greenland and much of the surrounding water was ice pack almost year round. By the middle of the 19th century, it was over and began the warming trend. So around 2200 we can expect to see Greenland as a lush farming and ranching island once again at which point it starts cooling again and by 2500 it will be covered by ice as will many of the surrounding oceans.
This is normal earthwide heating and cooling.

quote:
Since U.S. consumes 1/5 of oil on earth daily and 40% of wood of the whole world yearly, a big portion of Americans just keeps denying it, no matter majority of the scientists have showned the studies, the statistics, the pictures.

Yes they have proven with their studies, statistics and pictures that this is a normal trend with our planet and man has had maybe 0.00000000000000001% of an impact on the weather or anything else.

quote:
Even with pictures in front of them, they probaly can still claim that it's aliens who cause this.
Only scientologists...

quote:
How about Katrina, the flood of Mississippi reiver happening now, probably no water to drink in Southern California in just afew years, and Alps ski area is getting smaller and smaller, ice in north pole and south pole is disappearing.

Katrina was a hurricane, same as Ivan and Dennis and Jeanne and the other thousands and thousands that have his the US and the orient for millenia. Their strength goes up and down depending on the conditions along their path. If the central US had a few months of very wet weather and flooded the Mississippi like what is happening this year, any storm that forms in the Gulf will be weak, or at least weaker then if the flooding did not happen. Cooler water flowing into the gulf weakens storms. So Katrina would have been a Cat 2 or 3 instead of a 4 or 5 when it hit. Still very strong and massive damage.
The Mississippi river flooding is due to rain. Look at how often rivers flood. They have flat land around them for miles and miles that has been flattened by flood waters over the past few millenia. Again, this is nature, not warming.
California water? What is to be expected at the edge of or in a desert? Rainforests and water galore? Add on top of the lack of much watter the millions and millions of people living there and you go from a little water available to none. Time to get some desalinization plants going.

quote:
Evidence is everywhere. You just don't want to admit it.
You're right, evidence is everywhere, just not in yours or Al Gore's favor.


RE: More ice
By hubajube on 3/28/2008 3:33:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
California water? What is to be expected at the edge of or in a desert?
I don't think a lot people realize that most of California is a desert right up to the edge of the ocean. Hell, I didn't know until I moved out here. We're consistently the driest place in the US. How many other places get single digit humidity readings?


RE: More ice
By goku on 3/29/2008 5:59:16 AM , Rating: 3
Nevada? Arizona? New Mexico?


RE: More ice
By RonLugge on 3/29/2008 10:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, you mean thats unusual? :D

I've only lived here my whole life, so I really wouldn't know...


RE: More ice
By dluther on 3/28/2008 5:50:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Humans have little to no impact on the environment. Almost every study has proven this. It is those that "cherry pick" data to support their warming cause


Unfortunately, it is the skeptics that "cherry pick" the data and reports to support their claims that the "A" in AGW simply cannot happen. Again, this is not the case as stated by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. I don't need to post a link here as I'm pretty sure you've got it bookmarked by now.

quote:
Yes they have proven with their studies, statistics and pictures that this is a normal trend with our planet and man has had maybe 0.00000000000000001% of an impact on the weather or anything else.


No, "they" haven't definitively proven anything. All "they" have done is to put some anecdotal evidence together in support of their preferred outcome.

quote:
You're right, evidence is everywhere, just not in yours or Al Gore's favor.

I really can understand your abject terror at the mention of change. After all "conservative" by definition means "opposed to change", so it shouldn't come as a surprise that you bristle at the very thought of someone telling you to get out of your comfort zone and make some fundamental changes. Alcoholics don't like to be told to quit drinking and smokers don't like to be told to stop smoking. You're displaying all the same signs and protests of an addict.

Just remember, it wasn't all that long ago that prominent scientists provided studies and proof contrary to what everyone knew: smoking is bad. AGW skeptics are in the same boat.


RE: More ice
By hubajube on 3/28/2008 6:55:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I really can understand your abject terror at the mention of change.
And I can understand your abject terror of dying via suicide bomber. If you really feel this is a priority, change your own life. People will only change if they feel a need to. It can't be coerced, bullied, or forced. It only happens naturally. And I mean really, coming on the internet trying to change others points of view? It's futile at best.


RE: More ice
By dluther on 3/28/2008 10:59:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And I can understand your abject terror of dying via suicide bomber.

Then you really don't know your shit from Shinola. And really, where the hell did *that* whole litany of oral spewage come from? I mean come on -- "terrorists" -- is that the best you can do? Is that really all you people have?

quote:
People will only change if they feel a need to.

More correctly, people will only change if they feel it is in their best interests.

quote:
It can't be coerced, bullied, or forced. It only happens naturally.

One word: legislation.

quote:
And I mean really, coming on the internet trying to change others points of view? It's futile at best.

And what would you consider what you're doing?


RE: More ice
By Durrr on 3/30/2008 10:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
you people... YOU PEOPLE!? YOU MEAN MIDGETS!?!


RE: More ice
By Screwballl on 3/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: More ice
By Hans Jenny died 4U on 3/30/2008 3:26:33 PM , Rating: 3
Good idea. We should all get our Science form “Heartland Institute,” a public policy think-tank funded by the fossil fuel industry. See: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartla...

You should have included a link to junkscience.com and the Fox News. All of these agents have a voice in public debate; just don’t equate political propaganda with science.

We have had 1000’s of scientist working on this complex problem publishing in dozens of journals for 20 years. Human forced climate change is a real concern and wishing it away will not fix it. As a pragmatic environmentalist I believe that part of the solution will be better technology created by the amazing ingenuity and creativity of humans. I was hoping Daily Tech might be a place to find info on these tech solutions. Sadly it is not.

I would recommend you to visit www.realclimate.org/, a blog run by climate scientists, for a balanced, “science digest” approach to the information.


RE: More ice
By masher2 on 3/30/2008 4:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
> " a public policy think-tank funded by the fossil fuel industry"

Please don't spread disinformation. The Heartland institute has over 2200 different donors, and less than 5% of their total funding comes from energy companies...a better record than Al Gore, in fact.

As for "Sourcewatch", it is an organization which exists solely to dig up dirt on any scientist or organization skeptical of global warming. For "a small fee", Sourcewatch will gladly deploy its well-financed supporters to locate and/or fabricate information to discredit anyone who fails to toe the party line. If you don't need priority service, they'll even work for free.

They are truly a low point in both the climate debate and human behaviour in general.


RE: More ice
By Hans Jenny died 4U on 3/31/2008 9:31:15 AM , Rating: 2
What ever the percentage of funding, 50% or 5%, they are not a scientific organization or a trusted source for scientific information.

Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland's 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/363/309...


RE: More ice
By masher2 on 3/31/2008 10:25:13 AM , Rating: 2
> "Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor"

Once again, please stop spreading disinformation. Buchholtz was never an "executive" at ExxonMobil. He worked as a Govt. issues advisor for Exxon...and then worked as a Govt. relations advisor for Heartland. Pretty much the same job, isn't it?

This is the most dirt you can fling? Out of 40+ people on staff, including the President, chairman, several directors, science advisors, and a dozen policy analysts, you find one minor person who used to work for Exxon? And you believe that instantly discredits all their statements?

Well, easier than using one's brain, I suppose. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.


RE: More ice
By Screwballl on 3/31/2008 11:01:39 PM , Rating: 1
wow really... can I create my own website and find some bogus links to other websites to show that Al Gore has 3 eyes? How about other links showing that DailyTech is funded by a hidden UN fund specifically to release information about how modern technology is causing global warming?

Come on, give REAL info based in reality, not some bogus website with lies and misinformation, ok Al Gore???


RE: More ice
By clovell on 3/31/2008 12:11:41 PM , Rating: 1
'Skeptics' want an open debate, not jerks who side with you that run around calling us flat-earthers for taking a critical look at the science that rubs against the grain of the concensus.

So, don't quote the UN IPCC as gospel. How many people remember the storay a couple months ago about UN's lies about AIDS in Africa? Surely the UN wouldn't fabricate data in pursuit of a 'worthy' cause over politics...

Aside from those two points, there's little else of substance in your post that bears any response.


RE: More ice
By rcc on 3/31/2008 2:10:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
After all "conservative" by definition means "opposed to change",


Yup, that's not cherrypicking, nooo. Ok, I went to an online freebee dictionary and found.

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

Part of one of those is your answer, but the whole definition is so much more.

Perhaps it would be simpler to remember it as conservative = don't go off half cocked.


RE: More ice
By kilkennycat on 3/30/2008 4:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So around 2200 we can expect to see Greenland as a lush farming and ranching island once again at which point it starts cooling again and by 2500 it will be covered by ice as will many of the surrounding oceans.


Not to worry. By 2200, the human race will have become extinct having nuked itself fighting over the last available energy resources.


RE: More ice
By rcc on 3/28/2008 3:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
probably no water to drink in Southern California in just afew years


Dunno, but every time the ocean warms up here, we get record rains. Which is a pain as well, but we'll cope.

You know that if the caps melt and temperatures rise, there is more moisture pretty much everywhere? The earth won't turn into a desert for a few million years.... a jungle maybe. : )


RE: More ice
By clovell on 3/31/2008 12:05:29 PM , Rating: 1
Katrina isn't evidence of AGW, you jackass. Katrina was a result of ENSO, not global warming - ask any meteorologist that knows a thing or two about hurricanes.

Rivers are flooding because we had record snowfall in most of the country. Ice in the antarctic is not disappearing, there's actually more of it.

Furthermore, science isn't decided by a majority (or pictures, or blithely waving around consumption stats) - it's decided by evidence, which isn't all that conclusive upon scrutiny.

Yeah, the evidence is everywhere - you're just too blinded by your own stupidity to see that it doesn't fit with your unyielding view.


