backtop


Print 151 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Jun 22 at 5:41 PM


Pine Island Glacier  (Source: Fotopedia)

Pine Island Glacier through the years  (Source: MSN)
Scientists record measurements beneath Pine Island Glacier

new study by scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the National Oceanography Center and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) found that the melting of Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier is a large contributor to sea level rise globally. 

The scientists and authors of the study, one of which was Dr. Adrian Jenkins of the British Antarctic Survey, submitted their research to the journal Nature Geoscience. The study was "part of a series of investigations to better understand the impact of melting ice on sea level" showing that sea ice melt such as the North Pole ice cap is not contributing to sea level rise, but the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica is. 

These researchers used an Autosub, which is an autonomous underwater vehicle, to dive and travel beneath Pine Island Glacier's floating ice shelf. During this endeavor, they were able to record ocean and sea-floor measurements, which revealed two things: Thinning ice in West Antarctica is contributing approximately 10 percent of global sea rise, and there is a 300m high ridge, or mountain, on the sea floor. 

"The discovery of the ridge has raised new questions about whether the current loss of ice from Pine Island Glacier is caused by recent climate change or is a continuation of a longer-term process that began then the glacier disconnected from the ridge," said Jenkins.

At one time, Pine Island Glacier was grounded on top of the ridge, slowing its flow to the sea. More recently, the glacier has thinned and disconnected from the ridge ultimately allowing the glacier to "move ice more rapidly from the land into the sea." This also allowed the deep, warm water in the ocean to "flow over the ridge and into a widening cavity that now extends to an area of 1,000 km² under the ice shelf." 

"Since our first measurements in the the Amundsen Sea, estimates of Antarctica's recent contributions to sea level rise have changed from near-zero to significant and increasing," said co-author Stan Jacobs. "Now finding that the Pine Island Glacier's grounding line has recently retreated more than 30 km from a shallow ridge into deeper water, where it is pursued by a warming ocean, only adds to our concern that this region is indeed the 'weak and underbelly' of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."

In addition, the increased melting seems to be the primary cause of "persistent ocean freshening" as well as other local and downstream impacts. Jenkins added that research on the Pine Island Glacier is fairly recent, starting in the 1990's, and that there are plenty of questions left to be answered.

"We do not know what kick-started the initial retreat from the ridge, but we do not know that it started some time prior to 1970," said Jenkins. "Since detailed observations of Pine Island Glacier only began in the 1990's, we now need to use other techniques such as ice core analysis and computer modeling to look much further into the glacier's history in order to understand if what we see now is part of a long term trend of ice sheet contraction.

"This work is vital for evaluating the risk of potential wide-spread collapse of West Antarctic glaciers."


Comments     Threshold


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

enough already!
By mdogs444 on 6/21/2010 12:00:31 PM , Rating: 4
Geez, don't you climate change people ever get tired of this crap? You act as if the world has been a constant forever and that we've never had periods warmer than today, and that we've never had an ice age or two.

I get the idea that you would like the temperatures and climate to stay the same forever as it is right now....but that's not going to happen, and blaming it on SUV's, eating meat, drive-thru's, big houses and capitalism isn't going to fix it either.

In fact, there is nothing to fix. Live life, adapt, quit whining, and just leave people the hell alone. You want to live a certain lifestyle, then good for you, go do it. But let me live mine as i see fit.




RE: enough already!
By tharik on 6/21/2010 12:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
AMEN!


RE: enough already!
By quiksilvr on 6/21/2010 12:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, why is the green movement focused on this stuff? How about this:

1) Wasting energy wastes money and makes air dirtier.

2) Being energy efficient and recycling and using less materials saves money and makes air cleaner.

Enough of this sea level rising, weather changing bullsh*t. Just point it at the indisputable facts so that idiots don't have a chance to argue against it.


RE: enough already!
By integr8d on 6/21/2010 7:56:39 PM , Rating: 3
Not necessarily. California is doubling its energy prices. The goal is to get people to use 1/2.

1/2 the energy. Same price. The only ones saving are the electric companies.


RE: enough already!
By bill4 on 6/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: enough already!
By safcman84 on 6/22/2010 6:30:08 AM , Rating: 2
The right technologies can actually reduce your cost of living, reduce your carbon emissions and put more money in your pocket. Money you can spend on whatever you want.

Heating costs of my house have gone down from 3000 Euros to 650 Euros per year, since I put in my new energy efficient, renewable energy source based, heating system. I did not need to buy a smaller house

If you have 2 cars then fine, keep 2 cars. nothing to stop your buying 2 fuel efficient cars though, which will reduce your fuel bill and reduce your carbon emissions.


RE: enough already!
By michael67 on 6/22/2010 2:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree whit you here, being more green is most of the time also smart.

I am not a green advocate, I like big cars and own 3 of them, A Skyline i like to race, A Jaguar XJS V12 6L what imho the most beautiful sports sedan that is ever made, both of them stand against everything the green movement believes in.

Do for everyday use i got a Lexus GS450h (23 mpg) that uses less then a Corola 1.6 in town, and in 4y i had the $10k premium i payed back over a standard GS, and its also a even more smother and silent car to drive then my old 2001 GS.
Next year when i trade in the car i will have saved up 1~2k on fuel.
But what also is nice is that, compared to the normal GS i only loos $1k on the extra i payed for hybrid, as hybrids are very popular in the second hand market, so in all i saved a lot more.

Same go's for the wife, she drives a lot in town as she is district manger over 45 supermarkets, she got her self a Audi A3 TDI (35 mpg).
And her next car is properly a Nissan Leaf ore so.

As we use both a Shell card so we can find out easily how mouths a year we use, together we save around 25% a year coming to €2~3000 a year.

Same whit the house, we got a expert visit us to tell use ware we could save money.

As we live in Norway the climate is about the same as in Canada

Our house was build in the 70s and needed a renovation when we got it

we put in triple glass in all big windows
we installed heat-pumps instead of normal electric heaters
we replaced all the isolation in the house
we replaced almost light-bulbs for energy saving bulbs, but on some places still use halogen lamps as they nicer.
we also installed air dehumidifier's as you need less heating to be comfortable.
we using heavy over-curtains that have a isolation layer on the backside that close automatically when it gets dark outside
we use induction for cooking, its nicer to cook on and saves 40% energy.
We turn of the lights when leaving a room, and trained the kids to do the same.
We put on a sweater instead of turning up the heat.

We use 50% less energy compared the old owners, and we have 3 kids!

Total renovation cost for the 350m2 (3800ft2) house €80k of witch €30~35k went in to extra energy saving and will take about 5~6y to pay back for its self. (including dividend loss)

I work in the oil on/offshore as a supervisor and are most of the time in a 2 week rotation so i have a lot of free time to do most of the work my self, if you get all the work done by a contractor you would properly need a €40k extra, but it also pays for it self, after all the renovation that's bin done the house is also €140k extra worth.

Next project will be installing solar panels in 2y time but waiting on new tech to mature as the current one's have a efficiency of 20% the new one's that come out in 2~3y will up that to +30%

Why am i doing this, pure because it will save me money in the long run

I personally have no problem whit inflating tax on energy as long as other taxes go down it makes automatically our whole society more energy efficient, and save us all money in the long run.

And if this means we are saving the environment, its a nice bonus, because i also don't know if we are responsible for climate change, and i am leaning toward that we do not have a big impact, but even if they are wrong and we have no impact on it, can we afford to take that chance for ore kids, because they will be paying the bill then for our faults in the long run.


RE: enough already!
By callmeroy on 6/22/2010 8:46:35 AM , Rating: 3
Funny you mention that I just recently dropped about 10 grand on my condo -- replaced two old windows with energy efficient ones and a new SEER 14 Heat Pump...

couple with my new Digital Themosat I've programmed it to set my condo's temp to 83 during the hours no one is home during weekdays, at night it goes to 75 until I go to bed then it goes to 78....

The point to all this...my place is comfortable to me and my electric costs have dropped a good 25% , note my entire place is all electric.

I don't hate the environmental focus because I disagree with the message of conserving, I think conservation is logical and should need no real "case" to make anyone agree with that.

Its the delivery of the "message" that I hate...people going crazy and constantly overdramatizing everything to do with it and always in my face...

No one needs to spend any more marketing money on me..I already get the message...

I WANT to conserve because it saves money and wasting is just stupid to me...why use more than you need? It simple understanding that our resources are not infinite.

Also I prefer a cleaner world over a filthy world, not only is healthier for me and my family, it makes those sight seeing and camp trips so much more enjoyable when the place doesn't like look a huge trash heap.

BTW : If anyone reading this is one of those bums that throw your trash out on the ground , regardless where you are at the time or you through your cigarette butts out your car while driving....yeah...I hope you die a painful death when your time comes you friggin slob!


RE: enough already!
By MrBlastman on 6/22/2010 9:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
bums that throw your trash out on the ground , regardless where you are at the time or you [throw] your cigarette butts out your car while driving


These people piss me off insanely. If they like their cigarettes so much while smoking them, they should be able to "suck it up" (heh) and deal with the butts being in their ashtrays. There's no excuse for tossing them out their windows.

It is so annoying going to a park or a beach and having their cigarette remains lying everywhere for me to walk over with my bare feet.


RE: enough already!
By jRaskell on 6/22/2010 10:08:35 AM , Rating: 3
My house is all electric as well (fairly small house, 1100sq.ft.). Winter bill is about $160 monthly, summer bill only slightly less from the AC. Spring and fall months it can drop to as low as $80 a month without running any heat or AC.

