backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 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 (blog) 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 (blog) 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 (blog) 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 (blog) 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 (blog) 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