RE: More ice
By AlexWade on 4/24/2008 12:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like the evidence that the Antarctic sea ice is much above normal right. In fact, globally sea ice is above normal right now even WITH the large loss of ice in the Arctic. What about the evidence that it snowed in South Africa for the first time in 50 years. What about the evidence that many parts of North America had the most snow on record. And the evidence that Vancouver had its latest snowfall, ever. Or the evidence that it snowed in Baghdad and twice in Jerusalem this winter. Or the evidence that the founder of Weather Channel here in the US wants to sue Al Gore. And the evidence that most meteorologists (scientists whose income isn't dependent on problems) say climate change is a joke.

No my friend, the evidence says global warming is non-existent. Facts are Al Gore's worst nightmare. Which is why all climate change believers are selective with their "facts".


RE: More ice
By bupkus on 3/28/2008 6:37:17 PM , Rating: 3
You call that proof? Now, here's a proof! <Pulls Crocdundee knife from holster>

That ain't proof... no, that isn't either... nope, not that... I'll take the Kung Pow beef, right there, next to the "hardly explains anything".


RE: More ice
By ebakke on 3/28/2008 2:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're not suppose to have snow and freezing temperatures one day then 60' and sunny the next, then freezing and snowing the next, etc.


Says who? You? Give me proof or give me silence.


RE: More ice
By hubajube on 3/28/2008 3:38:33 PM , Rating: 3
I kind of like it quiet. To the person you quoted, you must have never been to California. Where I live we have a daytime high of 70 and a night time low of 35. That's normal for here. In the LA area, it can be 100 degrees in Burbank and 65 in Malibu. That's a 40 degree difference in 35 miles. And that's NOT abnormal. It happens quite a bit especially in the summer.


RE: More ice
By clovell on 3/31/2008 12:16:33 PM , Rating: 1
That's more of an idication of an Urban Heat Island effect that would confound a lot of AGW models, and lower the significance of any anthroprogenic factors.


RE: More ice
By rcc on 3/31/2008 2:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's merely living near the coast with a prevailing onshore breeze. The heat gradient on a normal day is anywhere from 15-35 degrees F for the first 20 miles inland. Unless of course there is a Santa Ana wind blowing, then the gradient drops dramatically with all the temperatures spiking from the wind off the desert.

For the record, the native environment for most of coastal/semicoastal SoCal is chaparral, not desert. Not that that means it's much easier to live here without importing water, but it is different.


RE: More ice
By bupkus on 3/28/2008 6:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
Proof?! You want proof? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF!!!


RE: More ice
By weskurtz0081 on 3/28/2008 2:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly you have never experienced weather in Texas. Go inside, it 80 degrees outside, come out 20 minutes later and it 30-40. Go to sleep while in the 40-50's, wake up the next day to have it get up to the 70's-80's. Just because it might be abnormal where you are, doesn't mean it has anything to do with man's effect on the climate.


RE: More ice
By VahnTitrio on 3/28/2008 3:49:40 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, people on the coast have very moderated temperatures. I had a friend call me sometime in February and he said people were claiming it would be ridiculously cold, all the way down to single digits. I promptly reminded him that on that day the high temperature warmed all the way up to single digits above zero. The 24 hour temp change that day was about 50 degrees.


RE: More ice
By Sandok on 3/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: More ice
By phattyboombatty on 3/28/2008 3:59:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
What would it hurt to be greener (if every country does it, everyone's economy is hit so that ain't a true argument either)

The problem is that not every country will do it.


RE: More ice
By cochy on 3/28/2008 4:09:43 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not an American I'm a Canadian and I'm happy my country stepped out of Kyoto? Why you wonder? Because Kyoto doesn't work. When was it signed? How are the member countries doing on those targets? hmmm? I'd rather my country come up with it's own plan for the environment that's actually viable.

I love the idea of "green" technologies. I hate dependence on oil. I'd love to drive an electric car, maybe hydrogen fuel cell, bring it on.

I don't read those websites you quote, and I do not feel we are playing "chicken" with the climate. What I do feel is that the Earth's climate is not doing anything is hasn't done already in the past and is doing just fine. It's going to get warmer and there's nothing people can do about it so stop worrying and start preparing for a different climate. It's also going to get colder so better get contingency plans for another ice age.


RE: More ice
By wookie1 on 3/28/2008 4:39:31 PM , Rating: 4
Well, it's a ton of money spent for no gain. You mention the Kyoto protocol, and mention that it's not so bad if everyone joins the effort. It's clear from the Kyoto protocol that not everyone will join the effort. I believe that China already passed the US as the leading greenhouse gas emitter, yet they are not required to do anything. That means that if the US imposes controls that make it more expensive to produce things, it will cost even more than making them in China. Then, more stuff gets made in China, producing even more gases. But it doesn't really matter anyway, since none of the signatories to the protocol are even close to meeting the targets. I guess nobody wants to be the first economy to crumble.


RE: More ice
By mxnerd on 3/31/2008 3:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
China probably has same CO2 emission amount as U.S. now.

However, they have 1.3 billion people, yet U.S has only 0.3 billion, so in regards of per capita emsission, U.S. is still 4 times more than China.

I would rather spend some money on research to develop new technology to reduce energy consumption / CO2 / greenhouse emission, instead spending over $800 billion per year on nonsense war for the sole interest of oil companies, and results in more than 150,000 death.


RE: More ice
By mxnerd on 3/31/2008 3:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
Correction: $80 billion per year for Iraq war.


RE: More ice
By masher2 on 3/31/2008 4:18:52 PM , Rating: 1
> "China probably has same CO2 emission amount as U.S. now."

China's emissions exceeded the US last year. Given their far higher growth rate, within a couple decades, China is expected to nearly double US emissions.

> "in regards of per capita emsission, U.S. is still 4 times more than China."

The US isn't even in the top 10 list of emissions per-capita. Countries like Qatar, Kuwait, Luxembourg, and even Canada beat the US.

> "instead spending over $800 billion per year on nonsense war "

If you're talking about the IRaq War, the GAO estimate the total cost to date at some $600B. That works out to roughly $120B/year....or about 1/8 of what we spend on Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid each year.


RE: More ice
By mxnerd on 3/31/2008 9:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
You are hilarious.

Yes, every country should have their share of global warming responsibility.

However, Qatar has less than 650,000 people, Luxembourg has less than 500,000 people, and you put them in the same position as U.S. & Canada?


RE: More ice
By masher2 on 3/31/2008 10:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm merely trying to hold you to a consistent standard. When I point out China's emissions are larger than the US, you say total emissions don't matter -- it's per capita emissions that count.

But when I point out the US is nowhere near the lead in per-capita emissions either, you switch back to saying total emissions are what's important.

So which one is it? In either case, though, the US is not in the lead.


RE: More ice
By Iketh on 3/29/2008 1:56:44 AM , Rating: 1
wow ok...

in early and late winter here in florida, we consistently get 40s overnight and 70s in afternoon


RE: More ice
By puckalicious on 3/28/2008 2:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
I live in SE Michigan, and it snows EVERY YEAR in March and April. People just have short memories.

We've had near record snowfall this year, but never had more than 6-8" on the ground at one time. Lots of freezing/thawing this year means the roads are cratered worse than the moon.


RE: More ice
By SectionEight on 3/28/2008 3:20:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We've had near record snowfall this year


so that means this year was the one of the highest snowfalls counted in what, the last 150 years? We had record snowfall here in Wisconsin too, which may or may not have been the most snow we've received since the area was under an ice sheet a mile thick 18,000 years ago. The snowfall records between 18,000 years ago and the mid-18th century are missing for some reason.


RE: More ice
By fenderkb76 on 3/29/2008 10:14:43 AM , Rating: 2
So I guess if it doesn't directly affect you, then it isn't happening. I am by no means diehard liberal, I'm a Republican, but I can't deny what I've seen with my own two eyes. I live in Virginia and there has definitely been a climate change in my lifetime. When I was in sixth grade, we had 60 inches of snow that winter, which really wasn't all that much above normal. We would get many snows of 6+ inches per year with a big snow of more than a foot at least every other year. That has slowly dwindled to the point where we have averaged less than 6 inches per year over the last several years. The trees seem to bud out earlier each March as well. I don't believe that global warming is accelerating as fast as the main theory says, but it is happening. There was a previous article on Dailytech indicating that Global Warming would stop at 2-3 degrees celcius because the atmosphere is not infinitely thick. It also theorized that we would see temperature spikes like the one we've had over the last 10 years. I tend to by into this theory. You can't deny facts and haven't 8 of the last 10 years been the warmest on record? It can be proven that CO2 does warm the atmosphere and that we are large producers of this gas.

What really concerns me is how the changes seem to affect the poles more. Of course, most people don't live at the poles and therefore, aren't directly affected by this. I think we all will be affected in the future as this continues. I'm particularly concerned with Greenland. 2-3 degrees Celcius there will make a huge impact. That is one massive icepack.


RE: More ice
By JustTom on 3/30/2008 10:05:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When I was in sixth grade, we had 60 inches of snow that winter, which really wasn't all that much above normal.


60 inches of precipitation in a winter was normal? The long term yearly percipitation averages of Virginia is less than 43 inches.

The winter average for a 100 year period is about 10 inches.

I don't know where you live in Virginia so I chose Raonoke as a data point. The highest precipitation levels between the years 1970 and 2000 for the months of December, January, Febuary are 5.61 (1983), 8.00 (1998), and 7.91(1993).

Going back a bit for the years 1960-1990 the highest levels for December, January, and Febuary would be 5.61 (1983), 5.37 (1979), and 7.80 (1975).

The highest yearly was 54.34 inches in 1989 a good deal away from 60 inches.

http://www.sercc.com/cgi-bin/sercc/cliMAIN.pl?va72...


RE: More ice
By AntiM on 3/28/2008 1:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
Some scientist have speculated that this rapid warming is a portent to the beginning of the next ice age. Whether or not global warming is caused by human activity is debatable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/...


RE: More ice
By Omega215D on 3/28/2008 2:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
There are some stories where the northern US and other parts of the world are experiencing a cooling while others are experience a warming.

Anyhow, mother nature will always find a way to keep on going. When we lose some species many new ones come out of the unknown.