Even if I were to take the max and save 25% of that, that's not quite $500 a year saved, which means we're talking 20 years just to recover that 10 grand installation cost. The more realistic savings are probably only half that, which increases the time to recover the installation cost to 40 years. Not exactly a good example of saving money.


RE: enough already!
By rsmech on 6/22/2010 12:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
my father in law worked for the utilitis. They got on the big green kick & were handing out compact flourecent bulbs like they were candy when they first came out. They urged green. Well peoples energy use went down but the utilities need X dollars to cover operating costs. Less energy consumption means higher prices to cover these cost. Those living in newer houses more energy efficient faired all right but those living in older homes seen their prices for energy (heating & cooling) skyrocket because of higher prices for people using less energy. Sorry grandma.


RE: enough already!
By bupkus on 6/21/2010 11:29:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
AMEN!

Thank you, GEESUS!
mdogs444 and others have declared that since fluctuations of global temperatures have happened in the past that any fluctuations in the future are to be ignored. Here we see a simpleton's use of symmetry to disregard someone else's argument.
Also, the tone is to ridicule another's position because like most people posting here he hasn't the knowledge base to have a position beyond ridicule.

When the time comes I'd throw you a life preserver but since you've been right all along, that just can't be water you're drowning in. I must be hallucinating. Here... have a bagel.


RE: enough already!
By stilltrying on 6/21/2010 11:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
Plant some trees for crying out loud and tell everyone else too. The global warming scam is about control and power. Why does everyone spout off about kill the cars buy this buy that. How about planting green stuff. Has everyone lost their minds, give the green tards the cure they want start planting and go on about your normal business.


RE: enough already!
By bildan on 6/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: enough already!
By cochy on 6/21/2010 12:14:39 PM , Rating: 3
Give it a rest.


RE: enough already!
By Kakao on 6/21/2010 12:18:33 PM , Rating: 5
There was no denial. Just a:

FACT! Global Warming has happened many times in the past and will happen again.


RE: enough already!
By teapartyguy on 6/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: enough already!
By Noritsu on 6/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: enough already!
By Duwelon on 6/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: enough already!
By gamerk2 on 6/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: enough already!
By MrBlastman on 6/21/2010 4:31:48 PM , Rating: 5
Wow, for once, you have said something partially worthy of highlighting as a good idea... O_O

quote:
we would have federally subsidized elections


We do currently have a small Federal election fund, but, I'd like to expand upon your viewpoint by injecting my own to support yours *gasp*.

I fully believe it would be one of the greatest things done to our election process if all candidates were absolutely forbidden from:

a. using their own money to campaign
b. using corporate money to campaign
c. using donors money to campaign
d. having others use their money to campaign for them

And, instead, move towards a system where _all_ candidates must draw from an escrowed Federal election fund where each person has the same, exact amount of money to start with. That is all the money they get, no more, no less.

They immediately start with an equal footing. I think this would go a LONG way towards opening the doors for non-partisan candidates, i.e. a non-Democrat or a non-Republican to have a fair shot at winning a seat. What we need right now is non-partisan politics.

We've seen just how low partisan politics have brought us... I haven't seen a candidates name on a ballot in YEARS that I truly feel proud about voting for (we're talking about a general election, not a primary). This has to stop--and a good way to do it is by making the road paved for others to be heard.


RE: enough already!
By seamonkey79 on 6/21/2010 4:57:36 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, wouldn't that be nice... no longer the person who can convince the most money-holders to give them money being elected... heh... we can dream, can't we?


RE: enough already!
By sgw2n5 on 6/21/2010 6:03:07 PM , Rating: 4
Take it a step further...

OUTLAW LOBBYING!!!

I strongly believe that putting lobbyists and special interest groups out of work would fix about 80% of the problems with this country.

As is, if you've got enough money to buy a few congressmen, you can have any law passed you want. The rest is just details.


RE: enough already!
By YashBudini on 6/21/2010 11:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
"OUTLAW LOBBYING!!!

I strongly believe that putting lobbyists and special interest groups out of work would fix about 80% of the problems with this country."

Totally agree.

While that's true they won't do it because that's their next job after they retire as politicians and that's when they make really big bucks.


RE: enough already!
By rsmech on 6/22/2010 1:35:03 AM , Rating: 4
Lobbyist are only there because of the incumbents. Clean the system out so your politicians are fresh & can't milk the system after years & years of service. If term limits are good for the President the same logic holds true for congress. But term limits are already within our power, elections. We just seem to make the mistakes ourselves by putting them back over & over again. I don't care if your Republican or Dem. You can change your representative without changing your party. Or do you really think they will fix it themselves. This is why you were given the power of your vote.


RE: enough already!
By Pan Skrzetuski on 6/21/2010 9:57:16 PM , Rating: 1
This would clearly give incumbent politicians and celebrities a tremendous advantage in name recognition.

I don't think our present system is perfect, but we do happen to live in the greatest, freest country on earth, thanks in part to our partisan politics.

In all honesty, I think Plato was right to say that any man who seeks political office should be barred from holding it.


RE: enough already!
By stilltrying on 6/21/2010 11:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
thats because plato was an elitist pig who thought like socrates that their should be a philosopher king running the show and everyone else should just obey and do what the almighty philosopher king says without question. Socrates - what a joke, hes a pig too.

IF Stones - The Trial of Scorates
http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Socrates-I-F-Stone/dp/...


RE: enough already!
By knutjb on 6/21/2010 4:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Conservatism has damn near destroyed the country.
Proof? Nope you are factually wrong. You have little understanding of our current system. The Progressivism polluting our politics with moral relativism distorts what and how capitalism works. Lightly regulated Capitalism would not cause the malady we are currently experiencing. You have little evidence of where government bureaucrats have improved life for anyone.

BTW you don't elect bureaucrats, they are appointed and rarely answer to anyone. The damage they cause is buried in the overwhelming and overbearing rules to apply the vague laws created by Congress. I worked in said bureaucracy for 20+ years. The rules are hard to correct once enacted.

Detroit has been under "Liberal" control for over 100 years and it only gets worse. All the social justice claims and still no improvement.

The argument that Conservatism is at fault is nothing more than a lie perpetuated by Progressives into a social myth to take power for their own benefit. Another is the Corporations are all evil. Again factually incorrect. There are some bad Corporations but not all or even most. There are too many laws that tie the hands of Corporations from functioning efficiently.

Conservatism is not party based it is a political belief of LIMITED government and it's not so limited to be Anarchy. Conservatism believes in thinking through the problem and not reacting to wild claims as fact.

Progressivism permeates BOTH parties. Progressivism plays on fear and quickly responding to events as dire emergencies regardless of the facts, i.e. Rhom Emanuele's statement of never letting a crisis go to waste is this ideology in action.

They create a "Bad Guy" to put up as a pinata and beat up. Then they use said pinata to justify "new tough regulations" to prevent said act from ever happening again. Look back in history and you will see numerous use of this tactic to take power from one group and consolidate into your fear into their power. Point to where these fixes have worked, there might be a couple but few overall.

More government, Progresssivism, is nothing more than an elitist power grab. Progressives are the problem not Conservatives.


RE: enough already!
By Smilin on 6/21/2010 6:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yo momma.


RE: enough already!
By sgw2n5 on 6/21/2010 6:10:10 PM , Rating: 1
You are right! Conservatives are not at fault... Republicans are!

Republicans haven't been conservative since the Goldwater era, and to claim that the current crop of neocons even resembles anything remotely conservative is idiotic.

And damn those progressives, amirite!?!
I long for the good old days when you could work children 14 hours/day in sawmills and drag people to death from a horse because they don't pray to jeeeeeesus enough.


RE: enough already!
By knutjb on 6/21/2010 7:34:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And damn those progressives, amirite!?! I long for the good old days when you could work children 14 hours/day in sawmills and drag people to death from a horse because they don't pray to jeeeeeesus enough.
You ignorance is blaring. Do you really know what early 20th century progressives did? Prohibition. Woodrow Wilson said in a speech to Union school teachers that they needed to isolate the best, few in number, and the workers, great in number. So the few can determine what's best for the whole. Much like Plato's Republic.

Wilson also re-instituted segregation in an unsegregated military. He proudly had Cecil B DeMille's Birth of a Nation viewed at the White House. After growing the Fed gov into a monstrosity he put the gov into a massive debt. So he refused to give war veterans the pensions they had been promised. When they peacefully rallied in DC he sent Douglas MacArthur and the Army to chase them out, killing many.

Yeah Progressivism is just swell...

Your false assumption that Conservatives are the sole source of ill will towards people is, like I said at the beginning, ignorant.


RE: enough already!
By sgw2n5 on 6/21/2010 9:53:34 PM , Rating: 1
Oops, my bad. I forgot that Woodrow freakin Wilson represents all progressives and progressive ideals...

And prohibition was brought about by religious fundamentalists who deem it necessary to dictate how other people live their lives... AND WAS EVEN VETOED BY WOODROW WILSON.

Pick a better example next time moron.


RE: enough already!
By knutjb on 6/21/2010 11:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really know what early 20th century progressives did? Prohibition. Woodrow Wilson said in a speech to Union school teachers that they needed to isolate the best, few in number, and the workers, great in number.
Prohibition one idea, WW another idea.