RE: More ice
By AnnihilatorX on 3/28/2008 3:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
To the OP: New snow fell in Antarctica was quite high in the cold winter, but was not enough to cover the loss during last year's warm summer.

Also that resulted in a lot of new ice on Antarctica, which is less stable than firm ice.


RE: More ice
By cochy on 3/28/2008 3:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
That's interesting. Glad one thing everyone agrees on is that the Earth has a dynamic climate.


RE: More ice
By AlexWade on 3/29/2008 5:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
Disclaimer: This is a rant, but I stand by everything I write.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/glo...

Tell me, pro AGW people, why is that the Antarctic is still well above normal in sea ice coverage? In fact, the Antarctic has so much more ice, that globally polar sea ice is slightly above normal. Don't answer or you'll just make my point below.

There are so many similarities to pro AGW people and most religions. Both take one small part and make doctrine around it, while ignoring the evidence that they don't like. And like in religion, the easiest way to make someone angry is to have proof they are wrong. In fact, most religions start with a belief and try to find proof for it, instead of using proof to find a belief. The climate change crowd is not different.

In this example, a pro AGW person said "AGW is real! See, this piece of the Antarctic is breaking off because it is melting!" There is the doctrine is made based on one small part, but the larger proof against is ignored.

And continuing on with the religion analogy, a sad fact is in the name of religion atrocities against people have been committed, even though those that do are in the vast minority. And sadly, in the name of environmentalism, atrocities against people are talked about and even proposed, and they are the vast minority. The most extreme advocate killing people. Others advocate actions that destroy our way of life.

Blind faith is very bad. Religion isn't bad, in fact I'll go ahead and say it: "Jesus save me from your followers." Religion isn't bad in itself, what is bad is the intolerance of others for not sharing your beliefs. What is bad is when a person lets a predisposition interfere with facts. What is bad is when a person assumes their belief is infallible.

So I beg you, climate change zealots and climate change skeptics , please PLEASE look at the facts, and stop looking at Wikipedia, skewed studies, and myopic viewpoints. I like to look at raw data that cannot lie, at history, and at whole picture. You should too.


RE: More ice
By Hans Jenny died 4U on 3/30/2008 3:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Well I don't consider myself a zealot, but I can recommend you see Arctic Sea Ice decline in the 21st Century, 12 January 2007, and other content at visit www.realclimate.org/ to get better synopsis of the science.


RE: More ice
By nstott on 3/31/2008 4:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, but raw data can be made to lie. For an example, go visit RealClimate.org...


Irresponsible
By masher2 on 3/28/2008 3:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "Another sign of global warming rears its ugly head..."

Blaming this on global warming is truly irresponsible. The Wilkins Ice Shelf is located on the Pacific Ring of Fire, and NASA satellite imagery shows heavy volcanic "hotspot" activity right below this shelf.

The small Antarctic Peninsula is also the only part of the continent which is warming. The vast body of Antarctica itself has been cooling for the past 50 years.

Last year, the NOAA documented that Antarctic sea ice reached its greatest extent in recorded history. This year, Antarctic sea ice growth is already ahead of last year's record pace.




RE: Irresponsible
By theflux on 3/28/2008 6:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
Good point masher.

Also, don't volcanos emit CO2? Shouldn't we be regulating how much and how often volcanos are allowed to erupt?


RE: Irresponsible
By masher2 on 3/28/2008 7:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
You forget there's "good" CO2 and "bad" CO2. Good CO2 is that emitted by nature -- 97% of the total. Bad CO2 is the remaining 3% emitted by mankind.

While the bad version appears to be chemically and physically identical, in reality it is a deadly toxin, and the root of all evil.


RE: Irresponsible
By theflux on 3/28/2008 9:39:38 PM , Rating: 3
Fascinating. It's a good thing we have a trained expert like Jason to keep us appraised about the Bad Co2.


RE: Irresponsible
By xsilver on 3/29/2008 11:07:54 AM , Rating: 2
interesting,
i've always wondered masher; since I cant remember if you've ever said this outright.
Is your contention that we should only "put out fires" or should be we be active in reducing the footprint that we as humans have on this earth?
Forget all the people on the far left that are claiming doomsday, im just talking about reducing that 3% (or other) number, not because we should but because we can?


RE: Irresponsible
By masher2 on 3/29/2008 11:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "or should be we be active in reducing the footprint that we as humans have on this earth?"

I believe man's "footprint" can be positive as easily as it can be negative. Most environmentalists believe that ANY change caused by man is inherently damaging, and that a wild planet is far preferable to one which man has adapted to his best use. I disagree.

> "im just talking about reducing that 3% [of CO2]"

But is reducing that 3% of CO2 emitted by man a good idea? Quite a bit of evidence says otherwise -- that increased levels of CO2 will stabilize the climate. The Paleoclimatic record demonstrates that once CO2 levels dropped below 500ppm, the planet entered its current period of climate instability, rapidly alternating between ice ages and warmer periods.

Higher CO2 levels means significantly faster plant growth, and warmer temperatures means longer growing seasons, more arable land, less crop losses from freezes, etc. From an agricultural perspective, we should be doing all we can to increase CO2.

The latest research also shows that warming will reduce hurricane strength. So what negative effects are we left with? A very minor degree of sea-level rise (6 inches over 100 years), plus a small increase in mean precipitation.

From one perspective, the damage to the Earth's ecosystem isn't from man, but rather the dangerously low level of atmospheric CO2 caused by hundreds of millions of years of unrestrained plant growth. That has reduced CO2 to very near the point where plants refuse to grow at all, and has destabilized climate patterns to the point where ice ages are frequent events.


RE: Irresponsible
By xsilver on 3/30/2008 12:15:34 AM , Rating: 1
ok, but the problem is that these wild weather patterns continue to occur in places with high media coverage. Here in australia ask any man on the street and they might not believe global warming but will acknowledge that the drought is killing our rural areas.
Doesnt this mean that there is going to be a geographic shift of sustainable agricultural areas? The countries controlling these areas are going to be important no? (I dont know where these areas are but I wouldnt be surprised if the USA already has plans)

Your stance feels a bit like the futurama episode where the planet is going to get hit by a ball of garbage, and the only thing that can repel it is by making another ball of garbage to hit it. Its a tough sell, agree?


RE: Irresponsible
By xsilver on 3/30/2008 12:26:32 AM , Rating: 1
oh and another thing, when you say that mans "footprint" can be a positive thing, I think that it will also be a tough sell for the general population.
Isn't a lot of our wealth derived from harvesting the earth's resources? Some of these are sustainable/renewable but some are not. Are we only biding our time in order for future generations to come up with something that more efficiently uses these resources or creates a technology that eliminates the use of these unsustainable resources altogether?


RE: Irresponsible
By masher2 on 3/30/2008 12:46:27 AM , Rating: 2
> "Are we only biding our time in order for future generations to come up with something [that] eliminates the use of these unsustainable resources altogether? "

Oh sure. But saying that doesn't mean we shouldn't use those resources in the first place. After all, the same thing could have been said about oil and coal 150 years ago. Does that mean we should have skipped the entire Industrial Age, simply because those resources would one day run out?

And actually, we *already* have a viable technology which can supplant fossil fuel technology. Nuclear. In fact, even our current nuclear technology (which essentially is 1960s-early 70s era) is cost-competitive with fossil fuels and much cleaner from an emissions perspective.

But we have far safer, cleaner, and more efficient designs for nuclear reactors on the books. Had we poured one TENTH of the research we've spent on wind, solar, and biofuels into nuclear, our energy problems would have long since been solved.


RE: Irresponsible
By TerranMagistrate on 3/30/2008 1:33:14 AM , Rating: 2
Good point. Perhaps we might have even had a working fusion reactor design by now if only a fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on pseudo-alternatives like biofuel, solar, etc would have been directed strictly towards its development.


RE: Irresponsible
By xsilver on 3/30/2008 2:30:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well i think im environmentally conscious and Im a fan of nuclear. oxymoron? lol

My conspiracy theory is that the lobbyists for coal/fossil are spinning the bad press for nuclear because of the $$$ obviously.

Again, I think because its such a hotly contested issue, the extremists from either side need to take a step back and try to gauge the other side's POV.


RE: Irresponsible
By Starcub on 3/31/2008 7:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, even our current nuclear technology (which essentially is 1960s-early 70s era) is cost-competitive with fossil fuels and much cleaner from an emissions perspective.

But we have far safer, cleaner, and more efficient designs for nuclear reactors on the books.

Which I'm sure we got as a result throwing a lot of federal money into nuclear energy research from about 1970 to now. Your statements seem self contradictory.

quote:
Had we poured one TENTH of the research we've spent on wind, solar, and biofuels into nuclear, our energy problems would have long since been solved.

Actually the govt. has probably spent about 10 times as much on nuclear energy research alone than all clean renewable sources combined. Only in the past couple years have the relative funding levels begun to equalize; however, the govt. has spent much less on energy r&d over the past 20 years than it did the previous 20 years when nuclear was in its prime. It's also a shame to see just how much was wasted on nuclear energy r&d given how little there is to show for it.

Nuclear isn't cheap when you consider the issues that still exist with disposal and storage of waste, nor is it a viable long term solution in comparison to the opportunities that exist with safe, clean, and renewable alternatives that are looking more promising all the time.

Wouldn't it have been nice if govt. policy had started along the right track decades ago instead of waiting for it to become economically attractive.


RE: Irresponsible
By masher2 on 3/31/2008 8:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
> "Which I'm sure we got as a result throwing a lot of federal money into nuclear energy research from about 1970 to now"

Eh? The federal government essentially stopped funding R&D for nuclear power decades ago. While many new designs have been proposed, none have actually been built. The plants in operation today all date from the 1970s...from designs which date from the 1960s.

> "Actually the govt. has probably spent about 10 times as much on nuclear energy research alone than all clean renewable sources combined"

I don't know where you heard this, but it's flatly incorrect. Total US spending on wind/solar/biofuels and related energy projects topped $5B last year alone...and that doesn't count the much larger sum spent indirectly on biofuel subsidies.