I tied "Prohibition" with the "?." Many of those involved in the Temperance and Suffrage moment were heavily involved in the Progressive movement. Not all that the Progressives did was bad. It was the belief in their innate superiority over other classes and that they should tell the inferior classes how they must function that is truly despicable. Then I went into WW. WW was a major force in the Progressive movement and was a major force in the two-class system.

Perhaps I should have separated those two sentences further so you could get that there were two separate ideas.


RE: enough already!
By kiwik on 6/21/2010 6:29:32 PM , Rating: 4
It's funny to watch americans argue about their politics when you come from an other country. In Canada, for instance, our most rightwing party is the PCC, and it follows an electoral program similar to centrist democrats.

There's also the demonisation that's caused by your polarized political system that's kinda amusing. One side claims to be all cool and preserving freedom while claiming the other side is the root of all the problems and always making insults to them. But at the same time, the other side does the same thing exact same thing. Thus, you end up with a HURR LIBURALS DURR CONSERVATIVES debate that has lost all it's value.

What a dump and a bad place to live that progressive Canada must be!


RE: enough already!
By knutjb on 6/21/2010 7:17:30 PM , Rating: 4
I am sure our system is amusing. I don't think many of our labels parallel with those up there. Our Progressivism has its roots in the post Civil War idealism that reacted to the horrible war. Progressive sounds good by the definition but not in the application. Unfortunately Progressivism evolved into an East Coast elitism based heavily in the Ivy League schools. Its best known promoter being Woodrow Wilson and to a lesser extent Teddy Roosevelt.

As for the back and forth bantering that's how its supposed to be. When you have the branches fighting with each other they are less able to implement draconian measures against the people. Unfortunately from time to time one party gets a strangle hold on two of the three branches and push a single, un-vetted, ideology without balance. Fortunately it doesn't last very long.


RE: enough already!
By Stacey Melissa on 6/21/2010 12:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You idiot. Its liberal trolls...

That's the way to persuade people to your side! Where do I sign up to spew the same bile you do? Oh, right, you provided the link.


RE: enough already!
By YashBudini on 6/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: enough already!
By Botia on 6/21/2010 1:31:55 PM , Rating: 3
It's the politicians who have divided us into conservative and liberal so that we would fight amongst ourselves while allowing them to gain greater control and power over our lives. If we would stop fighting and come together, we would realize how corrupt Washington has become and we would have the power to change it.


RE: enough already!
By mdogs444 on 6/21/2010 1:36:37 PM , Rating: 3
Our division is what created the political parties, because people can never and will never agree on everything. This idea of some sort of perfect social utopia is quite humorous.

The current president chided during his campaign that he was going to "bring everyone together" and no more "division", etc. I find it funny if he thought he'd really accomplish that running the country for the very far left.


RE: enough already!
By gamerk2 on 6/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: enough already!
By knutjb on 6/21/2010 5:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
You are seriously blinded by misguided Ideology, and it is your right to be so.
quote:
Stop it. Obama leans right on most of his domestic policy. Puts far too much faith in coorporations, as shown during the healthcare debate, the oil spill, etc. Even domestic policy, he leans moderate.
Taking over Banks and Automakers is your idea of showing faith? Healthcare is moderate? As for oil he is either incompetent or desires the crisis to cram his cap & tax down our throats. This is extremist, not even moderate let alone far left. Obama is extreme far left but tries to fool the independents with "right" sounding speech. Look at his ACTIONS they are nowhere on the right.
quote:
Its funny to point out, but if Ronald F'ing Regan ran today, he would run as a Democrat, as no ex-Union, Hollywood establishment political figure could ever run on a Republican ticket. Fact is, over the past 20 years, the Republican party has jumped off a cliff.
You really enjoy showing how much you don't know. Try reading up on Reagan and you might, if you let go of your ideological blinders, find Reagan would be right of the Republicans and very disappointed with their move way left. Even JFK would be to the right of today's Republicans.
quote:
Nevermind the fact the other side refuses to play ball, forcing 60 vote supermajorities on EVERYTHING, forcing bad bills to get passed because of the extra votes needed. As such, you get bad bills that no one is happy over, which benifits the party which did absolutly nothing to contribute except to force bills they themselves would be happy to pass.
The other side has been sidelined and have no say and to blame them is quite ludicrous. You even state the the minority is the cause of the majority passing "bad bills." So you are saying that Obama and the Democrats are writing bad bills and signing them into law but its the Republicans fault.

Wow you are really screwed up in your thinking.


RE: enough already!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2010 5:39:06 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah ummm I knew Gamer was a flaming idiot, but this thread takes the cake. I think he's off his med's or something. Obama "leans" right !??!?


RE: enough already!
By sgw2n5 on 6/21/2010 6:16:01 PM , Rating: 1
You're obviously too young to remember that the USA used to have an honest-to-goodness left wing party. The democrats of today are actually far to the right of what nearly every other country in the world considers to be even a little liberal.

Hell, you neocons of today would crucify Reagan for leaning too far to the left if he were still around.

Lay off the Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh... it's rotting your brain.


RE: enough already!
By YashBudini on 6/21/2010 7:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
"it's rotting your brain. "

You're too late.


RE: enough already!
By sgw2n5 on 6/21/2010 6:20:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You really enjoy showing how much you don't know. Try reading up on Reagan and you might, if you let go of your ideological blinders, find Reagan would be right of the Republicans and very disappointed with their move way left. Even JFK would be to the right of today's Republicans.


Congratulations... that is probably the most idiotic thing I have ever read on DT.

Wow... just wow.

You neocon morons would crucify Ronnie if here were to run today.


RE: enough already!
By knutjb on 6/21/2010 11:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You neocon morons would crucify Ronnie if here were to run today.
I think I'm in a pretty good position to comment on Reagan's beliefs. I grew up in CA where he was governor and suffered through Jerry Brown's screwing up the state. Also I did vote for Reagan for his second term... I wasn't old enough to vote for his first term.

You have a lot of hot air but are short on fact. Most conservatives wish there was one even close to Reagan's beliefs today. Again your portrayal of his, and Obama's position on the left-right scale is nothing less than a hallucination.


RE: enough already!
By sgw2n5 on 6/21/2010 5:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
Obama makes Nixon look like a freakin left-winger...

The guy is clearly to the right of center. You've been watching waaaaay too much fox news bro.


RE: enough already!
By JediJeb on 6/22/2010 2:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
So wanting the government to pay for health care is a right wing idea, along with taxing our main source of energy to pay for inefficient expensive alternate forms instead of letting them be financed by the market alone? Thinking that the rich should pay for everything the poor want must also be a right wing idea. Thinking that working for what you get is wrong and you are entitled to the best simply because you exist must also be a right wing idea.

Wow I guess I have been a left winger all along and never knew it. Anyone who thinks Obama is center or even right of center must be so far in left field that they are crossing the foul line and climbing up into the stands. Seems even Obama's original supporters are deserting him now.


RE: enough already!
By AEvangel on 6/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: enough already!
By Botia on 6/21/2010 1:49:34 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, Jefferson was the least Christian of the founding fathers. Yet he attended worship service at the U.S. Capitol Building while he was in office. He authorized the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.

The "Jefferson Bible" was an abridgment of the gospels that he created for missionary work with the Indians, which he supported with his funds.

This least Christian founding father acted more like a Christian than most Christians do today. Christians need to start acting like Christians again.


RE: enough already!
By Smilin on 6/21/2010 2:38:43 PM , Rating: 3
Jefferson was not the "least Christian" of the founding fathers by a longshot.

Stop trying to rewrite history.

FACT: Not all of the United States founding fathers were Christians.

Jefferson and Franklin were Deists who showed academic interest in Christianity (and other religions). Ethan Allan wasn't a christian and really disliked organized religion, Thomas Paine was flat out anti-christian.

Give it up. Not all the founding fathers were Christian. IT'S OK though! Accepting this does not suddenly cause the country to crumble or your soul to go to hell.

"In God we trust" means just that, "God". It could be Christian God, Deist God, or any other god you choose. It does NOT mean the "Christian God" and the only reason people think that is because of the myth that all of our founding fathers were Christian. "Under God" was also not placed in the pledge of allegiance until the middle of the 20th century...it had nothing to do with our founding.


RE: enough already!
By wiz220 on 6/21/2010 4:05:54 PM , Rating: 3
In God we trust wasn't even put on our paper currency until the 195050's, just like "under God" wasn't put into the pledge of allegiance until the 1950's due to the red scare and McCarthyism.

This is another problem with the Christian Fundies that go around crying "give me my country back". They don't even understand that "their country", as they see it in their minds never existed in the first place.


RE: enough already!
By knutjb on 6/21/2010 5:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
So everyone who disagrees with the current regime's party song and wants their country back are nothing more than "Christian Fundies." Your proof?

I am no Christian Fundy but prefer the original ideology to what is going on today. You are making mindless generalizations using disconnected events as if they prove your allegations.

Try reading the Federalist papers.


RE: enough already!
By sgw2n5 on 6/21/2010 6:26:27 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think he was generalizing... what he said is fact.

In god we trust and "one nation under god" were added during McCarthyism.

Claiming that this is a "Christian Nation" isn't only WRONG... it's down-right UNAMERICAN.


RE: enough already!
By Solandri on 6/22/2010 4:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
No argument that "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance during the '50s. But "In God we Trust" has been used on U.S. coins since the Civil War. It wasn't added to paper money until 1957, but paper money wasn't used as standard currency until the early 1900s. Before then, regular people used coins. Only banks and really rich people used paper money.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/curre...
http://www.ronscurrency.com/rhist.htm

Not that this changes much about the original argument since 1861 is still a long ways from 1776.


RE: enough already!
By geddarkstorm on 6/21/2010 2:52:08 PM , Rating: 3
And acting like Christians again means loving and caring for others, and NOT condemning.

"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."
"This is my command: Love each other."
"Do to others as you would have them do to you."
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it."
"For God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved"
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'."
"But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

All direct from Jesus Christ Himself. Or from the OT:

"He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

You're right, we don't see many "Christians" doing that who appear in the media before all, or who are "leaders". Instead we see them picketing funerals of soldiers, or bashing gays, or condemning everyone who doesn't act as they see fit. And you know what? It's -wrong- to do that stuff; it's contrary to the very gospel they should be teaching instead of ruining before the eyes of all. The greatest enemy to Christianity is the actions of many of those who call themselves "Christians".

And you also know what? It's also the role of Christians to protect and care for the environment, as much as is -reasonable-, and doesn't conflict with our primary role of caring for our fellow man (generally it goes hand in hand, who wants their own habitat to be a toxic garbage dump?). Theodor Roosevelt truly understood that.


RE: enough already!
By YashBudini on 6/21/2010 7:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
"This least Christian founding father acted more like a Christian than most Christians do today. Christians need to start acting like Christians again. "

Boy you got that one right. Now if they would start with giving up all these current false prophets.


RE: enough already!
By aoskunk on 6/21/2010 3:06:14 PM , Rating: 1
i would agree with marlboro but I think there should be some regulation on big oil. BP? If your going to do off shore drilling you need to have the proper safety measures in place in case something were to happen. Such as the reserve wells that if they would have been willing to pay a relatively small amount of money for would have helped stop the spill much faster. Who's going to make sure these giant greedy corporations that only care about that bottom line do the right thing and spend a buck on safety and environmental protection? You certainly can't count on them to do. I like free market, free wheeling economy for the most part. There are exceptions to everything though. Nothing is that black and white you need to use common sense where its necessary.


RE: enough already!
By MrBlastman on 6/21/2010 4:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, a couple of points:

quote:
+Restore the constitution to being based on Christianity, as it was originally written


There's one major problem with that: The Constitution and our founding fathers were keenly aware of the need for "separation of Church and State," as understood the British oppression of religion through the Anglican Church. In other words, America came to be due to people leaving England after having a religion shoved down their throats.

Hence, why we have Freedom of Religion in the United States. I think it would be a mistake integrating Christianity directly into the Constitution. Religion MUST be kept separate from Government--at all costs.

This is coming from a religious guy too, if that says anything.

Second,

quote:
+Deregulate the stock market


That is a mistake as well. If you don't have regulations on the market, there will be even more people that take advantage of individuals than there are now. Sure, some slip through the cracks, but I can guarantee you that the numbers will increase significantly if you remove the regulation. There are a lot of crooks in the business just waiting to find a hole to exploit.

Or, do you want volatility to soar to levels that the Chinese markets see? I really doubt there would be a lot of Americans willing to deal with that. They've already had the crap kicked out of them enough to be able to stomach volatility like that.

Don't get me wrong, we need the markets, but, we need them to be orderly and not the complete wild west either.


RE: enough already!
By Mojo the Monkey on 6/21/2010 4:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. Funny how its the same people who complain about all the lawyers and lawsuits who then want all the deregulation. Think about it. Without regulation, ALL wrongdoing and exploitation would be delt with after the fact.... WITH LAWYERS.

Can you imagine the # of lawsuits every person would be directly involved in throughout their lives? Also, think about all the harm that is done for long periods of time before the first consumers "wise up" to the problem and expose it to the "market" who then vote with their dollars?

People would be getting exploited to the extreme left and right, and the people responsible would just move on to the next racket by the time it got exposed.


RE: enough already!
By rsmech on 6/22/2010 1:44:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Religion MUST be kept separate from Government--at all costs.


If that were the case the religious beliefs of the founding fathers would have never inspired them to do what they did. Your faith whatever it may be are a part of your beliefs & politics. There is no separation, when that separation comes you are no longer a believer. The only thing is that gov't cannot intitute a religion but all politicians can believe as they will & let it influence their decisions as they believe. If you disagree don't vote for them.


RE: enough already!
By Kanazozo on 6/21/2010 5:30:16 PM , Rating: 1
I strongly beleive that you are, in fact, not event a true tea party member. In fact, at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, your more likely someone with an agenda to tarnish the general perception of tea partiers. So few of us (yes, I support the tea party effort) spout the zealotry that you just did. The tea party movement is in spirit an effort to slow the radical progressive movement and socialization of our country, and to stop the nationalization of so many formerly-private enterprises.

You, on the other hand, are what the politically liberal and progressives imagine when they think of tea partiers. There is already a massive effort by the media to paint tea partiers (and general conservatives) as radical rednecks. Since this is precisely the way you come across in your post, it leads one to believe that you are indeed no tea party supporter at all.

Readers - please keep this in mind when you see or hear anything coming from either a) unmoderated sources of information (blogs, forums, etc) or b) major media outlets that have traditionally been known for a liberal slant (unfortunately, most of them).


RE: enough already!
By xpax on 6/21/2010 12:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
FACT! Tomorrow won't be the same temperature as today.
FACT! CO2 levels have varied wildly over the last few million years, when there were either no humans, or at the least -- no humans emitting CO2.

The Pine Island Glacier information is real. It also in no way correlates to AGW or anything else. The extended melt of the glacier is due to it's disconnection from the ridge, which as stated above, occurred prior to 1970.

I just can't deal with this AGW nonsense. Why don't we all just agree to clean up our act environmentally? Switch to electric cars, build more reactors and get on with it.

These things are good ideas no matter what the cause of GW actually is. But to state that it's a fact that humans are causing it is idiotic at best.


RE: enough already!
By robertisaar on 6/21/2010 12:20:20 PM , Rating: 4
"FACT! Human CO2 emissions are to blame."

actually, no, that is not fact, it's still being debated.


RE: enough already!
By ThePooBurner on 6/21/2010 3:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
actually, no, that is not fact, it's still being debated.


Only by those blinded by their lust for power to control us through "Global Warming". To everyone else the debate is over. We are not responsible in the slightest.


RE: enough already!
By spread on 6/21/2010 4:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
Do you believe in Venus? You know that little planet that is twice as far from the sun than Mercury but is HOTTER because it's atmosphere is made of greenhouse gases trapping all the heat in.

http://www.blurtit.com/q756425.html

So yes, CO2 does cause warming (along with other gases like methane, nitrous oxide, various CFCs used in refrigerants.. etc.), but is there enough in our atmosphere to do so? That's the debate right now.


RE: enough already!
By ThePooBurner on 6/21/2010 6:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
No, that what people who want to control us through taxing us to death and forcing the world under their heal WANT us to think is in debate. Man made emissions are NOT responsible, in any way, shape, or form. The Sun cycles have been irrefutably shown to be the cause of all the climate changes that have been taken place that are not the result of other natural occurrences (such as plate shifting changing the height of places, etc) which themselves are a very small portion of the change.

Aside from that, warming is GOOD for mankind. It's cold that kills us. With heat, even if it is in "excess", we can do just about anything because we can turn that into power. Hard to turn cold into power. However, with more power (if the heating were to increase to that level) from unlimited heat, we would basically have unlimited power. We could stay cool underground, etc. etc.. Heating up is NOT a problem. It's getting cold that we have to worry about.

No heat = no precipitation. No precipitation = no food. No food = death. Whereas with the converse: Heat = more precipitation (cause it's not going to magically float out into space). More precipitation = More food. More food = more people. Take a look at the history of the world and the prosperity vs desolation of society/humanity that existed in the hot vs cold periods over the last 4K years.

Also, more heat = more H2O in the atmosphere, which is by and large a much "worse" greenhouse gas. So now it's hot, muggy, and raining all the time. The entire earth has just become a tropical rain forest and is suffering from unprecedented prosperity and plant growth. There are now more animals, more people, more food, more water in the rivers. Gee, what a terrible thing to have happen.


RE: enough already!
By spread on 6/22/2010 12:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
That's nice. But you can see this for yourself with a simple experiment good enough for an elementary classroom. You take a bottle, fill it with CO2, leave it in the sun beside a bottle filled with air. The CO2 one will ALWAYS be hotter.

Man made emission like CO2 can have an effect, but the question you should be asking is: Does it have ENOUGH of an effect to be noticeable?

You can't turn atmospheric temperature into power. If you can, that would be the holy grail of power generation. In most cases, heat is an annoying byproduct. The movement of heat can be used for power generation, for example geothermal. It moves from the hot core, to the cooler atmosphere, with a power generating machine in between taking advantage.

Heat doesn't always mean more precipitation. What about the Sahara Desert?


RE: enough already!
By ThePooBurner on 6/22/2010 12:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not disputing CO2 being a greenhouse gas. That would be moronic. And I'm not asking the question of "can it have a noticeable effect" because i already know the answer is a resounding NO.

Also, i wasn't talking about turning atmospheric heat into power. I was speaking in terms of the planet getting hotter due to the source of the planets heat: the sun. If the planet gets hotter, it's the suns fault. If the planet continues to get hotter and hotter, it's the suns fault. If it's the suns fault, we can harness that in a number of ways.

Heat over large bodies of water DOES mean more precipitation. Since we are talking about a GLOBAL increase, and not a single part of the world like the Sahara, my point stands. Either the whole earth gets warmer at the same time causing the oceans to also warm and causing more evaporation, or the warmists are (even more) full of crap.