The DOE spends a few hundred million on fusion research such as the ITER project -- but that's not fission. The only direct fission research funded is the Advanced Fuel Cycle initiative, which runs about $30M/year.

I think you've confused the DOE's multi-billion dollar budget for nuclear security with research on commercial fission power generation. But it has nothing to do with it....it's primary goal is preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons materials and technologies. And most of that money is spent overseas, in places like Pakistan and the former USSR republics.


RE: Irresponsible
By masher2 on 3/31/2008 9:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "Nuclear isn't cheap when you consider the issues that still exist with disposal and storage of waste"

There are no technical issues with disposal or storage of waste, as anyone in the industry can tell you. The only problems are political, caused by fear and ignorance.

As for alternatives, wind and solar may one day be useful to generate some portion of our energy needs. But they'll never replace other power generation entirely. Take solar for instance. Even assuming it one day becomes cost-effective compared to coal or nuclear, it's simply not practical in high latitudes or areas with large amounts of cloud cover. Furthermore, storing energy for nighttime demand is still wildly impractical, and the only alternatives proposed are dangerous, inefficient, and an order of magnitude more costly than solar power itself.

Also, when one considers the full footprint of these alternatives, one sees they're not especially clean either. A solar plant of equivalent capacity to a nuclear one requires some 10-100X the raw materials to construct (or would, had we ever been able to build one that large). Producing, refining, and transporting all those millions of tons of materials is not only bad for the environment, its horribly expensive as well.

In fact, many prominent environmentalists support solar and wind power for the simple reason that they will NEVER be cheap. They believe (and rightly so) that expensive energy equates to a minimal level of industrialization, which they believe to be a good thing.


nothings changing
By tastyratz on 3/28/2008 1:02:05 PM , Rating: 4
The earth hasn't come close to seeing the temperature cycles its seen in the past long before we had anything to do with it. We feel we are far too important as a species to accept the fact that the earth will cool and heat on its own.
There's going to be an article about the dangers of everything till the day we die just like the horrid dangers of dying in a shark attack when there's only been a handful of attacks.
The earth is going to heat and its going to cool - all on its lonesome.




RE: nothings changing
By ebakke on 3/28/2008 2:09:43 PM , Rating: 1
"Our next story: The Earth is fine. Stay tuned to learn more about this after the break."

That doesn't keep people watching/reading, and as such, doesn't generate any ad revenue. Until someone devises a way to say "all is well" in an exciting way that tugs on your emotions, we'll keep getting fed the crap we currently see on a daily basis.


RE: nothings changing
By phattyboombatty on 3/28/2008 2:17:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
That doesn't keep people watching/reading, and as such, doesn't generate any ad revenue.


Nor does it generate funding for research.


RE: nothings changing
By ObiDon on 3/28/2008 2:35:21 PM , Rating: 5
"is the world coming to a horrible, sudden end? we'll tell you next week on the news at eleven!"


RE: nothings changing
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2008 2:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
Better stories are "Asteroid Set To Collide With Earth! Stay tuned at 11!"

*wait till 11*

"Yes we are reporting that an asteroid will definitely collide with earth.....in 3 billion years. Random Guy Who Studies Asteroids, how will this asteroid effect us...."


RE: nothings changing
By JazzMang on 3/28/2008 3:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
Total Family Guy moment.


RE: nothings changing
By nstott on 3/31/2008 4:32:03 AM , Rating: 2
"Coming up at 11: Al Gore reveals the coming end of the world in an imminent supernova!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-9WsKlKXJI


RE: nothings changing
By geddarkstorm on 3/28/2008 4:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's going to be an article about the dangers of everything till the day we die


Kinda reminds me of a pack of meerkats.


RE: nothings changing
By cocoman on 3/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: nothings changing
By hubajube on 3/28/2008 5:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I guess it takes a little bit of effort to understand that.
I personally am not interested in controlling the climate until we know all there is to know about it. Considering we can't even predict the temperature for the next day accurately, I'm not willing to let those same clowns attempt to control anything more complex.

On a side note, humanity is part of the earth's eco-system. We need to understand more about it and our role in it before we go playing with it. I know some of you are impressed with what we know already but we really are toddlers at this game. I am no where near as versed in climatology as the people that do this everyday and all I can see are questions. One thing I've realized is that the more I learn, the more I realize what I don't know.


RE: nothings changing
By nstott on 3/31/2008 4:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
Not all by itself; don't forget the solar cycle...


Denial
By Heinrich on 3/28/2008 4:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously a corporate disease that has infected intelligent Americans now - Denial. I suppose we will have to wait 50 years for a few cities to go under water and for us to start losing square miles of coast before you guys realize we should have done something 50 years sooner.




RE: Denial
By phattyboombatty on 3/28/2008 4:05:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I suppose we will have to wait 50 years for a few cities to go under water and for us to start losing square miles of coast


On the other hand you'll have millions of people who currently live a mile inland that will be quite pleased in the skyrocketing value of their property.


RE: Denial
By ObiDon on 3/28/2008 4:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
even if sea levels DID rise, all we'd have to do is attach enormous rockets to the side of the moon and push it away a little bit so the tides become less pronounced... so don't invest in that inland property just yet!


RE: Denial
By masher2 on 3/28/2008 4:13:59 PM , Rating: 4
> " I suppose we will have to wait 50 years for a few cities to go under water..."

The IPCC is predicting an 11 cm rise in sea level over the next 50 years. Even over the next 100 years, only a rise of 23 cm is projected, some 40% of which is natural, and not related to GW.

Are you honestly trying to suggest that a six inch rise in sea level is going to put cities "underwater"?


RE: Denial
By dluther on 3/28/2008 6:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
It *would* put some cities underwater, starting with New Orleans. Huge tracts of coastline would get washed away due to beach erosion, significantly altering the shape of some cities.


RE: Denial
By masher2 on 3/28/2008 7:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "It *would* put some cities underwater, starting with New Orleans"

Stuff and nonsense. Much of New Orleans is already several feet below sea level. A six inch rise means only that, sometime in the next 100 years, we'll have to increase the existing levees (already 10-15 feet high in places) by an additional six inches.

Not exactly a huge problem, especially considering the level of technology we'll have access to in the year 2100.

60% of the Netherlands is below sea level, and they've been building dikes there for hundreds of years. If Holland can build thousands of miles of dikes with 19th-century technology, I'm sure we can handle a mere six-inch rise with 22nd-century tech.


RE: Denial
By rebturtle on 3/28/2008 10:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
Granted it is also sinking (similar to New Orleans), but have you ever seen Venice, Italy?


RE: Denial
By cochy on 3/28/2008 4:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
should have done something 50 years sooner.


Do what? The Earth's climate changes! We can not stop that!

Cities are going to go under water. That's no ones fault except the person who built the city on a low lying coast line. That's not a result of driving Hummers but a result of geometrically increasing human populations.

Natural disasters are not getting worst only their effect on human beings are getting worse, because there are more human beings to be effected.

You can stop all humanity's green house gases tomorrow, the Earth's climate is still going to change. Live with it.


Overlooked
By James Holden on 3/28/2008 12:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting the ice sheets are falling apart, considering the temperature in Antartica is lower than its ever been in the last 130 years ...




RE: Overlooked
By eye smite on 3/28/2008 1:01:54 PM , Rating: 3
Well if you think logically about it since more ice is forming, it could be the ice has increased in mass enough to break up, off, diagonal, curved or in a smiley face fashion. I'm sure I could be wrong though.


RE: Overlooked
By dever on 3/28/2008 1:36:25 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, this natural process was intentionally not mentioned by Mick.

1) Snow falls
2) Snow accumulates
3) Weight of accumulated snow pushes outward toward ocean and falls in
4) Big deal

Of course, the proposed solutions basically state that you must cede control of your life to the government and civilization must halt all progress. This is "convenient" from one political vantage point, so this sort of ignorance is fostered.

This article is just politically motivated propaganda from a "natural process denier" (to reverse a popular slur).


RE: Overlooked
By phattyboombatty on 3/28/2008 2:14:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
UNEP states that the worst melting occurred in Europe, devastating the ski industry. Norway's Breidalblikkbrea glacier was the hardest hit, losing 10 feet of snow and ice in 2006, after only losing a foot the year prior.


And Colorado has had record snowfalls this year leading to a booming ski industry. Global warming proponents are quick to point out isolated areas of the world where "warming" is occurring to prove their case. However, they crucify anyone that would dare mention an area of the world where cooling is occurring (i.e. record low temps, record high snowfalls, etc.) because global warming refers to world-wide temperatures and the temperatures of isolated areas is irrelevant (unless of course the data shows warming).


RE: Overlooked
By dluther on 3/28/2008 6:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
I could almost see your point of view, save for the fact that most of the glaciers worldwide are melting.

Yes, there are a few that are actually increasing, but when you compare the numbers of those that are melting to those growing.

Just out of curiosity, what *would* it take for you change your stance on AGW?


RE: Overlooked
By eye smite on 3/28/2008 6:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I have to do this again......

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Repo... widescale global cooling article on DT

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Finds+Natural+Cause... natural cause for arctic warming on DT

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhou... basic greenhouse equations totally wrong article on DT

When scientists come up with concrete evidence instead of speculation that gets them more research grants and funds so they can hatch another half brained theory, I might pay attention. This whole global warming in the meantime is the same thing to me as when they hatched it in the late 80s, TOTAL BULLSHlT. :-)


How about we stick to facts?!
By z3R0C00L on 3/28/2008 2:53:11 PM , Rating: 5
I find it hilarious to read through these comments. You've got one guy claiming Global Warming is real and his post get's voted down while most of the others claim it's a hoax. Guess what? You're both wrong.

The Earth is not 6,000 years old... it's also not the first time we've been met with Global Warming and Cooling. In fact the earth is estimated to be around 4.5 billion years old. During this time we've had many Global Cooling and Global Warming periods. This is backed up factually by studying the Ice up north and south, the fossil records (ice ages are generally accompanied by mass extinctions both when they form and leave), the sediment deposits/layers in the geological records found not only in the Grand Canyon but all around the world.