RE: enough already!
By HostileEffect on 6/21/2010 12:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
Upon reading your post...

just stop.


RE: enough already!
By Spamdel on 6/21/2010 12:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
RE: enough already!
By rsmech on 6/22/2010 1:28:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only open question is how big oil like BP is able to warp so many minds.


The warped thinking & what you & others who wish to "save the planet" forget is WHY WAS BP DEEP WATER DRILLING IN THE GULF? BECAUSE YOU & OTHERS ON YOUR SIDE STOPPED OIL COMPANIES FROM DRILLING IN ALASKA.

It was your side that blocked it. You chased BP into the gulf. Your thinking caused one shuttle to explode & put others at risk.(banned the safer insulation used on the booster tanks). Causing us to dig into the earth in a more intusive way compared to oil in the need for rare Earth metals for car batteries. Found a way to make me pay more for energy while using less.

The oil companies are all rosey either but your side can't seem to see beyond their noses. All your platitudes don't do anything but make you feel good about yourself & that's all that matters. You see BP but you can't see your roll in it and all the other "fixes" you have propagated in this green frenzy. Your deniel would show a lack insight & forsight & that's what scares me.


RE: enough already!
By callmeroy on 6/22/2010 8:52:22 AM , Rating: 2
psst bildan....um...yeah how do I break this to you...um

you know the earth is BILLIONS of years old right...um..

yeah...and global warming and cooling have been going on since its creation right..you do know that right..

Well you see humans have only been around for a million years or so...so that "FACT! Human CO2 emissions are to blame" has some "slight" holes in it...


RE: enough already!
By JediJeb on 6/22/2010 3:04:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"The discovery of the ridge has raised new questions about whether the current loss of ice from Pine Island Glacier is caused by recent climate change or is a continuation of a longer-term process that began then the glacier disconnected from the ridge," said Jenkins.


Even the expert doing this study says they do not know for sure what the cause is, yet you seem to know exactly that CO2 from our cars is. I think I will go with the expert here and agree that we still do not know all the FACTS concerning what is currently happening.

quote:
These scientists are trying to understand out world and perhaps save it along with the idiots who can't (or won't) understand the science!


I understand a lot of the science behind this, and I understand enough to know that we still do not have all the details with which to form a complete and proper conclusion. If we did, the models would fit what is happening in real life. As it is the models say the earth should already be about 3C warmer than it is currently, but it hasn't been correct, and every time they correct the model it still doesn't fit what is happening. Yet even though it doesn't fit they scream the earth is dying and we must fix it and show the results of their failed models instead of the true results of what is happening.


RE: enough already!
By HostileEffect on 6/21/2010 12:17:10 PM , Rating: 4
+1

I often wonder if these anarchists will vandalize my property or assault me for my choice of life when I get around to living it.

I hope American business and politics snap out of this green trance in the next 4-8 years.


RE: enough already!
By YashBudini on 6/21/2010 7:10:04 PM , Rating: 1
Yes we should return to the old pollution = profit mantra that has worked so well for so long.

/sarcasm


RE: enough already!
By rsmech on 6/22/2010 1:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
All none believers must be converted willingly or by force or suffer the consequences. Beware, they are looking for you.


RE: enough already!
By Stacey Melissa on 6/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: enough already!
By AlexWade on 6/21/2010 12:51:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Perhaps you're willing to pay for that extreme expense, but I'd rather go with relatively cheaper carbon taxes and upfront clean energy costs.


You must be joking. Ask Spain how much "relatively cheaper" carbon taxes are. I am unwilling to spend a dime on a science which refuses to act like a science. If man-made global warming is so true, then why suppress dissenting viewpoints, refuse to acknowledge legally binding freedom of information requests, and refuse to debate in an honest open forum this issue? True science welcomes dissenting viewpoints and debates. Until I see the AGW science act like real science, I am unwilling to spend any money on it all.


RE: enough already!
By kattanna on 6/21/2010 1:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ask Spain how much "relatively cheaper" carbon taxes are


spain is actually now cutting back on those subsidies

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews.aspx?xml...

quote:
The Spanish government is set to enforce a cut of 30% in subsidies for existing solar photovoltaic plants following a meeting with solar industry bodies Wednesday, a source at the Spanish Photovoltaic Industry Association (ASIF) said Thursday.

ASIF external relations manager Thomas Diaz told Platts Thursday that Spanish Energy Minister Pedro Luis Marin Uribe told a range of industry associations Wednesday that existing PV plants would have their subsidies cut by 30% while any new large scale plants would have their tariffs cut by 45%.

Smaller scale roof installations would lose 25% of their existing subsidy while installations with a generating capacity of less than 20 KW will have 5% taken from their tariff, according to Diaz.


quote:
The government has been looking to cut renewables support to bring the growing "tariff deficit" under control. This is the difference between the cost of power, including feed-in tariffs, and lower tariffs that the country's power utilities continue to offer under the so-called "tariff of last resort" and the "social tariff" for vulnerable and low income customers.

The higher cost of renewable power is helping to drive up the deficit .


and yet, spain is being held up as a model for the world to emulate for renewables


RE: enough already!
By gamerk2 on 6/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: enough already!
By Stacey Melissa on 6/21/2010 3:38:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ask Spain how much "relatively cheaper" carbon taxes are.

The problem in Spain is that they created a jobs bubble with their renewable energy buildout. (And their much larger problem was with the same housing bubble that America is coming out of.) Note that I said clean energy in my previous post, rather than renewable energy. Spain focused on wind and solar. I think we should focus on nuclear, nuclear, and more nuclear. And wind where it's always absurdly windy, like here in Kansas. Individuals and businesses can do solar on their rooftops if they want, and at their own expense. I don't think there should be much in the way of subsidization for clean energy. I just think carbon should be taxed to reflect its real economic impact up front and as we use it. That would more or less level the playing field between the leading energy source choices.

quote:
I am unwilling to spend a dime on a science which refuses to act like a science. If man-made global warming is so true, then why suppress dissenting viewpoints, refuse to acknowledge legally binding freedom of information requests, and refuse to debate in an honest open forum this issue? True science welcomes dissenting viewpoints and debates. Until I see the AGW science act like real science, I am unwilling to spend any money on it all.

Climate scientists publish their work in peer-reviewed journals, in which it is subject to dissent. That's normal for science. What you're asking for is the same thing that PR-wise creationists have been asking for from biologists for years. Real biologists do tend to ignore creationists, but that doesn't make Neo-Darwinian theory unscientific.


RE: enough already!
By gamerk2 on 6/21/2010 4:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem in Spain is that they created a jobs bubble with their renewable energy buildout. (And their much larger problem was with the same housing bubble that America is coming out of.) Note that I said clean energy in my previous post, rather than renewable energy. Spain focused on wind and solar. I think we should focus on nuclear, nuclear, and more nuclear. And wind where it's always absurdly windy, like here in Kansas. Individuals and businesses can do solar on their rooftops if they want, and at their own expense. I don't think there should be much in the way of subsidization for clean energy. I just think carbon should be taxed to reflect its real economic impact up front and as we use it. That would more or less level the playing field between the leading energy source choices.


I'm ok with most of this. Personally, I'd tax carbon, and start...enticing individuals/business to start slapping solar panels (eventually moving to make them mandatory when the tech is more mature). That being said, that still fails to address the "car" problem [I've been yelling for Hydrogen for 20+ years now].

As for Nuclear, most of the fuel used in mined from Nigeria, which is only slightly more stable then the Middle East. Sure, you don't need a LOT of radioactive materials for a reactor, but supply is still an issue. Personally, if you want nuclear, all the waste should be stored IN STATE, if not IN DISTRICT. I wonder how many people would be pro-nuclear if they had to ensure the saftey of the waste...


RE: enough already!
By Stacey Melissa on 6/21/2010 5:20:40 PM , Rating: 1
There's a good podcast (and transcript) about nuclear power and waste from Skeptoid, available at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092 . The basic rundown is that the latest generation of nuclear power plants are very safe and produce very little waste. They're certainly better than coal power plants.

All the info I could find about uranium deposits and mining points away from Nigeria. From the Wikipedia article:

quote:
The worldwide production of uranium in 2009 amounted to 50,572 tonnes, of which 27% was mined in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia are the top three producers and together account for 63% of world uranium production. Other important uranium producing countries in excess of 1000 tonnes per year are Namibia, Russia, Niger, Uzbekistan, and the United States.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining

Nigeria wasn't mentioned at all on that page.

quote:
That being said, that still fails to address the "car" problem [I've been yelling for Hydrogen for 20+ years now].

Hydrogen will be sensible for propelling cars once we clean up the electricity-intensive method of producing hydrogen fuel.


RE: enough already!
By Duwelon on 6/21/2010 12:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
Oh m g. So because a disaster might strike you believe we should all be taxed? Do you even know what insurance is for? No offense but you sound unbelievably naïve. Let the free market worry about the cost because not only will it do it 100x better than any fed agency, but also if you really believe it would be cheap or even halfa.. Efficient then my guess is your primary voting issuesin 2008 was hope and change.


RE: enough already!
By gamerk2 on 6/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: enough already!
By mdogs444 on 6/21/2010 1:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously haven't been paying much attention lately. The public sector wages are about 30% higher than average private sector wages.

The private sector has an incentive to always look for ways to cut costs, increase efficiency, and find ways to make things bigger and better.

The public sector is often held back due to unionized labor, higher wages and benefits to do the same job, and there is no incentive to cut costs because all they do is go back to congress and ask for more money. You don't go $1.5T dollars in deficit in 1 year by being efficient and making things cheaper than the private industry. If the private industry tried to go into debt like they, they'd be bankrupt....oh wait, GM, Chrysler, bank bailouts, department of education, teachers union, auto unions....need I go on?


RE: enough already!
By Duwelon on 6/21/2010 2:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
Prove it! J/k, but seriously we're f'd because about 45% of Americans are Suseptible to such bs that the guy above you posted. We're just f'd.


RE: enough already!
By gamerk2 on 6/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: enough already!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2010 6:13:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
And...that proves what exactly? Money to the people = growing economy = higher taxes collected.


You really are this thick??

Who do you think pays government workers? WE DO. We have a serious situation here that you aren't comprehending. About 40%+ of our current workforce is public sector, while the other 50% are working to help PAY THEM.

This alone illustrates perfectly that the Federal Government is too large, and it's seriously negatively impacting the nation.

quote:
Really? I thought they just laid off workers by the dozen until overhead dropped...Name me one company that has decreased operating costs during this recession in ways OTHER then laying off workers? The high unemployment rate is basically proof that private business in unable, or unwilling to adapt.


They don't have a choice. When you increase operating expenses, or lower revenue, layoffs are inevitable. Maybe because payroll taxes are so high? Maybe because most states REQUIRE employers to also cover health care benefits for it's workers?

You talk as if businesses can snap their fingers and get a magical money creator. And just "adapt" to harsh economic times without anyone getting fired or no assets or branches liquidated.

God you're a moron. Wake up and join the rest of us back here on Earth.


RE: enough already!
By gamerk2 on 6/21/2010 1:45:23 PM , Rating: 1
Also, I doubt there is insurance that covers entire costal reigons from being permanently flooded, or insurance if the weather heats up, and drives southern farmers out of business...

Fact is, no private entity can afford to cover planet wide climate change. Heck, no government can do it either, hence the reason to nip this in the bud, ASAP.


RE: enough already!
By mdogs444 on 6/21/2010 2:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
Seeing as how this massive flooding you speak of will not be effecting any "farmers" for thousands of years, I really don't see much sense in "nipping this in the bud, ASAP"....

Hell, I don't see a point in even talking about something stupid like this with someone who wants me to pay a shit ton more money to battle something that "may or may not" happens thousands of years down the road.

It's like Ann Coulter says...the democrats have finally smartened up. They come up with something so stupid that its going to take conservatives thousands of years to prove wrong.


RE: enough already!
By gamerk2 on 6/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: enough already!
By Iaiken on 6/21/2010 5:18:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Of course, you have an idea in your head, and will ignore any evidence otherwise. I still remember the SO2 debates back in the 70's, where people like you argued Acid Rain an imposibility...


Guilt by false association much?

You are also making the key mistake of thinking that just because someone accepts global warming as the explanation of the observed phenomena that they are also accepting that it is man made, or that we could have an effect on slowing it or reversing it.

You assume a great deal...


RE: enough already!
By Stacey Melissa on 6/21/2010 3:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So because a disaster might strike you believe we should all be taxed?

No, that's not what I said. Go back and read my previous post to find out what I said, rather than beating up on straw men.

quote:
Do you even know what insurance is for?

Sure, I know plenty of things that insurance is for. Regional public infrastructure is not one of those things.


RE: enough already!
By rcc on 6/21/2010 1:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
So you'd rather pay big bucks to modify the climate with unknown consequences to the future of the planet? How does this make sense??


RE: enough already!
By Stacey Melissa on 6/21/2010 4:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you'd rather pay big bucks to modify the climate with unknown consequences to the future of the planet?

That's not at all what I said. In fact, I'd much rather avoid getting to the point where we have to geoengineer the climate. As much as possible, I just want to avoid messing with the climate via carbon emissions.


RE: enough already!
By rcc on 6/22/2010 5:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
Would it not make sense to be sure that carbon emissions actually have anything to do with it first?

Granted, if you can not emit any to start with, it ends the debate, but doesn't answer the question. It's just a matter of what is that experiment worth to you, me, and the rest of society around the world.


RE: enough already!
By Noritsu on 6/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: enough already!
By YashBudini on 6/21/2010 12:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
Got issues?


RE: enough already!
By VitalyTheUnknown on 6/21/2010 12:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
"In fact, there is nothing to fix. Live life, adapt, quit whining, and just leave people the hell alone." - Homo neanderthalensis 40 000 BCE.


RE: enough already!
By cochy on 6/21/2010 12:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
They obviously did a poor job adapting.


RE: enough already!
By Iaiken on 6/21/2010 1:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
I actually look forward to not getting snow anymore.

Visit Sunny Toronto: We're the freshwater Los Angeles!

:P


RE: enough already!
By Chadder007 on 6/21/2010 11:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
Can we get a 6 up in here, yo.


RE: enough already!
By kaoken on 6/21/2010 11:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
They are merely showing data they collected. A theory is constantly tried and tested with data--that's how science works.

Even if, the conclusions say this is a natural process we still need to prepare for it.

Anyways all that aside, eating meat is a new one even for me. And if you don't like it, stop reading Mick's stuff lol.


RE: enough already!
By kaoken on 6/21/2010 11:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
OMG it's not Mick's work....LOL


RE: enough already!
By the3monkies on 6/22/2010 12:14:24 AM , Rating: 1
I'm with you guys, my mind's already made up and no matter what happens, this climate change argument is bullshit.

Scenario 1: If global temps spike and sea-levels rise, etc., then it's just another example of natural variability in the earth's climate, and I'm right. Scenario 2: if the temps don't rise, the theories wrong, and I'm right again.

So my ass is covered because nothing can prove me wrong. It's called preemptive thinking. Get with it you liberal dupes.


RE: enough already!
By Grabo on 6/22/2010 12:29:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Geez, don't you climate change people ever get tired of this crap? You act as if the world has been a constant forever and that we've never had periods warmer than today, and that we've never had an ice age or two.


You don't think human society today is sensitive to changes in the natural parameters? Who cares if it was much warmer during the time of the dinosaurs and yet the earth didn't melt. Can't say 'we made it through then' so the argument is absolutely worthless.

quote:
I get the idea that you would like the temperatures and climate to stay the same forever as it is right now....but that's not going to happen, and blaming it on SUV's, eating meat, drive-thru's, big houses and capitalism isn't going to fix it either.


I don't know what capitalism has to do with it, or drive-thrus or necessarily even big houses, but SUVs are mostly evil. Blame goes where blame is deserved.

quote:
In fact, there is nothing to fix. Live life, adapt, quit whining, and just leave people the hell alone. You want to live a certain lifestyle, then good for you, go do it. But let me live mine as i see fit.


Against any sort of communal effort eh? Denying all responsibility too I see, even as we're part of an ecosystem. I guess if you were an animal you'd be some sort of rogue locust.


RE: enough already!
By ET on 6/22/2010 6:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
Taking the time to read the article might help save you from making stupid comments. The only thing the article says about warming is that the ice loss may be for another reason. So it supports your stance, yet you slam it.

I find it amazing (though sadly not surprising) that this article generated the amount of regurgitated discussion that it did, with apparently no one bothering to read it.


Wonderful news then.
By AlexWade on 6/21/2010 12:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
Cryosphere Today shows the entire Antarctic sea ice to be abnormally high. And last year, Cryosphere Today stated the Antarctic sea ice was at a record high, the previous record in 2007. Therefore, if the sea level rises because of Antarctic ice melt, it must also fall when the Antarctic ice is high.

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

And then there is this study, just released about the Antarctic.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/a...




RE: Wonderful news then.
By ot56 on 6/21/2010 1:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
Jeez, so much information and so little knowledge.

When sea ice is HIGH, it shows that glaciers are pumping bergs into the ocean RAISING the sea level.

When sea ice is LOW, it shows that glaciers are moving slowly and not calving into the ocean as fast.

Sea level is lowered by having ice trapped ABOVE sea level, i.e. in glaciers. Once the ice is in the ocean, it raises sea level.

This is like 3rd grade science, when we put the ice cube in the glass of water and see what happens to the level of water in the glass.


RE: Wonderful news then.
By gamerk2 on 6/21/2010 1:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is like 3rd grade science, when we put the ice cube in the glass of water and see what happens to the level of water in the glass.


Poor analogy, as in your example, you are adding more water [in the form of Ice] into the system.


RE: Wonderful news then.
By ot56 on 6/21/2010 3:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Poor analogy, as in your example, you are adding more water [in the form of Ice] into the system.


Not entirely why you think it is poor analogy.

In both instance you add ice and the level of water rises.

In one case it is the level of water in a glass, in the other it is the sea level for the globe.


RE: Wonderful news then.
By ot56 on 6/21/2010 3:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Where do you think the additional sea ice comes from?

The additional sea ice is from enhanced calving by glaciers.

Thus when they calf, you are adding ice from an above sea level source (a glacier) to the ocean. The fact of increased sea ice is a reflection that the sea level is rising, since more ice is being added to the system.


Breaking News!
By Daniel8uk on 6/21/2010 1:46:08 PM , Rating: 3
Leading experts and shady personnel, who wish to remain anonymous have said that due to warm weather*, Ice is beginning to melt and this could cause sea levels to rise.