What we can conclude is that as the earth warms up (due to many factors which include a shift in the Magnetic pole as well as the natural occurring gases caused by animal, plant life and erupting Volcano's) , as the ice melts large pools of now frozen swamp land (in Siberia & Canada) are un-frozen thus unleashing Methane Gas (which is far more potent a Green House Gas then Carbon Dioxide.

The science is not yet out on Man's impact on Global Warming. But as far as Global Warming being a fact.. it's pretty muh a DUH! We're nearing the end of the last Ice Age (with about 600-800 years to go). Are we accelerating this process? Perhaps, especially with our agricultural revolutions predominantly cattle which produce LARGE amounts of Methane Gas.

Anyhow. Those are the facts.. one can't deny the earth is getting warmer.. in fact its a cycle.




RE: How about we stick to facts?!
By phattyboombatty on 3/28/2008 3:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
The "hoax" everyone's railing against isn't that the earth is warming. I don't know anyone that is outright denying that. The hoax is the "sky-is-falling" alarmists constantly assaulting every media outlet preaching that the Earth is facing certain doom in the very near future due to catastrophic global warming caused by us evil humans.


RE: How about we stick to facts?!
By z3R0C00L on 3/28/2008 3:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm well that is false of course. We cannot stop this from occurring. In fact we'd have a better chance of stopping a Hurricane, Tornado or Lightning then stopping these cooling and warming periods from occurring.

Most of the Ice from the last Ice Age melted around 11 Thousand years ago, it was actually warmer then it is today up until 5,000 years ago when it started to get cooler (up until recently). We're in a period of spikes in either direction.. every little factor has an impact but the inevitability is that more ice will melt and large parts of the U.K will be under water (in the US Florida will be swimming with the fish). Nothing we can do to stop it so the alarmists are abusing these realities in order to limit our liberties and tax us for the carbon we emit. It's sad really.


By feelingshorter on 3/28/2008 9:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
as well as the natural occurring gases caused by animal


I've been screaming that for the past several years. Farting is accelerating the global warming cycle! We far methane and methane is the culprit. Maybe the dinosaurs farted too much and caused global warming and thats why they disappeared. Farted themselves to death?


By uhgotnegum on 3/28/2008 4:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
First, I claim the rights to Global Temperature Modulation...This phrase will catch on, and I will make money off of people. Now onto my less sarcastic comment.

Stats showing everything with GTM (also rights claimed in acronym) are, in my opinion, rather worthless to me. It seems obvious to me that nobody really can say what the heck is going on and what one thing is responsible (read a previous post I had--Feb., I think--about my opinion on the "one cause" theories). However, I want to know why so many of these scientific theories fail to incorporate one really HUGE variable...the sun? I think some article(s) (I think by Masher) mention increased sun activity, but if the sun fluctuates in the amount of "happy sunbeams" that visit the earth (sarcastic Inconvenient Truth reference there), my unscientific self says, "HEY, this will warm (or cool) the globe more than C02 or anything else."

Maybe I'm wrong, and the scientists also measure the intensity of the sun while they are taking these global temp. readings and theorizing about how C02 is the devil's gas (that's sorta funny, in my opinion). However, if they aren't, I want to know how big of an impact Solar Global Temperature Modulation (yeah, rights again) has on our tiny Earth.

Thanks and have a temperate day!




By werepossum on 3/28/2008 8:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, I want to know why so many of these scientific theories fail to incorporate one really HUGE variable...the sun? I think some article(s) (I think by Masher) mention increased sun activity, but if the sun fluctuates in the amount of "happy sunbeams" that visit the earth (sarcastic Inconvenient Truth reference there), my unscientific self says, "HEY, this will warm (or cool) the globe more than C02 or anything else."


One of the die-hard CAGW supporters on a forum like this actually said that looking at climate models it's remarkable how little affect the sun has on the Earth's temperature. That pretty much cuts off all debate right there; if you really believe CO2 governs Earth's temperature. On a similar note, a scienctist did a paper theorizing that the observed warming on Mars is not due to increased solar output, but rather is just periodic dust storms caused by some normal, unexplained (but NOT due to solar output, that's for sure!) stimulus. As to scientists in the CAGW camp, not all admit there even was any increased solar activity, or that the now decreased soalr activity has any affect whatsoever. Others simply state that their models show a neglible warming due to any changes of solar activity.

In the CAGW's defense, modern climate models do take into account the increased solar activity, whether correctly or not I couldn't guess. One certainly unresolved question is whether or not the changing electromagnetic output (solar wind), measured mostly by observing solar flares and eruptions by also by measurement) and its corresponding affect on cosmic rays has a significant affect of Earth's temperature and/or temperature gradiants and distribution. Again, I couldn't venture an educated guess. My non-educated guess is that, as the second largest energy source with documented (but poorly understood) effects on cloud formation, it would have to have an effect only second to that of solar activity. But that's a wild ass guess.


By Andy35W on 4/3/2008 12:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393....

"Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity. The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature. The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity. But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.

"This work is important as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data," commented Dr Giles Harrison from Reading University, a leading researcher in the physics of clouds.

His own research, looking at the UK only, has also suggested that cosmic rays make only a very weak contribution to cloud formation.

The Svensmark hypothesis has also been attacked in recent months by Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory. He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been rising, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct. "

Cosmic rays look pretty dead in the water. That is 3 separate studies showing no or only very small link.

It goes to show that what happens in a Danish lab doesn't naturally extrapolate to the real world.


By nstott on 4/3/2008 1:39:29 AM , Rating: 2
And just as many or more studies showing a link between the earth's climate and solar irradiance. I guess that might mean that the scientific debate isn't quite over yet.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/0...

Hammel, H. B., and G. W. Lockwood, 2007. Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L08203, doi:10.1029/2006GL028764.

Of course, I suppose the looming global cannibalism crisis might convince more to follow your line of thinking (LOL):

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/04/0...


By Andy35W on 4/3/2008 7:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
That article you quote has no reference at all to earth clouds being connected to solar output, why did you post it?

We are talking about the claim that cloud cover is affected by solar output.


yeah!
By Cr0nJ0b on 3/28/2008 1:16:18 PM , Rating: 5
This means the price for ICE at the supermarket is going down...right?




RE: yeah!
By ObiDon on 3/28/2008 2:39:07 PM , Rating: 4
you're kidding, right? that means there's going to be less ice to farm now so the price is going to skyrocket!

surely, bush jr. and his cronies in the ice industry have something to do with this...


Omission
By cochy on 3/28/2008 1:26:52 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Larsen B, which collapsed in 2002, was particularly large, being almost the size of Rhode island, and was among the events referenced in Al Gore's movie an Inconvenient Truth, which won him the Nobel Peace Prize.


Why are you leaving out the rest of the "events" in his video?

Snow melting off Kilimanjaro --> Proven not to be caused by increases in global temperatures.. ok

Increasing hurricane activity and intensity --> Relatively clear sailing in the Caribbean since the video..

By reading the rest of the comments here, I don't think too many people are appreciating these articles anymore.




RE: Omission
By retrospooty on 3/28/2008 2:59:35 PM , Rating: 3
Yup... Its time to stop the panic and think rationally for a change.


RE: Omission
By nstott on 3/31/2008 8:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
...and the Nobel Peace Prize, named after the inventor of dynamite, gained extra special meaning when they gave it to Yasser Arafat. Just one more reason to follow the highly rational international commun ity...


By Ananke on 3/28/2008 7:11:02 PM , Rating: 1
Global warning doesn't mean that in Minnessota will get any warmer, most likely will get colder. It means weather extremes. So, the colder winters in the Central and Eastern USA are actually supporting this. Also, once the glaciers start melting, they don't stop. It is selfsufficient process, it means that the ice absorbed enough energy and it is over the melting point already. Eventually all the ice will melt, just the scientist are screaming because it happens ten times faster, then anyone expected.
Also, I guess don't invest in property at Chinese East Coast, because it will be underwater long before the end of your mortgage :)
Aaaa, if the Gulf stream dissappears, which has happened several times in the last 2000 years, USA east coast, northern Europe and the Scandinavia will literally freeze - check the historical sources, it happened as the Little Ice Age. What science people are scared about, it may happen just in 24 hours, with next day subzero temperatures at the above mention regions. Now, if all this climate changes happened faster than expected, that kind of Ice age, affecting very dense populated regions, may materialize any moment. That's why everybody involved with this research is screaming, it doesn't matter hotter or colder, the weather system is getting out of balance, apparently. Then, if the food is globally scarce, it doesn't matter if you are millionaire, somebody stronger will eventually eat you. :)
That is the reason why politicions are scared too :)




By masher2 on 3/28/2008 7:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "Global warning doesn't mean that in Minnessota will get any warmer, most likely will get colder. It means weather extremes"

Incorrect. If AGW is correct, it means global temperatures will increase. Period. If the theory is true, there's no escaping this fact. Greenhouse gases trap heat...and that heat has to go somewhere.

While in theory circulation changes can potentially cause some isolated areas to cool, that only happens if some other area gets even warmer to compensate.

Global warming emphatically does *not* simply translate into more extreme-weather events of all kinds. That makes the theory unfalsifiable -- anything and everything that happens can then be chalked up to GW. But unfalsifiable theories aren't science...they're faith.

> "Eventually all the ice will melt, just the scientist are screaming because it happens ten times faster, then anyone expected"

The latest estimates show Antarctica is gaining ice mass, and Greenland is losing it at the rate of 0.25% per century....meaning it will be wholly melted in roughly 4,000 years.


By andrinoaa on 3/29/2008 10:44:46 AM , Rating: 1
how do you explain the satellite pics that show a diminished ice shelf? doh! It does not compute lol


By masher2 on 3/29/2008 11:42:46 PM , Rating: 3
Satellite imagery does *not* show diminished ice in Antarctica. Sea ice in the Southern hemisphere hit levels last year approaching the highest since record-keeping began, and this year is on track to set records again:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...


By werepossum on 3/28/2008 7:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global warning doesn't mean that in Minnessota will get any warmer, most likely will get colder. It means weather extremes. So, the colder winters in the Central and Eastern USA are actually supporting this. Also, once the glaciers start melting, they don't stop. It is selfsufficient process, it means that the ice absorbed enough energy and it is over the melting point already. Eventually all the ice will melt, just the scientist are screaming because it happens ten times faster, then anyone expected.


Global warming means any change in weather or anything involving weather (or air, water, etc.) that can possibly be scary. I think we all get that by now. If it's warmer, that's global warming. If it's colder, that's global warming too. If it stays the same temperature, that's global warming heading for a sudden and catastrophic ice age. Global warming giveth and global warming taketh, blessed be the name of global warming.


Size
By Etern205 on 3/28/2008 3:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
In the photos these chunks of ice my not look much but inreality their huge!

Read it in a science mag where they had a shot of a chunk of ice breaking off due to global warming.
The size of that piece was 4 times as large as Manhattan.

Manhattan that's located in NYC.




RE: Size
By phattyboombatty on 3/28/2008 3:18:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Read it in a science mag where they had a shot of a chunk of ice breaking off due to global warming.

This reads exactly the same to me as "Read it in a science mag where they had a shot of a snake with no legs due to the curse from the Garden of Eden." Scientists mock Christians' "unscientific" religious beliefs and then turn around and make just as baseless of a claim.

quote:
Manhattan that's located in NYC.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were talking about the village in Illinois at first.


RE: Size
By DigitalFreak on 3/28/2008 3:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Manhattan that's located in NYC


As opposed to the one located in Pakistan?


Bullcrap
By nirvanix on 3/29/2008 1:14:45 AM , Rating: 2
Most climate scientists do not agree that global warming is a given.
The edges of the ice shelves are always breaking up and reforming. If you look back at literature from fifty years ago you can read that for yourselves.
The ice at the poles and Greenland is two miles thick. If you raised the overall temperature of the Earth right now by 1C and kept it that way permanently, it would take many centuries for the ice to melt.

I have legitimate concerns for the way we pollute our environment, but global warming is not one of them. This is a scam to create a global carbon tax.




RE: Bullcrap
By andrinoaa on 3/29/2008 10:52:24 AM , Rating: 2
what are your scientific qualifications to backup your head in the sand routine? thought so, just more static


RE: Bullcrap
By nstott on 3/31/2008 8:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
What are your scientific qualifications to backup your head up your arse routine? Yeah, I thought as much...


Wow, Blamed Global Warming
By whirabomber on 3/28/2008 1:09:37 PM , Rating: 3
Jumping on the band wagon, scientist opt to blame "global warming" for everything remotely related to temperature. In the modern sense, "global warming" has become slang for something man made and a political bandwagon used to detract from real issues.

I'd vote for a "natural increase in the planetary temperature" over the modern used of "global warming." The planet is just getting warmer and man may or may not be the root cause, it could just be the natural cycle of the solar system. I find numbers can be made to mean whatever you want them to mean.




RE: Wow, Blamed Global Warming
By cochy on 3/28/2008 1:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. Honestly, String Theory is better put together scientifically than Global Warming.

Global weather patterns and climate is probably the most complex system one can study. The variables are near endless. It sheer lunacy to presume we understand it well enough at this point to make these lofty claims.


By Nfarce on 3/28/2008 5:00:12 PM , Rating: 3
Actually this is a debunk of Gore's global walarmism hockey stick:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/1...

Now we have a massive Antarctic ice sheet slicing and dicing down under, and the Kyoto Krusaders are freaking out. Further, there is freakish warm and cool weather in the northeast and east (and even parts of the southeast) as someone earlier pointed out. That has about as much to do with "global warming" as a cow fart. Well, we are smack in the middle of a La Niña season. Have any of the sky-is-falling fear mongering folks ever looked up the effects of La Niña?

Now, regarding hurricanes, there was more Al Gore fear mongering that man-caused global warming was increasing the strength of hurricanes right after 2005's Katrina (funny how nobody said a peep about it in 1992 when that massive hurricane Andrew hit Miami). Also funny is how in 2006 and 2007 we had some of the calmest hurricane seasons in history, no? Yes. Of course, the Kyoto Krusaders couldn't stop there. They blamed (check this out) a global cooling period during those years for shearing off the tops of the tropical waves coming across the Atlantic and through the Caribbean which inhibited their growth and strengthening. This global cooling was of course - yep you guessed it - blamed on global warming.

See how that works? Even when a paradox seems to occur against this claim of man-induced global warming like record snow in the north or record ice growth in the Antarctic, it is somehow spun into a causal effect of global warming. Anyone remember that asinine movie called "The Day After Tomorrow?" They attempted to explain that exact thing.

The saddest thing about this latest scam to tax the wealthiest nation in the free world (yes, we are NOT in an economic meltdown or Great Depression II) is how so many people can possibly believe in such gobblygook without even attempting to research things for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Well, people like that are a politician's dream constituent waiting to be molded in their likeness.

Tell ya what: when we can forecast a hurricane season accurately, or for that matter forecast the freaking weather accurately without using 13 different computer models that "average" up a typical forecast, then I'll think about joining the junk science ... err, I mean cause known as man-induced global warming. Until then, sell that farce to some other potential sucker.

I like Russia and China's stance on the anti-capitalist, tax dollar stealing Kyoto Protocol - stick it.




By nstott on 3/31/2008 8:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
You mean, "stick it to America." We should be calling AGW "Gorbachev's Revenge."


Links for those looking for another perspective
By Rhaido on 3/28/2008 1:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
By RobberBaron on 3/28/2008 1:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
Good link for other links!


The scare theory
By 325hhee on 3/28/2008 2:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no, it's devastating, the Antarctic lost 220 square miles, we're all doomed, it's over, game over man.

But, one thing this article neglected to mention, what about the large accumulation of snow, ice and mass build up on the eastern side of the Antarctic. I'm glad that wasn't mention, if they did, then the conspiracy theorists have nothing to go on.

I'm sure they're upset that the JAX photos of the earth didn't show a star field behind it. Or they'd claim the US or Japan photoshopped the stars out of that photo, to prove the lunar landing was true.




RE: The scare theory
By SectionEight on 3/28/2008 3:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and what I fail hear about is how the ice sheets of Antarctica are continental-sized glaciers. So more ice accumulation at higher elevations = more ice ablation at lower elevations. Do people honestly think the ice just sits there statically?


Look to China for the answer.
By 67STANG on 3/28/2008 3:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
I bet China is building more AA guns to control global warming. We'll have to wait for their weather control trial at the Olympics to see how feasible it is....




RE: Look to China for the answer.
By rcc on 3/28/2008 4:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's actually caused by that secret Chinese nuclear reactor on the peninsula.


Antartic is a bad example for global warming
By Andy35W on 3/31/2008 1:58:13 PM , Rating: 3
The Antartic is rather unique; it is an isolated land mass surrounded by an insolating layer or ocean winds and currents and also has a large ozone hole letting heat escape willy nilly. So to claim that the Antartic has been really cold for the last couple of decades and disproves man made global warming means diddly squat. The Antartic will be the last place on earth to shows it's face in regards to large scale polar warming. The evidence is slowly creeping in though, even there. The part most sticking out into the "Real world" is warming up......

But in the short term it is better to look at the Artic and what happens this year in the northern hemisphere summer months for getting a better impression of man made global warming.

There's a good bet on the geographic north pole might have some bathing going on by intrepid swimmers :)




By masher2 on 3/31/2008 2:16:51 PM , Rating: 1
> "The Antartic will be the last place on earth to shows it's face in regards to large scale polar warming"

Throughout the entire 1980s and 1990s, AGW alarmsts were claiming the Antarctic would be the FIRST place to respond to global warming. Polar amplification of the heat signal is a basic tenet of the theory.

It wasn't until the temperature data incontrovertibly contradicted this that the belief began to change, and they began to say Antarctic might warm more slowly. But the fact is it's NOT warming more slowly. It's cooling, and has been for 50 years. Basic GW theory cannot explain this, plain and simple.

I realize that GW fanatics would love to write off all the many parts of the planet that are cooling as "not part of the real world". But that's faith-- not science.

> "it is better to look at the Artic "

The Arctic has been warming since (at least) the 1800s. No surprise that its still warming today. Take a look at this almost 100-year old article:

quote:
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone . Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Washington Post, Nov 22, 1922.


Shaved Ice Anyone
By Operator911 on 4/2/2008 11:47:01 PM , Rating: 3
If I had the money I strap about a dozen Mercury outboards on that popsicle and park it right off South Beach 8^)

yeaaah baby




By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 3/28/2008 12:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
More sweet oxygen




global cooling
By slawless on 3/28/2008 1:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
didn't daily tech post an article in the last month on the fact that global temps stopped waming in 2000 and 2007 saw the largest change in temp ever recorded DOWN 0.5 degrees

at least I can count on Daily Tech to cover to cover both sides




RE: global cooling
By andrinoaa on 3/29/08, Rating: 0
Well...
By ibleedmetal on 3/28/2008 2:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
The always fluctuating and unpredictable weather is just further proof of our complete inability to control the environment. We can do our part, and treat our home with respect and dignity, but we are only residents here. We do not possess the power to change the earth and its cycles. To think that we can epitomizes both arrogance and ignorance. We are not gods.




Masher ?
By kalak on 3/28/2008 2:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Where's Masher Comment on that ????
^_^




Delicious Water!
By SlipDizzy on 3/28/2008 3:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one that wants to drink the gushing water in that 3rd picture?




Declare war on global warming?
By puckalicious on 3/28/2008 3:10:45 PM , Rating: 1
I still can't figure out why conservatives are so against global warming. It has exactly what the neocons love, a source of fear to funnel taxpayer money to the already rich elite class of private industry.

Seriously, they could declare a War on Global Warming, manipulate the data even more, and get us all in a frenzy that if we don't do something RIGHT NOW, global warming will come and eat your babies.

We'll all be sheep and listen to the corporate owned media giants about how tax increases (only on the middle class) will solve all our problems by paying for the military and private contractors to "fight" global warming. And by "fight", I mean have billions of $ go right to the pockets of the already rich through no-bid contracts.

It would take like, what, 5-10 years before any of us knew the truth. Just using Iraq as an example, at least 3 years anyway.




By phattyboombatty on 3/28/2008 3:22:51 PM , Rating: 1
The liberals learned a lesson from the neocon's playbook and already stole this strategy. Obviously, liberals and neocons must always hold opposing viewpoints so neocons cannot jump on the bandwagon after the liberals claimed the cause for themselves.


I'm doing my part
By abzillah on 3/28/2008 3:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
To me the data doesn't add up. I will continue to recycle everything I can, not trash earth and respect Earth. That's all that I will do if global warming is occurring or not. I will drive as much as I want and pay the price at the pump. Other than that, screw global warming.




Hmm...
By DigitalFreak on 3/28/2008 3:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
Let's see how many more political hot topics we can attach to global warming...

It's caused by the additional friction generated heat caused by gays having anal sex. It's the gay's fault!




Hurry!!!
By bobny1 on 3/28/2008 4:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
Time to sell my water front property and hit the Mountains. My brother Noe is already working on his Arc..;0




By EODetroit on 3/28/2008 5:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
We need to impose an embargo on Greenlandic water. They are unfairly dumping it on the world market for well below market value.




CLEARLY!
By Fnoob on 3/28/2008 9:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
Just LOOK at the top picture. It clearly shows a set of massive snowmobile tracks. Likely a monster hemi-powered snow Humvee driven by none other than GWB himself. He bought the place in Crawford as an ocean front investment.




Propaganda dressed-up as science
By BernardP on 3/28/2008 9:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
I know I am way down there at the bottom of a long page...but...

The headline is simply another made-up story to scare the populace. See pertinent comments about it:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MISLEADING_REPORTS...

More generally, Earth temperatures have actually been on a slight cooling trend since the turn of the millenium:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_ess...




It's called...
By DanoruX on 3/29/2008 10:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
summer.




By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2008 4:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
Its a fact this was happening before man even walked the planet. This isn't even news worthy. Nobody would care except it gives those with an agenda another reason to point to a perfectly natural and reacouring phenomenon and go " ooh look, see !? Global warming !!??? "




By phxfreddy on 3/29/2008 9:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
Already been studied. Warmer weather on balance speeds polar deposition. Cooler slows it on balance. Been studied and proven. But then why bother with scientific evidence. On the BS detector scale MMGW breaks the needle off scale.




further investigation required
By spepper on 4/3/2008 7:26:04 AM , Rating: 2
further investigation as to the impact of global warming on this phenomenon is warranted-- let's send Al Gore in a Greenpeace rubber dingy to camp out on the newly formed iceberg-- he will be busy, counting those units of carbon footprint spewing into the atmosphere from that 75 HP Evinrud he'll be throttling up to 100%--




By adhan24 on 3/29/2008 2:00:40 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think global warming can be debated any more. It is happening. Global temps are going up according NOAA, NASA, Bush, et cetera. I think the question is about the cause. But you all are at least that smart...

Oh hey, I have an idea, lets use our minds.




I can't read this article
By eye smite on 3/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: I can't read this article
By James Holden on 3/28/2008 12:57:02 PM , Rating: 5
Uh, when was it the media's job to make decisions for yourself?


RE: I can't read this article
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2008 2:03:57 PM , Rating: 5
Since 24 hour news started. That way we're told what to think every hour, of every day, of every year. Because if you hear it enough, you'll start to think it.

Now I'm going to go cower in fear because the economy sucks instead of trying to buy a house because the media tells me to.


RE: I can't read this article
By ebakke on 3/28/2008 2:06:15 PM , Rating: 3
Just don't forget to tune in at 10. You're going to want to know what might kill your kids on their way to school tomorrow.


RE: I can't read this article
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2008 2:30:59 PM , Rating: 3
Bad drivers, exhaust fumes, smokers, drugs, guns, terrorists, allergies, skin cancer, bad doctors, AIDS, people who play violent video games, pedophiles, and unsuspecting rabbits with big sharp pointy teeth!


RE: I can't read this article
By jtemplin on 3/28/2008 3:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well said FIT =D +1


RE: I can't read this article
By ebakke on 3/28/2008 6:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
And the occasional garbage truck, of course.

(http://www.startribune.com/local/south/16379846.ht...


RE: I can't read this article
By nstott on 3/31/2008 8:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
You left out "being turned into a newt..."


RE: I can't read this article
By hubajube on 3/28/2008 2:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now I'm going to go cower in fear because the economy sucks instead of trying to buy a house because the media tells me to.
Anyone else remember when the media started mumbling about the house bubble bursting a few years ago? Right in the middle of the real estate boom the media starts talking incessantly about the housing bubble being about to burst. They brought out all of these crackpots to support their garbage. Now even people with great credit are afraid to buy homes when they have the pick of the litter AND low prices.


RE: I can't read this article
By Nfarce on 3/28/2008 5:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing I remember is Democrat[ic] politicians several years ago whining and lobbying for sub-prime credit markets to open up so their constituents, the poor and underprivileged, could get a shot at the housing market too. It was all about fairness dontchaknow.

Time to pay the piper, all you loan application liars and frauds out there. Did you know that 93% of mortgages in this nation are still paid on time and not in arrears? Nah, you probably didn't if you listen to the constant media whining and politicians now wanting OUR TAX DOLLARS to bail these losers out.

http://www.t-g.com/blogs/1108/entry/17198/


RE: I can't read this article
By hubajube on 3/28/2008 7:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you know that 93% of mortgages in this nation are still paid on time and not in arrears?
I think I saw that number posted on Fox the other day and they had some dude on there talking about how most mortgages are paid on time. if you just watch the news, you would swear that everyone's mortgage is in trouble. The intentional misleading is mind boggling.


RE: I can't read this article
By Nfarce on 3/28/2008 8:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you just watch the news, you would swear that everyone's mortgage is in trouble. The intentional misleading is mind boggling.


Well, if you just read the New York Times and watch CNN and don't ever seek out the truth - or at the very least the other side of the story - for yourself, of course you'd think the world was coming to an end. Yes, contrary to what many in the main stream media want you to believe, there are always two sides to every story. The truth be damned over an agenda.


RE: I can't read this article
By DRMichael on 3/28/2008 10:35:16 PM , Rating: 3
You make a very point until you stop and look at the numbers. In baseball if you were to have a hit 30% of the time you’d be in the Hall of Fame. On the other hand if you were a surgical doctor with a 30% success rate you’d be lucky to get a job selling pharmaceuticals. But a 7% nationwide late/default rate on mortgages is HUGE. Listen, I’m a conservative who believes in small government, but God help us all if the government doesn’t step in to help out the financial institutes. While there is a chance that level heads will prevail, this crisis truly has the potential to make the Great Depression look like an economic slowdown.


RE: I can't read this article
By Nfarce on 3/28/2008 11:16:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But a 7% nationwide late/default rate on mortgages is HUGE.


Yeah I know. I've heard that argument before. Home prices have skyrocketed over the past decade, have been WAY overvalued, and lending institutions relaxed qualification standards as mentioned in my earlier post. Yes, we've all heard that "if you were a part of that seven percent, you wouldn't feel it was so small." Well you know what? Considering that 93 out of 100 people ARE paying their mortgages on time, I hardly, HARDLY see a doom and gloom scenario that people like you as well as the media see. I'm sorry. I just do NOT see it. Now, 25 out of 100 people NOT paying on time, THEN maybe we got a problem. Let's also not forget that a large part of this mess has been with ARMs. Finally, maybe all these "do gooder" financial institutions will tighten up their loan standards again and not let bleeding heart politicians tell them how to run their business.

quote:
Listen, I’m a conservative who believes in small government, but God help us all if the government doesn’t step in to help out the financial institutes.


Ha. You are a "conservative" like I've got boobs if that's what you truly believe.

quote:
While there is a chance that level heads will prevail,


"Level heads" should have NEVER invested in the "sub prime" mortgage industry, and financial institutions should have NEVER handed out loans to shady credit characters and slackers like free candy.

quote:
this crisis truly has the potential to make the Great Depression look like an economic slowdown.


For lack of a better word, you sir are an idiot. Being a part of a global economy notwithstanding and a nation that is a HELL of a lot more economically diversified than it was in 1929 (let alone having a federal government with a HELL of a lot more money), I surmise you do not have a living Grandparent or great-Grandparent to talk to about what REAL hardships were like post 1929. You see any soup lines forming yet? Didn't think so. You have bought into the hysteria and truly have NO CLUE what real hardship Americans in the past have been through.


RE: I can't read this article
By Nfarce on 3/28/2008 11:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, I apologize. I didn't mean my comment "For lack of a better word, you sir are an idiot" to be directed at you. I had two blog windows going at once and meant that one sentence for another blog.

But I still disagree with your premise on the state of our economy compared to 1929!


RE: I can't read this article
By DRMichael on 3/28/2008 11:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oops accepted! Ditto


RE: I can't read this article
By DRMichael on 3/28/2008 11:47:19 PM , Rating: 3
RELAX little girl, I don't want to see your 'boobs'.

There is obviously something wrong with your manners. What the hell is wrong with you? Don’t speak to me in some demeaning manner as though you think your better; just communicate your ideas without being an ASS. And for your information, my grandparents survived the Great Depression.

But since you want to throw out some numbers, tell me why you think 25% is the key number - why not 45%? Do you know how much money is riding on any of the numbers? Tell me what it is you think it means when a single financial institute has losses of over $18 billion dollars in one quarter - and then again the next quarter. And that's not just one bank. What does it mean to you? - That some rich people won't be getting their anticipated return? WRONG - the banks will tighten up their lending policy and start hoarding cash like their already doing (TRY GOOGLE NEWS 'BANKS HOARDING CASH') With the dollar at record lows and Oil at historic highs there's nothing to be alarmed about right? NOOOOooo - That's why GOLD is over $900.

Do yourself a favor and at least minor in finance before you start talking about it. - sorry for the cheap shot but you asked for it.


RE: I can't read this article
By Ringold on 3/29/2008 3:37:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do yourself a favor and at least minor in finance before you start talking about it. - sorry for the cheap shot but you asked for it.


Cheap, and completely ineffective. I've got a lot more than a minor in economics, and the idea you posited that this could end up in the same league as the Great Depression is absolutely, complete idiocy -- and if you have, as you seem to suggest, have a finance degree or experience in the industry, that should be obvious to you as well, which is the part that really galls me. (I expect that sort of talk from the CNN-watching general public, not those who claim to be familiar with such areas) Housing starts have bottomed, existing home sales bottomed, so while home prices are still falling they've obviously began to enter the realm of reality. Corporate profits are fine, and at this point 3-5 months in to a standard recession then we would typically be shedding over 200k jobs a month -- not the measely 63k in Feb. Furthermore, unlike past financial crisis where the Reserve and government in general has had to bail out the industry from impending systemic collapse, the whole thing is operating remarkably well. Oh, and the CPI? Yeah. Unchanged in Feb. As for gold.. in the long run its been a lousy investment, possibly the largest ponzi scheme in the history of man at the moment. I'll quote a decent article over at SeekingAlpha; "If this were real estate or internet stocks, people would call it a bubble. But since gold is involved, this is part of divine providence."

Also, if I'm not mistaken, most banks are still making money, those losses impact only liquidity, assuming they hold their toxic waste until maturity. You probably know what the assumption of just about everyone is anyway; they're writing down huge amounts now so they can have huge mark-ups after everything has blown over. As for liquidity w.r.t mortgage availability, it was too free to begin with, but rates have been coming down. Not a bad time to refi!

All I can possibly imagine is that November is a key election and fear about the economy is usually bad for the incumbent party, justly or not. Speaking of that, that's another thing you should be aware of -- expectations are self-fulfilling. Fear-mongering and the liberal media using the same phrases about a deep recession and ignoring those parts of the country, mostly Republican areas interestingly enough, which are in fact booming and in need of workers, like the Dakota's, well, it all might contribute quite nicely to certain political goals.


RE: I can't read this article
By DRMichael on 3/29/2008 9:51:38 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
..those losses impact only liquidity,..


You hit the nail on the head with that statement alone. I'm in NO WAY a mouthpiece for the 'drive-by media’; in fact I was talking about this 2 years ago when a lot of my friends and neighbors were drawing their equity out to finance big ticket items such as boats, RV’s, and yes more real estate. I warned then that the bubble was getting big and this kind of market could not be sustained. So I agree to some extent that this is nothing more than a repeat of the Internet bubble. I’ll go further than that and actually correct you on the notion that we’re “3-5 months in to a standard recession”; we are NOT yet in a recession.

However, let me explain why I feel that there is at least the possibility of an economic collapse. While the Fed has been attempting to inject money into the economy via rate cuts, the financial institutes have been reluctant to pass it along – why: for the same reason Bear Stearns is in financial chaos – losses and liquidity. Now, hold on to this idea for a moment and add this to the equation: The Fed, with their attempt to keep U.S. financial institutes solvent, has to hope that the rest of the world will continue to help finance our economy via Treasury securities that aren’t very appealing to foreign investment. As a side note – you notice Bush has strongly opposed any boycott of the opening ceremony in Beijing – he doesn’t want to have them start making withdraws.

As I stated before: I’m a conservative. I never backed the idea of Washington bailing out Lee Iococca from his mess in the early 80’s – especially when they tried to shove that K car down our throats. But I believe now if the government doesn’t step in to help (and it still might not be enough), the world would simply watch our financial institutes collapse – along with our entire service oriented economy.


RE: I can't read this article
By Ringold on 3/29/2008 5:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I’ll go further than that and actually correct you on the notion that we’re “3-5 months in to a standard recession”; we are NOT yet in a recession.


I used the word "would be" later in that sentence; I agree with you on this, as corporate performance has been alright and we dont yet have any data confirming GDP contraction.

As for the rest, I share your concern, but I just dont see that extreme taking place. The Europeans have reportedly been trying to cook something up to prop up the dollar, these foreign finance ministers know it's not in their interest to, at the very least, see the dollar fall further. It makes more sense for China to buy up treasuries, keeping us afloat with low rates, so that we can continue to be healthy trading partners for years to come. The fact that treasuries on the short end have been below the policy rate (talk is already circulating about quantative easing!) seems to suggest the appetite for treasuries isn't lax. Further, if you think treasuries are the source of a possible collapse, would a government bail-out not cost money, thus leading to vast qunatities of more treasuries being printed and sold? That said, I like the idea of the Fed buying acidic mortgage-backed debt; they might make a good amount of money! Oh, and put in a bottom in that market too.

With many banks, of all types, having avoided much harm, and others like Goldman Sachs thriving, and many of the largest firms on the country being cash cows that don't need credit markets hardly at all, I'm more awed by our resilience than I am fearful of the future.

That said, we'll know if you are right or not sooner rather then later. Historically it looks like the yield on treasuries has no where to go but up. For the sake of us all, I hope you're wrong. :)


RE: I can't read this article
By mxnerd on 3/28/2008 8:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
If DailyTech is media, then they are making the decisions for you.

Since they rated down everyone who claims there is global warming, and rated up everyone who claim there is no global warming or claimed it's just a cycle.

I'm sure I'll get another rating down.

Dailytech is a media with an opinion.

If Dailytech has no opinion, then it should do away the rating system altogether, which can be rated only by moderators.


RE: I can't read this article
By Nfarce on 3/28/2008 8:55:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If DailyTech is media, then they are making the decisions for you.


Uhm, the last time I checked, "Daily Tech" is made up of independent bloggers who post news article links. It's not like they are CNN or FoxNews or CBS or the New York Times or something making up their own news as they go.

quote:
Since they rated down everyone who claims there is global warming, and rated up everyone who claim there is no global warming or claimed it's just a cycle.


Dunno who that "they" is you are referring to, but the "they" that I know who are in charge of blog post ratings are fellow bloggers like me. Believe in black helicopters too?

quote:
Dailytech is a media with an opinion.


Well which is it? Are they a "media" or not?

quote:
If Dailytech has no opinion, then it should do away the rating system altogether, which can be rated only by moderators.


So your opinion got beat out by the masses here. So what? Many times that happens here from a post of every kind of topic imaginable. Cry be a river. Besides, whatever happened to everyone who were for "democracy" and "majority rule" and all that? Oh, that's only if they are the majority in a certain idea or topic that they all share as the same as the majority. Ok. The pendulum always swings both ways.

In any event, did someone try and shut you up or just vote you down? If I had a nickel for every time I was voted down for MY opinions on this blog (and let's make no mistake about it - your thoughts and my thoughts are just that - OPINIONS), then I'd have enough money to build a new Wolfdale gaming PC. So your OPINION was unpopular this time around. There's always another time around.

Grow a backbone and come back some other day on some other topic, ya big crybaby. People of all backgrounds and political affiliations are getting SICK of this Owl Gore man-made global warming nanny-state frenzy.

Back to your caves that you want US all to live in to "save the planet!"


RE: I can't read this article
By Nfarce on 3/28/2008 9:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and to reiterate: only fellow bloggers can rate blog posts here as far as I know.


RE: I can't read this article
By KristopherKubicki on 3/29/2008 2:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who hasn't written a comment in the article can moderate


RE: I can't read this article
By AmyM on 3/29/2008 2:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing that I could do was reply - how do you moderate?


By KristopherKubicki on 3/29/2008 2:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
There's also a requirement that a user has to post 10 times on their account before they can moderate. This prevents people from registering dummy accounts for the sole purpose of moderating.


By KristopherKubicki on 3/29/2008 2:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since they rated down everyone who claims there is global warming, and rated up everyone who claim there is no global warming or claimed it's just a cycle.

All of our post ratings are user generated. DailyTech employees, bloggers and readers are all on the same page with moderation.

The only people who cannot rate comments are people who have posted a comment for that particular article, and people who have less than 10 comments on the site.


RE: I can't read this article
By eye smite on 3/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: I can't read this article
By Verran on 3/28/2008 1:32:28 PM , Rating: 5
Isn't the point of research to get a clue?


RE: I can't read this article
By SpaceRanger on 3/28/2008 1:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
They didn't have the $200 for Vanna White.. No $200.. No Clue..


RE: I can't read this article
By Integral9 on 3/28/2008 2:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
Can I buy a vowel?


RE: I can't read this article
By ObiDon on 3/28/2008 2:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
$200 dollars?!? good lord, that's a lot of money! how bout i give you a nickel and you just let me have a "y?"


RE: I can't read this article
By eye smite on 3/28/2008 2:23:38 PM , Rating: 1
Not when they've been touting global warming for nearly 20 yrs and change their story every few months. This is all a BS story to get more research grants and funds. Basically they got a degree so they could get rich by being the ultimate con artists. Do your own research and see how many global warming articles are here on daily tech and then how many global cooling articles there are. These people are playing on emotions and fear, the exact same thing Hitler did. OMG, I said Hitler again, rate me down.


RE: I can't read this article
By ObiDon on 3/28/2008 2:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
yes, rate me down too for what i'm about to say...
quote:
These people are playing on emotions and fear, the exact same thing Hitler did

isn't this also the same thing that a lot of religions do? ;)


RE: I can't read this article
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2008 3:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes but Islam promises me 72 virgins.....who won't know what to do with my d*** since they're VIRGINS!

I want 12 copies of 12 copies of Angelina Jolie from her "Hackers" days, 12 copies of Sara Michelle Geller and Reese Wootherspoon from their "Cruel Intentions" days, 12 copies of Jennifer Aniston from her "Friends" days, and 12 copies of Denise Richards and Neve Cambell from their "Wild Things" days.


RE: I can't read this article
By phattyboombatty on 3/28/08, Rating: -1