*Measurements were taken during summer months and further cherry picked to fit into our agenda. We cannot be held responsible for any taxes that you, as a citizen of any 'democratic' country may face due to our 'research'.




RE: Breaking News!
By Stacey Melissa on 6/21/2010 4:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Measurements were taken during summer months and further cherry picked to fit into our agenda.

I admit that, at first, I just assumed the scientists took seasonal variation into account. But after reading your comment, I looked around the links given in the article to be sure. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any mention at all about the seasons during which the measurements were taken. Granted, I don't have access to the full research paper. But I take it that you do, and can provide some quotes from the paper to back up your wild assertions. So please do.


RE: Breaking News!
By gamerk2 on 6/21/2010 4:44:39 PM , Rating: 1
I know *both* sides have cherry picked monthly data at one point or another. Its standard practice to pick a monthly cycle for measurements and compare each month against the same month yearly [for obvious stated reasons]. Whether or not thats followed by EITHER side is another story.

If you summer measurements to summer measurements, everything is OK. If you compare summer to winter...not so much.


RE: Breaking News!
By YashBudini on 6/21/2010 7:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
"I know *both* sides have cherry picked monthly data at one point or another. Its standard practice to pick a monthly cycle for measurements and compare each month against the same month yearly [for obvious stated reasons]. Whether or not thats followed by EITHER side is another story."

And isn't that the real issue? Both sides are full of it?


Calm down.
By wiz220 on 6/21/2010 4:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
It's pretty sad that so many people here instantly start screaming about eco nuts and "liberal scum" just because some scientists are looking at whats going on, trying to understand why, and what the possible consequences might be. The article even stated that they acknowledged that the issues with this ice shelf might very well NOT be due to global warming at all. Sounds like pretty reasonable and responsible science and reporting to me.

Why are you guys so damn sensitive when it comes to this stuff? Should we just not study climate at all? In the end whether you think it's due to humans or not, understanding what's going on with the climate seems like it could be helpful as far as forecasting what populated areas might have issues with flooding so that we can plan for that eventuality.




RE: Calm down.
By gamerk2 on 6/21/2010 4:30:32 PM , Rating: 1
I know, the irony kills me. I was wondering when someone would notice the article was arguing against GW in this particular case. :D

Its been like this with conservatives sine 1994, when Newt basically passed the policy of demonizing the other side. And the Republican party has let that part of the populace take over the party as a whole. Its scary really, how far off the cliff the conservative movement has gone the past 20 years...


RE: Calm down.
By bill4 on 6/21/2010 9:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
The article isn't arguing against global warming at all, so you're a liar, for starters. Either that or you cant read.

But I guess in ultra left wing looney land, acknowledging one phenomena may not be because of global warming, while saying nothing against the theory itself. constitutes "arguing against global warming".

No wonder lefties are so dumb, they cant read.


RE: Calm down.
By bill4 on 6/21/2010 9:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
I guess it's like how to lefty loonies, a moderate leftist like Bush was an "ultra right winger", and moderate-left network like fox is the same...just because every other mainstream news network in America is so far off the scale left wing it's immeasurable...

It's also funny to me how the lefties spend all their time trying to censor Fox, while claiming they are against censorship in other matters, but that's another story.


Happy Median?
By seraphim1982 on 6/21/2010 4:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares who is right or wrong...
Just say that the glacier ice is melting and it isn't for the planet, as it affects the ocean warm water currents.

In my mind global warming hasn't been proved, nor has it been disproven as there is not enough evidence on both side to say that humans are affecting the planet. Although, I would say that preventative maintenence is a good thing on any front for long term savings and health of the planet (proven or unproven). Reduce carbon emissions, reduce the need for oil, improve efficiency of the electrical grid in the US, promote mass transit and its efficency and cost, etc.





RE: Happy Median?
By gamerk2 on 6/21/2010 4:52:41 PM , Rating: 1
Thats the way we've been trying to go for some time. No matter how you look at it, our reliance on fossil fuels will kill us, especially if the supply runs out [Which it is; Kuwait is already sunk because its wells are mostly dry now, and Suadi Arabia is starting to run into issues...].

Of course, that requires Federal Spending, as no private company would undergo the costs. And thats a big no-no for conservatives these days.


RE: Happy Median?
By rsmech on 6/22/2010 2:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
especially if the supply runs out [Which it is


Depends on where you believe oil comes from. If you say decaying vegitation then how could one explain why Russia has super deep bore holes miles deep drilling for oil? I don't think the dinosaurs & vegitation ore buried that deep. It may be a different process of the Earth & may be a continuing process.


RE: Happy Median?
By Belard on 6/21/2010 6:44:50 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah... who is right to say that the sky is blue, that cats and dogs can't have offspring. Theres no proof of these things.

next, people will come up with CRAZY ideas like flying in the air, saying the moon isn't made of cheeze and talking to people you can't even see!

That's there is just crazy talk!


What's the issue?
By JimboK29 on 6/21/2010 12:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
I would think since the Earth is a living thing it will change through time in fluctuations. What is the issue? Is it supposed to just stay the same the past 5 1/2 billion years?




RE: What's the issue?
By gamerk2 on 6/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's the issue?
By knutjb on 6/21/2010 4:06:51 PM , Rating: 1
This article is pointing at one particular area as if the whole cap is doing the same and we'll all be swimming soon. This is more knee jerk reactionism from those wanting it to be true facts be damned.

http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-fa...

Try looking at other sources.


RE: What's the issue?
By damonlynch on 6/21/2010 4:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
EcoWorld highlights the arguments of climate skeptics because they believe debate is important. In Dailytech some people simply shout down - often in incredibly rude ways - those they disagree with. Here at Dailytech many do not debate but engage in a slugfest, which is truly pathetic.

You may like to read some more from the site, such as http://www.ecoworld.com/other/study-warns-environm...


RE: What's the issue?
By gamerk2 on 6/21/2010 4:40:49 PM , Rating: 1
Ahhh, the same old flawed reasoning again. Take one colder then average year, measure the ice, and *poof*, GW is false!

Hence, why you look at larger term data [at least a decade], as one year, and even five year varience is the norm, and expected.

In this case, the southern poles experiance colder then average temperatures last year [A trend which also affected the US], so the increase in size was expected. Could be anything from one-year break in the temperature trend line, to shifting weather patterns shifting a cold stream farther south. [Weather mapping is VERY complicated; i've worked on some of the software that does this, and its constantly updated as we learn more and more about the interactions involved. Although its fun to see what happens in America if, say, if the mountains surrounding India were removed...]

The point in this case:
The temperature was colder then normal in the south pacific, and the ice thickened

Ok, basic logic there. Now, heres the followup the article does NOT address:
Why was the temperature colder? [New trend? Climate Change? Lots of clouds? Year to year varience?]

As such, the article fails to show if the 2009 occurance of thinkining ice was a trend, or a varience.

I also note the north pole had the exact OPPOSITE effect last year, with thinning ice and warmer then average temperature. [I personally believe shifting hot/cold fronts could be in play, but such interaction is WAY above my head]. Bringing up another point: Effects at one pole may not be the same as events on the other pole.


I like the picture
By Goty on 6/21/2010 1:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
I like the second picture attached to the article. Either they've labeled the years incorrectly or climate change is happening a lot faster than anyone thought. At that rate, we'll all be dead in a month! ;)




RE: I like the picture
By jjmcubed on 6/21/2010 9:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
That is the Larsen B Ice shelf. The dates are correct. All it takes is one large crack to form, for a HUGE shelf to float away. The consensus was the shelf would last ten more years, but the shelf broke away much quicker than anyone thought could happen. When they break away, they melt substantially quicker than if they were still apart of the continent.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/larsen_B/index.html

http://web.pdx.edu/~chulbe/science/Larsen/images/L...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=...

The 1,255-square-mile ice shelf took approx 4 months to disappear.


All this GW arguement well, misses the point
By ot56 on 6/21/2010 6:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
I heard T. Boone Pickens on the radio this morning.

He made a great point. The price for oil does NOT reflect the actual cost of that oil.

Consider:

We have the entire 5th fleet in place to ensure the flow of oil
We are fighting in Irag and Afganistan at least partially to ensure the free flow of oil
We purchase oil from countries that use some of the profits to fund activities against the US
There is the risk of ecological issues, whether you are talking about oil spills in the Gulf or AGW (notice I said risk, even the most die hard opponent of AGW should agree there is a risk it could cause severe consequences)

When you count these externalities into the price of oil, the cost per barrel goes up exponentially, to many hundreds of dollars per barrel. The increase is even more pronounced if you only apply the externalities to imported oil.

It is basic economics, when you subsidize something you get more of it. In this case we are subsidizing the use of oil since the price at the pump does not reflect the true price to the US economy of using that oil.

ANY free market supporter should be in favor of an oil or carbon tax to ensure that individual desisions reflect the true price of the commodity not a subsidized price.




RE: All this GW arguement well, misses the point
By bill4 on 6/21/2010 9:08:06 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, you're a dumbshit.

"Free market people should be in favor of an excessive tax"

All that stuff is a lie anyway. If you removed all the needless environmentalist imposed restriction, a gallon of gas would cost 1/3 what it does today, in actual fact. Oil is actually FAR cheaper than the price it sells for.

And all your points are just so stupid it's no even worth knocking them off. "Entire fifth fleet"? First of all, BULLSHIT. Second of all, so you're saying the US navy wouldn't exist if not for oil protecting oil routes? Right. The US navy would exist regardless, so that's a lie. Third of all, when the Air Force says they dont need f-35's,. Congress makes them buy them anyway because liberals will not allow any government program to be killed. So there's no way you can eliminate any of the military in any case. Fourth, if you cared about relieved our dependence on Middle East oil, you liberals wouldn't have essentially banned all drilling in the USA (notice the Deepwater Horizon, all offshore drilling frozen/under extreme pressure to be banned now, and the Horizon only existed because onshore drilling is banned in the USA for the most part). And it just goes on and on. You liberals must have contests to see if you can possibly make any less sense.


By ot56 on 6/22/2010 12:20:45 PM , Rating: 1
Please argue with your eyes open, not inhaling all the right wing crud without any critical thought.

First, lets do some simple math. A barrel is 42 gallons. A barrel on open market now is about 80 dollars, give or take a few dollars. For the cost of oil ALONE, a gallon of gas would be $2, ignoring any transportation costs. So there is NO WAY a gallon of cas could cost 1/3 of what it does today since the raw material cost is more than 2/3rds of price of a gallon (currently about $2.80). The build up on the price of gas above raw material to finished product is about 75 cents. Of this 30-40 cents is in Federal and State taxes, depending upon the state. There is also about 10 cents worth of distribution cost and most stations place some markup on their sales.

So the actual cost of refining is pennies per gallon. Even assuming there were no environmental restrictions whatsoever and that reduced the refining cost by 50-75%, you are talking about saving a few pennies per gallon. I missed the math class where saving, lets just be outrageous and say 20 cents on a $2.80 purchanse amounts to a 2/3rds reduction. Must be new math.

Secondly, I never said "excessive" tax. I said a tax that reflects its true costs. The most fundamental principle of economics is that price should reflect actual cost, not some subsidized price. Without true price indicators you have distorted markets.

And my arguement was that some of our our military operations, our protection of shipping, is in fact an "insurance" subsidy to ensure that oil will flow out of the Persian/Arabian Gulf.

Third, do you even know where the 5th fleet is stationed? Do you know its mission? I never said the eliminate the entire US Navy, never would imply that. To state that I did is a GROSS mistatement unworthy of a principled arguement.

Fourth, I know you have the story wrong. "Us liberals" actually did kill the f-22, in spite of howls from the right. The air force does want the f-35, they need it to replace aging airframes, e.g. the f-16 and a-10.

Fifth the statement that there is "no way to eliminate any of the the military" is absolutely false on the face of it. Clinton reduced the military by over 500,000 in the wake of the cold war. So reducing the military is indeed possible if the missions are not there for them to perform.

Sixth, "liberals banning drilling" Drilling bans are a bi-partisan thing, called not in my back yard or NIMBY. One of the most obvious examples of bi-partisan nature of this is Jeb Bush going to his brother to ensure that the drilling ban off Florida remained in place.

Seventh, the notion that BP is only drilling in the deep gulf because on-shore is frozen is nonsence on the face of it. You realize the one well is pouring out up to 100,000 barrels per day! Think about it, that is $8M PER DAY at current market prices or nearly $3B PER YEAR! If you don't think they are drilling there because they have the chance to make $3B per year, you need a course in remedial economics. Of course they will be able put more "straws" into the resivior, leading to greater return and they estimate this flow will continue for 30 years. This puts an estimate on the return from this one well at in excess of a quarter trillion dollars. More if the price of oil goes up.

Do you honestly think that BP is only drilling there because they cannot drill on the continental US?

You think they will conciously pass up the opportunity to make a quarter trillion dollars? Trillion with a T.

So who is the dumbshit?


Quick Question
By stilltrying on 6/21/2010 11:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
Does your glass of ice water go up when your ice melts? hmm something fishy going on here.




RE: Quick Question
By gcor on 6/22/2010 1:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
True, if the ice in your cup entirely floats in the water. Arctic ice entirely floats.

However, if the ice is resting on a sticky-uppy bit in the bottom of the cup, then as the ice melts the water level will rise. Antarctic ice sits on a sticky-uppy bit called a continent, which is slightly larger than Western Europe.


Silly people
By bugnguts on 6/22/2010 1:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
First of all all those that immediately wrote your feelings against man induced climate change, well its apparently its a reflex action with no thought. The photos say ice melt of years. First of all its less than a 1&1/2 year span the photos were shown and the big ice melt from September photo to the following years November is what shows a lot of loss while the one that taken a week later shows yet more. Well of course there will be loss since antarctic is starting its spring cycle. In the north hemisphere that would be comparing a February photo with one in April of course the snow will melt. So if you are going to post something hold your figures still a bit and examine what is placed before you.

Second of all man does affect the world take the CFC's during the 70's and 80's. The weakening of the ozone was significant. We put a ban on them and behold the ozone is going back to normal levels. The estimated amount of oil spilled in the gulf as of a week ago would power America 1/2 of a day. So yes that amount of fossil fuels combusted will affect the environment. What these changes if any in climate will be who knows. How much will be caused by man who knows. But the useless data given like in the pictures above by either side is frankly sicking. What I'm worried about as a chemical engineer is the world is not a bench top model where we can, at the end of a day, shut of the lights and say "Oh well that didn't work." So yes I want to work on alternative energy; transmission, production, efficiency and storage. Part so we can be more sustainable and part so we don't have to drill a mile below in an ocean bed and yet more through a mud layer which has a high pressures reservoir of oil pushing up from below it. Wonder why BP is pulling oil through such a challenging and expensive sight? They aren't financial idiots they go after the most profitable locations first. If this is the most profitable location currently it just might suggest oil is getting harder to get to.
Just ranting thank you.




RE: Silly people
By JediJeb on 6/22/2010 4:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, even the main researcher in the story said they do not know the reason and that since that glacier has only been studied since the early 90s there isn't enough data to make a conclusion. Yet both sides get worked up over it.

As a scientist myself(chemist) I know that you need way more data than even what we currently have to know how all the variables fit together. Warming advocates have all kinds of models showing catastrophic results from run-away warming in just a short time span, yet over the last few decades the models have shown way more warming than has been recorded in reality. I fit into the group most would call a skeptic, but only because of lack of credible evidence on both sides. I see warming advocates showing graphs of temperature and CO2 levels rising and they point and say CO2 is causing the temperature rise, yet their very own graphs show that temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise which makes their conclusions poorly thought out. Others say termites emit more CO2 than all of mankind in all their activities, yet that is also difficult to find concrete evidence of. I do know though that natural climate changes happen, and can happen either slowly or quickly and be either very strong or weak changes. What we really need to be doing now is learning how to cope with the changes because we may be powerless to change them, and laying blame instead of making ready will end badly.


Picture text
By Pjotr on 6/22/2010 7:08:37 AM , Rating: 3
The picture text says "Pine Island Glacier through the years" and shows 3 pictures from 2000 to 2001. Hardly "through the years" (it's a very small sample period so the weather that year makes more difference) and the latest picture is 9 years old. What does it look like today?




Cute Cartoon...
By AEvangel on 6/21/2010 12:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
I do like the polar bears painting to look like Pandas...sooo cute.




So...
By cscpianoman on 6/21/2010 12:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
Melting glaciers cause rise in sea level!? Wow! Who'da thunk?




Junk report
By JimboK29 on 6/21/2010 1:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a little lesson. Glacier melting occurs from the bottom with warm sea currents. Look it up. What is not reported here is the higher than normal snowfall that fell on these glaciers. Don't just read this stuff and absorb it. Do your own research.




A quick correction
By Griffinhart on 6/21/2010 2:34:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"We do not know what kick-started the initial retreat from the ridge, but we do not know, that it started some time prior to 1970," said Jenkins. "


This is either a typo or misquote.

According to http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-06/bas... It should read

quote:
"We do not know what kick-started the initial retreat from the ridge, but we do know, that it started some time prior to 1970," said Jenkins. "




I like
By bill4 on 6/21/2010 9:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
How Dailytechh is basically just a big global warming propaganda factory now.

I mean there was a guy on here, Micheal Asher, or maybe Andrews, who was anti-GW, but he rarely posts, while Mick posts his drivel like 50 times a day, and now this Kaiser girl has joined too, as if Mick didn't spam the propaganda enough.




hmm
By Chiisuchianu on 6/21/2010 11:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
Could have sworn a recent study showed the glaciers were actually growing again.




If you believe
By stilltrying on 6/21/2010 11:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
If you actually buy into the global warming scam the best thing you can do is plant trees and quit buying paper products. Enough said quit trying to get in everyones pocket and to control their lives go plant some damn trees and vegetation. Thats how simple it really is. The rest is all words and bullship.




science working both ways again!
By rsmech on 6/22/2010 1:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In addition, the increased melting seems to be the primary cause of "persistent ocean freshening"


http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/water/salinity...

These 2 items contradict each other. The first says that melting glaciers are freshening up the oceans or lowering the salt content in ppm. The second source (& others if you look) explain where the ocean salt comes from. From natural erosion on land & volcanic activity. These 2 factors have never stopped & continually occur. Which would mean that the oceans are constantly getting salter every day.

If anything the melting glaciers are balancing out the constant increase of salt content to the oceans. Maybe we should stop all construction, it's stirring up the soils increasing the release of salts into the oceans. Ops sorry I was stuck in a green moment there.

My question is the ocean getting fresher or saltier? Make up your minds.




Two words...
By klstay on 6/22/2010 9:41:57 AM , Rating: 2
Sh!t and Bull.

Not necessarily in that order.




"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki