backtop


Print 205 comment(s) - last by eyebeeemmpawn.. on Oct 24 at 12:45 PM


Glacier Bay National Park. Two and a half centuries ago, the entire area was covered by thick sheets of ice.
High snowfall and cold weather to blame.

A bitterly cold Alaskan summer has had surprising results. For the first time in the area's recorded history, area glaciers have begun to expand, rather than shrink. Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound", said glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years".

"On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface [in] late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying [did] not become snow free until early August."

Molnia, who works for the US Geological Survey, said it's been a "long time" since area glaciers have seen a positive mass balance -- an increase in the total amount of ice they contain.

Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.

Those records date from the mid 1700s, when the region was first visited by Russian explorers.  Molnia estimates that Alaskan glaciers have lost about 15% of their total area since that time -- an area the size of Connecticut.

One of the largest areas of shrinkage has been at the national park of Glacier Bay. When Alexei Ilich Chirikof first arrived in 1741, the bay didn't exist at all -- only a solid wall of ice. From that time until the early 1900s, the ice retreated some 50 miles, to form the bay and surrounding area.

Accordingly to Molnia, a difference of just 3 or 4 degrees is enough to shift the mass balance of glaciers from rapid shrinkage to rapid growth. From the 1600s to the 1900s, that’s just the amount of warming that was seen, as the planet exited the Little Ice Age.

Molnia says one cold summer doesn't mean the start of a new climatic trend. At least years like this, however, might mark the beginning of another Little Ice Age.

As DailyTech reported earlier, Arctic sea ice this year has also increased substantially from its low in 2007.



Comments     Threshold


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

Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 9:51:30 AM , Rating: 3
Damn that global warming!!!

Seriously though, climate is cyclical. The sooner we admit and accept that, the sooner we can stop wasting billions of dollars saying we're fighting it.




RE: Son of a...
By poodles on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Son of a...
By porkpie on 10/16/2008 11:39:30 AM , Rating: 4
WTH does New Orleans have to do with global warming? Are you trying to connect Katrina to it, when every single hurricanologist says otherwise?


RE: Son of a...
By Samus on 10/17/2008 1:40:00 AM , Rating: 2
Katrina was a pretty weak hurricane in comparison to many, many others from the past and the present.

The only thing that makes Katrina significant as a reference point is because the levee's failed (mostly because of poor maintenance.)

Hurricane Katrina and ALL hurricanes in the gulf region are completely unrelated to global warming. They've been going on for millions of years and they haven't gotten any 'better' or 'worse'. Climate change has nothing to do with the power or frequency of hurricanes.


RE: Son of a...
By Aloonatic on 10/17/2008 4:11:06 AM , Rating: 2
I thought (and I accept I may be wrong) that hurricaes are generally more powerful/have more energy of late as they rely on energy from the water that they pass over in the gulf region (or anywhere else) and that water is a little warmer these days?

Mostly due to (pom pom poooooom) global warming/climate change?

The main problem that New Orleans had/has though (from what I can see) is that some fool went and founded a city bellow sea level?

It didn't help that the flood defences failed miserably and then the place was left in ruins with an appallingly poor response from the federal government.

What is New Orleans like now by the way? Anywhere near "normalcy", as you guys seem so fond of saying? :)


RE: Son of a...
By clovell on 10/17/2008 11:54:20 AM , Rating: 2
The water is warmer due to ENSO, not Global Warming. You'd do well to read about the variations in Atlantic Tropical Cyclone between 2005 and 2008.

New Orleans is the final port on one of the nation's most vital waterways. Below sea level or not, founding the city was not foolish.

It's flood defenses failed because government contractors did not build the levees to specifications. The botched response compounded serious problems that began at the state level.

New Orleans isn't back to normal, because it will never be the same. I was there everyday for two years after Katrina. It is coming back, not the same, but better - not because of, but more in spite of, folks like yourself.


RE: Son of a...
By Aloonatic on 10/20/2008 4:11:40 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
New Orleans isn't back to normal, because it will never be the same. I was there everyday for two years after Katrina. It is coming back, not the same, but better - not because of, but more in spite of, folks like yourself.


Erm, not really sure how, as a UK subject, I have anything to do with why a city, it's population and the surrounding area in the richest and greatest country in the world are/have being left in their own filth for years on end???

That you guys are ashamed and embarrassed about it is a good start, but really, it is shocking what has gone on there.

It's great that some people (like yourself I assume) have been trying to help but it should not still be in that much of a mess?

As for the warmer water, more powerful/energetic hurricanes/storms comment, I was simply commenting on what is often reported in the news media.

Having been caught directly in the path of hurricane Ike this year I know these things are no laughing matter but I was only trying to be light hearted when commenting on the use of the word "normalcy" and how climate change/global warming is blamed for everything.

If I offended anyone........ meh


RE: Son of a...
By werepossum on 10/20/2008 6:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Erm, not really sure how, as a UK subject, I have anything to do with why a city, it's population and the surrounding area in the richest and greatest country in the world are/have being left in their own filth for years on end???

Well, that one's pretty simple. By questioning anything regarding catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, even in jest or sarcasm, you make Gaea cry. Gaea's warm salty tears raise the sea level directly and melt the glaciers, which also raises sea levels. Thus it's selfish bastards like yourself, not decades of spending levee maintenance funds on Mardi Gras fountains and bypasses to casinos coupled with pants-on-head retarded local and state government, that caused Hurricane Katrina as well as the disaster that followed. Learn some science before you kill us all, man!


RE: Son of a...
By Aloonatic on 10/21/2008 3:58:10 AM , Rating: 2
I have learnt my lesson so I will buy a birch from a tree that has died of natural causes and give myself 20 lashes every time I question a celebrity who tells me that global warming is real and happening and that I should turn off all my lights, central heating, live in a cave quietly and unquestioningly whilst only using my car to get too and from work at the most whilst they jet their little rat dogs around the world to get their nails clipped just how they like it (they can tell) and cappuccinos from their favourite coffee house in NY to London etc.

I have committed the original sin and I must be punished.

There's no way I'm giving up Mardi-Gras and you may take away my freedom but you'll never take the pants off of my head, so I'm with the politicians on that one! =D


RE: Son of a...
By overlandpark4me on 10/21/2008 9:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but New Orleans will be a chocolate city again, lol.


RE: Son of a...
By johnadams on 10/16/2008 2:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
and global warming is to blame for the current economic crisis.
yes.


RE: Son of a...
By LostInLine on 10/16/2008 5:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds about right.

While we were all being distracted by the false god of global warming alarms from Al Gore and Maurice Strong (so they could pedal their wares of carbon trade) members of congress got paid (by Franklyn Raines) to NOT regulate Fanny Mae. Henry Waxman, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Melvan Watt flat out blocked regulation of Fanny Mae claiming there were no problems.


RE: Son of a...
By Neutrion on 10/20/2008 6:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
Green brainwashing is the most efficient, modern way to capitalize on liberal guilt. You also get to pass it off as altruism. Best of all, you can squeeze money out of an investor for this by making him feel ashamed to be a person of means. Is Al Gore riding a bike to his book signings? Yea, thought not.


RE: Son of a...
By Schadenfroh on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/16/2008 10:49:49 AM , Rating: 3
Nice sarcasm, since no one got it and because of that you got downrated...

It was a sarcasm, wasn't it?


RE: Son of a...
By Bruneauinfo on 10/16/2008 12:35:26 PM , Rating: 4
of course it was sarcasm..... and it was funny.


RE: Son of a...
By reredrum on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By straycat74 on 10/16/2008 6:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
Liberals going socialist? They went that way in the 1970's. Conservatives Fascist? Conservatism is LESS government intervention and smaller government. You want Fascism, look the Obama supporters. Tell me you want the government "suggesting" you hang these on your wall--

http://obeygiant.com/images/2008/09/obama-hope-she...

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/05/o...


RE: Son of a...
By bpurkapi on 10/16/2008 11:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
Conservatism is, at the moment, for more government intervention and larger government: No right to suicide(death with dignity), no right to privacy(outlawing abortion and the patriot act), no financial responsibility(cutting taxes while waging 2 wars, and a 700 billion dollar blank check. Which has resulted in the largest heap of government spending in a looongg time). I could go on but really who wants to beat a dead horse? The argument that liberals are socialist is funny when we want to cut government spending by leaving Iraq to the Iraqis, and repeal tax cuts, which obviously didn't help the middle class or the economy(lets talk wages not taxes, taxes only matter if I actually have more money.) My only question is how can you be so focused on nonsense, that you don't see the world for what it is? Conservatives have been responsible for all that we face as a nation: War, Economic downturn, and distrust of those who have different opinions than the platform of: drill baby drill, abortion is bad, people who don't think like us are bad, muslims and chinese are bad, god is good, guns are good, and people smarter than us are bad. Wonder why the media asks got ya' questions? They don't their questions are quite simple, you're just crazy and the rest of society wants to know how crazy: Believe in humans riding dinosaurs crazy or believe in end of days crazy. That is my largest rant of all time and funny that it happened on a tech website.


RE: Son of a...
By straycat74 on 10/17/2008 12:12:00 AM , Rating: 2
All life is important.

quote:
The argument that liberals are socialist is funny when we want to cut government spending by leaving Iraq to the Iraqis, and repeal tax cuts


The economy has really tanked in the past two years. I forget what happened in November of '06. I am sure it was important.

Why is it that all of the countries that tried socialism are turning toward giving power back to the markets?

Government intervention throws off the balance. Government doesn't produce anything. Look into their policies that forced mortgage loan quotas on banks that ended up being bundled together and sold off to create a slight dip in the economic security of the, uh, world.

Liberals voted for the war.

Next time you get the urge to rant, take a breath, swallow your meds (It's OK, just keep taking them) and take a nap. You'll feel better.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2008 7:29:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Conservatives have been responsible for all that we face as a nation


Is it fun not thinking for yourself and just listening to BSNBC?


RE: Son of a...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/17/2008 11:10:36 AM , Rating: 5
"The argument that liberals are socialist is funny when we want to cut government spending by leaving Iraq to the Iraqis"
What's funny is reading peoples thoughts on government who have never really studied the subject.... Never has the Socialist Democratic party ever want to cut spending - never. They want to pull out of the war because it was popular with the media. They would not give you money back nor would they lower your taxes. They want to spend that money on their pet projects and raise your taxes. Read Obama's tax plan on his web page.... NO YOU DO NOT KNOW HIS TAX PROGRAM. What he is going to do, what he say on TV are 2 100% different plans...Do not argue with me on this, go to his page and read it. Remember Congress really controls the economic state of the country (not the President – he just reports it to the people). During the Clinton years when a budget was actually met guess what. It was the first Republican control Congress since the 1930's. Because the Republican could not make thing perfect in 6 years (after 60 plus years of Democrats in control) the people voted more Democrats into office and not the economy is going into the tank once again, go figure. If you want to see change then change the way you vote and stop voting the same people back into the office. For those missing the point, this would mean for many people voting republican for the first time in their life (that would be a change). Democrats have been the socialist non-workers party for decades. Now they are pushing to be Communist. The more government has control of things the more we become communist. The democrats want the government to control everything... Insurance, all school, racial quotes to jobs and neighborhoods, how much TV I can watch… When you really start to listen to the speeches and not the bias news sources, it is very, very scary to what they are saying.
Just FYI of course neither party is perfect…. Just need to see who is going to do the least amount of damage to your personal pocket book.


RE: Son of a...
By eyebeeemmpawn on 10/24/2008 12:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They want to pull out of the war because it was popular with the media.


hmm...and here I thought it was because the occupation of Iraq was never justified...Don't believe me? How about a Senate investigation that was led by a Republican?

http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id...

They did a great job of burying this story, releasing it on a Friday. It got a 10 second mention of NBC by Brian Williams and the Daily show did a whole segment on it. Where is this liberal media you speak of? Oh right, they didn't want to take side in an election year, right.

I think its hilarious that you go on to blame our issues on Congress. Give me a break. You then go on to claim credit for the Republican Congress for Clinton's financial responsibility. Either you make over $250,000 a year, have a brain and you're just a liar, or you're a brainwashed-republican-serf/drone who thinks that abortion is bad and Mccain would actually do something about it. What we have in our great nation is socialism for the rich and cut-throat capitalism for everyone else. Where else in the world can your entire financial world be destroyed if you get seriously sick?

Check out who's going to be looking out for your personal pocketbook...
http://www.electiontaxes.com/
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
find your own if you don't trust my quick google results.

You scumbag terrorist rich people (sarc) shouldn't be so afraid to pay your share of taxes to protect our great nation. The Revenue Act of 1945 reduced individual income tax rates 3 percentage points and 5% (top rate fell from 94% to 86.45%). It could be a lot worse for you poor little rich folks.


RE: Son of a...
By jmunjr on 10/19/2008 4:52:09 PM , Rating: 4
bpurkapi wrote:
"Conservatism is, at the moment, for more government intervention and larger government"

You are describing most of the current REPUBLICANS, not conservatives. Today's Republicans are neo-conservatives and not very conservative at all. They do practice much of what you wrote.

A true conservative is rare in the Republican party nowadays, and today's neo-conservative Republicans are really closer to an old school Democrat/liberal than a conservative.

To find real conservatives you have look elsewhere in the Libertarian and Constitution parties. Fiscally they are very conservative and both are certainly all about less government.

There are a number of real conservatives running for office as Republicans, you just have to look for them. Problem is nobody cares enough to do so.


RE: Son of a...
By Ammohunt on 10/16/2008 6:09:12 PM , Rating: 5
Fascism and socialism are not mutually exclusive; see Nazi party circa 1939. Also fascism is not extreme right equivalent as far left is socialism/communism.


RE: Son of a...
By cochy on 10/17/2008 10:01:58 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
i'd rather stop destroying our planet.


Haha. You think we can "destroy our planet"? Destroying the Earth might be more difficult than you imagine.

http://qntm.org/?destroy


RE: Son of a...
By InvertMe on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/16/2008 11:39:35 AM , Rating: 3
No, Global Warming is a coined phrase to sell fear and whatever else. Just ask Al Gore and the 780 Million dollars he's made of the phrase Global Warming....


RE: Son of a...
By InvertMe on 10/16/2008 1:30:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
No, Global Warming is a coined phrase to sell fear and whatever else. Just ask Al Gore and the 780 Million dollars he's made of the phrase Global Warming....


I cannot disagree with you there. I wish the term would go away and people would just focus on living cleaner. Striving to use renewable resources, cleaner ways to manufacture the good we use, less toxic toys, computers and cleaners... All things that have tangible real world benefits.


RE: Son of a...
By Tsuwamono on 10/16/2008 10:49:00 PM , Rating: 5
really regardless of the debate of whether or not global warming is real the fact is that SMOG is and its bad for HUMANS. forget about the planet for a second, smog is bad for us.
I really see no down side to living alittle "greener"


RE: Son of a...
By nycromes on 10/17/2008 9:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
Anything to keep pushing that agenda....every time information comes out that shows the contrary to the environmental movement they shift the focus to something else until that is refuted.

If you want to live cleaner because it makes you feel better... be my guest. On the other hand, don't tell me I have to spend my hard earned money to live "greener" because it makes you feel better. You earn your money, spend it as you want, but that means I get to spend my money as I like as well. Green products are more expensive and very often, less functional when compared to other products that serve the same purpose (ie: E85 vs Gasoline). I know you can probably show some products that are cheaper or just as functional at the same price and thats fine. The beauty of this country is I can purchase which ever product I decide to, not the one you want me to purchase, regardless of reason.


RE: Son of a...
By wookie1 on 10/17/2008 2:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
Smog cools the planet. Some of the recent warming during the 20th century may be due to cleaner air as pollution controls were adopted.

Most of the debate is about plant food (CO2, the trace gas that is essential for most of the life on earth), and why it is so important to live in a hut and eat bugs to reduce your CO2 emissions. The goal of most of these efforts is to enable central control so that the populace is at the mercy of the Gaia worshippers.


RE: Son of a...
By Bickers on 10/20/2008 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
People - pleased find the time (you’ll need it) to read what I believe is a seminal ‘paper’ addressed to John McCain that is quite brilliant in it’s demolition of the AGW scam:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_let...


RE: Son of a...
By Lifted on 10/16/2008 10:28:39 AM , Rating: 2
What would happen if all of the ice covering Antarctica melted? Would most of the planet be covered by water, or just coastal areas?

If yes...

Could a brief warming of Earth and melting of the poles have caused the sudden extinction of most dinosaurs and plant life (on land), yet happened so briefly as to leave little evidence that most of the earth was covered in water at one or more points in history?


RE: Son of a...
By Lifted on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By Lifted on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By borismkv on 10/16/2008 11:12:23 AM , Rating: 4
<Insert Noah's ark joke here>


RE: Son of a...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/16/2008 11:10:44 AM , Rating: 4
If all the ice in Antarctica and Greenland melted, it would raise sea levels by about 70 meters...so any area more than 70m above sea level would not be submerged. Ice mass in Antarctica is on a long-term growing trend, however, so that's a very unlikely event anytime in the next several thousand years.

There have been times in Earth's far past when sea levels were as much as 400m higher than they are today...but that seems to have been driven by changes in topology as well as melting ice -- a 'flatter' Earth can be covered by a much smaller amount of water.


RE: Son of a...
By phazers on 10/16/2008 3:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
I read only 60 meters (200 ft) - see the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica - but still that would put most of Florida under water, not to mention the Netherlands.

Conversely if most of the Artic icecap melted, sea levels would not change much since Artic ice is mostly floating already. If you have a glass full of ice cubes and water, and leave it overnight, you won't find a big puddle next morning (other than condensation). In fact, ice is less dense than water (since it floats), so the total volume would go down as the ice melts.

If Al Gore melted, we'd all be knee-deep in liquid fertilizer :)


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 3:31:53 PM , Rating: 1
If Al Gore dies ManBearPig will kill our imaginations. The solution is to nuke our imaginations.


RE: Son of a...
By modus2 on 10/17/2008 12:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the volume remains constant, the ice displaces exactly the same amount of water it contains -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcimedes#The_Golden_...

There is one reservation though, since desity varies with temperature (highest at 4C (approx 40F)) the above holds if the water in the glass is given sufficient time to reach the same temperature after ice insertion as it had before.


RE: Son of a...
By jimbojimbo on 10/16/2008 2:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of people think if you put ice in a glass and fill it to the very top with water that when the ice melts the water will rise and spill all over the place.


RE: Son of a...
By on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 10:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm agreeing with many of those people doing research, building models, and publishing in respectable scientific journals when I say that.


RE: Son of a...
By Lifted on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Son of a...
By porkpie on 10/16/2008 10:47:34 AM , Rating: 5
If you don't count the computer modellers and look only at the people doing real research in atmospheric science and climatology, most of them don't believe in AGW either.

All the scary stories come from the modelers, a group of people who have yet to make a valid prediction for even a year in the future.


RE: Son of a...
By borismkv on 10/16/2008 11:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
A year? Thus far their track record is worse than the local weather man.


RE: Son of a...
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2008 11:32:44 AM , Rating: 5
Is the glass half empty or half full?

I love the weather when here we have the worst drought in years and 50 miles west we have the worst rainfall ever.

Of course this is where people come out of the woodwork to claim you see the drought its global warming we need to do something immediately while never asking the people 50 miles away if they think there is a drought problem as their house gets washed away.

I don't know what makes people expect a rain cloud to take the same route every year but if they certainly know something about this then by all means let them predict the path of a hurricane 7 days out and measure how far off they end up being. Then let them explain why its didnt go that way.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCraparo on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Son of a...
By Dove2Three on 10/16/2008 11:34:03 AM , Rating: 5
I don't know about him, but your post (and you aping his login name) is about the most childishly immature thing I've seen all month.

If you're trying to make him look good by comparison, congrats, you succeeded.


RE: Son of a...
By Nfarce on 10/16/2008 12:02:17 PM , Rating: 5
I see those kinds of juvenile tactics (morphing/spoofing other people's IDs) all the time on political blogs. The real funny thing is they really think they are making a difference and swaying people's opinions about the bloggers they've spoofed. It reminds me of a five year old child throwing a tantrum for attention.


RE: Son of a...
By werepossum on 10/20/2008 6:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see those kinds of juvenile tactics (morphing/spoofing other people's IDs) all the time on political blogs. The real funny thing is they really think they are making a difference and swaying people's opinions about the bloggers they've spoofed. It reminds me of a five year old child throwing a tantrum for attention.


One small correction, sir: They feel they are making a difference and swaying people's opinions. These are feelers, not thinkers.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 12:45:56 PM , Rating: 5
I applaud you sir.


RE: Son of a...
By mkrech on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By mkrech on 10/16/2008 3:22:16 PM , Rating: 4
Wow... I am an idiot... DOH !!
I guess I should look before I type.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 12:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=p&car_id=...

No here it is right here. Feel free to buy it. And then use it to drive yourself off a cliff.


RE: Son of a...
By Spuke on 10/16/2008 3:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
Your car is spotless dude.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 3:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
The front has the normal nicks from the road. And there's a scratch on the driver door. But yes I keep it clean. And the sad thing is, that's before I spent 4 hours waxing it. ;)

But yes it's amazing what actually taking care of your car can do. I treat the leather regularly. Vacuum it. Use Armorall on the dash and other plastic parts. I cleaned the engine bay all up with Armorall. I even treat the leather of the shifter boot.

The interior definitely is the best part of the car. Other than some chips in the paint on the plastic around the window switches, the wear marks on the floor mat where my feet go, and some wrinkles in the leather on the drivers seat from me sitting on it for 43,000 miles, it looks practically new. And I've gotten comments as such. Have a guy coming to look at it Saturday so I'm hoping to get it sold and get into the GTO I'm buying. And I'll take even better care of that car than this one. Will probably get waxed every 4 months instead of every 6. And will treat the leather + Armorall it on the same schedule.


RE: Son of a...
By on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Son of a...
By jhawke on 10/16/2008 7:50:08 PM , Rating: 1
Only a little punk b!tch left wing bedwetting pansyassed liberal would be so stupid as you, PUNK. GFY. Trash.


RE: Son of a...
By on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2008 7:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
You are quite entertaining. It makes me feel good inside that someone I don't know is so pathetic that they think I actually care what their opinion is of me. It also makes me feel good that when I finish this comment, I will forget all about you until I see another one of your dumb comments. But you. You clearly are irritated by me enough that you think about what I say when you are not reading them and decided to make a host of stupid names to try and get to me. Either that or you saw someone else do it and just joined the club because you can't come up with an idea on your own.

So please. Keep the comments coming. You'll just keep me smiling.


RE: Son of a...
By on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By Nfarce on 10/16/2008 11:54:27 AM , Rating: 1
And just think, 30 years ago all the hysteria and rage was over global cooling:

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Follow the money and the pundits and political lobbyists accordingly.

Record early snow in Boise, ID!:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/102/story/530075.htm...


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 12:55:25 PM , Rating: 3
God Bless America. Except Idaho. F*CK IDAHO.

(I'm sure a few of you will know where that's from)


RE: Son of a...
By Sulphademus on 10/16/2008 1:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think its obvious whats going on here: Sarah Palin's plan to halt deglaciation is working! Take that hippies!


RE: Son of a...
By Nfarce on 10/17/2008 10:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
I see how this forum works with hot political topics. When you present facts, just get voted down by someone who doesn't agree with said facts. How childish.


RE: Son of a...
By MastermindX on 10/16/2008 1:03:47 PM , Rating: 5
Yes... Climate is cyclical. It doesn't mean global warming does not exists.

Temperature can go up during global cooling.
Temperature can go down during global warming.

It's like the stock market. It lost 20% in the last week... But over time, it returns an average of 7% a year.

The truth is, we produce more carbon dioxide than the environment can absorb back, producing a build up in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas)

Now, does it have a really significant effect on global temperature? I'm no expert to even pretend to know the answer.

As I read in another article, another thing to take into account is that "pollution" is not always causing greenhouse effect. Some waste "thrown" in the atmosphere actually have a cooling effect.

Do I believe human activities have an effect on global temperature? Yes!
Do I believe it can be significant enough to warrant research in clean energy? Yes!
Do I believe we should do ALL we can to stop ALL carbon dioxide emissions? No.

And even if pollution had no effect on the weather, being able to breath cleaner air would be a good enough reason to do research on clean energies.


RE: Son of a...
By wookie1 on 10/16/2008 2:10:54 PM , Rating: 4
If the real benefit of any of these actions is to "clean" the air (as if CO2 were a pollutant instead of plant food), then this justification should stand on its own, and not need the primary justification of "climate change" and the fear pumped by the politicians to support it. Since this isn't a very good justification for spending trillions of dollars, the fear is needed to achieve the political goals. Kind of like the WMD's in Iraq.


RE: Son of a...
By Spuke on 10/16/2008 3:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Temperature can go up during global cooling. Temperature can go down during global warming.
So no matter what anyone says, if someone else says something is, then it isn't and if that someone or some else says something isn't, then it is.


RE: Son of a...
By AnnihilatorX on 10/17/2008 4:00:05 AM , Rating: 3
CO2 itself has a big problem on ecology.

The effect of it on coral reefs are well documented. CO2 itself is a proven green house gas.
It's proven that the sea can only absorb so much of it, and with dire consquence to shelled sea life that relies on carbonated shells.
It's also proven that tropical forest does not actually grow faster when more CO2 is available, actually they spill out more CO2.

On another topic, I think new scientist has an excellent article on environment and economy.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg2002...

This topic is often ignored by government and general population. The verdict is that earth resources are limited and it just cannot sustain economy growth at current pace indefinitely without dire environmental consequences. Yet all government in the world strife for economy growth as their main policy.


RE: Son of a...
By Rodney McNaggerton on 10/16/2008 4:51:04 PM , Rating: 4
We're not fighting anything. The problem I have with global warming is the way it is presented. Currently it is presented like this: WE know that we're killing the earth and we need to stop it now or else the planet is going to get warmer and millions of people are going to die. (notice the use of guilt) They way it should be presented, in my opinion, is this: If you look at lots of data on average temperatures, glacier shrinkage, rainfall, etc. you will notice that there seems to be a trend occurring. Now, we cannot prove that people are responsible for this trend, but if so why not burn a bit less gas? Why not use more energy efficient light bulbs? Why not pursue alternative, and renewable, sources of energy? What bad could possibly come from using a bit less energy and releasing a bit less CO2?


RE: Son of a...
By thepalinator on 10/16/2008 4:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
You make it all sound so nice and sweet. But then along comes the reality: things like Kyoto and Lieberman Warner cap-and-trade laws. Things that will cost trillions and trillions of dollars and make energy much more expensive and scarce for everyone in the world.

There is a lot of harm that comes from that.


RE: Son of a...
By AnnihilatorX on 10/17/2008 4:04:02 AM , Rating: 2
Trillions and trillions of dollars is an overstatement.

Scientifically, even the most optimistic scenario of climate change would mean economic loss of multiple magnitude of trillion of dollars, the cost of solving that is indeed trillion of dollars. However, New Scientist has noted that the bail out package for the financial turmoil for US alone, is enough to pay for recovery package of environmental policy for 15 years out of 50 years total.


RE: Son of a...
By wookie1 on 10/17/2008 2:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
It may be an under-estimate, I've seen estimates in the tens of trillions, and the benefit might be to avoid 0.2C of warming over a century. People are starving and dying of disease now. If we want to spend this kind of money, why don't we help those in definite need now, rather than those that may or may not be in need 100 years from now? Read some of Bjorn Lomborg's work.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 5:11:58 PM , Rating: 1
If we look at global warming like that then the theory of mankind causing it falls on its face. Hence why they have to use the fear tactic.

I've no problem with efficiency and clean, CHEAP energy(an area that solar and wind do not currently fall into). But government mandates to further a cause that is a lie I have no tolerance for. If the market demands more fuel efficient vehicles, then the manufacturers will supply them. People didn't rush out and buy more fuel efficient vehicles to stop global warming. Nor did fuel prices rise because of it. However, now manufacturers are forced to provide more fuel efficient cars by 2020 which will cost billions all because of the idea of man-made global warming. And it will remove manufacturers ability to sell larger vehicles that some people want and/or need.

Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is an economics decision, not an environmental one.


RE: Son of a...
By AnnihilatorX on 10/17/2008 4:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
I suggest you read the New Scientist article on environment and economics. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg2002...

What you or economist doesn't understand is, you cannot grow economy every year at this pace indefinitely. Resource and well-being of the planet can only sustain so much population and resources ouput, and no technological advances can increase that further. You either brake at our generation, or some of the later generations will suffer more because of the harm done at this stage.

If you are always to put economics first, environment second, This system will fail at some point in time definitely and proven. If every person in time in future think in your way, mankind is doomed.


RE: Son of a...
By Meinolf on 10/16/2008 5:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
Put that in your pipe and smoke it Global Warming.


RE: Son of a...
By swizeus on 10/16/2008 7:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
Hahaha.... then you REALIZE it....
Do you ALSO realize that what comes from that campaign is a NEW product ? that campaign is a worldwide advertisement so every producer in THIS world can tap into new market segment (dubbed Green Segment), even discovery Channel got a part (planet Green Section). A Global Conspiracy isn't it ?


RE: Son of a...
By wookie1 on 10/17/2008 2:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, AGW is a gravy train for anyone who signs on to support it.


RE: Son of a...
By on 10/16/2008 11:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
Sweet! Imma gonna put some snow chains on my sweet Chevy Cobalt, complete with fart can and whale tail, and cruise the new glaciers looking for baby harbor seals to club to death. Maybe I'll look for some polar bears to run over too. Screw those goddamn hippie tree-hugger animals anyway. They should get a frigging job instead of living off of government handouts.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCraparo on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Son of a...
By Justin Case on 10/17/2008 2:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently you think that "global warming" means "every single place in the globe is getting warmer". It doesn't. I means the average global temperature increases. If 25% of the globe gets warmer by 4 degrees and 75% of the globe gets colder by 1 degree, the average global temperature has increased. And the average global temperature has been increasing.

When you say that "climate is cyclical" and "we shound't try to fight it", does that apply to ice ages? They're cyclical, too. Are you planning to freeze to death because they're "natural" and we mustn't mess with mother nature?

Global warming and the resulting climate change costs billions to the worldwide economy, in the medium and long term (stronger storms, receding coastlines, bigger temperature differentials between summer and winter, etc.). And this is ignoring the possibility of a "tipping point" scenario, whose consequences wouldn't just be expensive; they'd be catastrophic.

If we want to survive as a species, it's about time we learned to stabilize our climate. If the Sun gets hotter, we need to get rid of the excess heat. If the Sun gets colder, we need to keep the heat from escaping.

Some people seem to think that the Earth was built just for us, by some god, and therefore can't even conceive the possibility that it won't magically cope with everything that hits it (pollution, deforestation, increased solar radiation, asteroids, comets, whatever). The Rapa Nui also couldn't conceive the possibility that new trees would stop growing.


RE: Son of a...
By JediJeb on 10/17/2008 1:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you think that "global warming" means "every single place in the globe is getting warmer". It doesn't. I means the average global temperature increases. If 25% of the globe gets warmer by 4 degrees and 75% of the globe gets colder by 1 degree, the average global temperature has increased. And the average global temperature has been increasing.

Wasn't there a story here not long ago that showed from an official record that the average global temperature actually fell about 0.7C last year?


RE: Son of a...
By Justin Case on 10/17/2008 7:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
If you mean "here" inside the climatic reality distortion field, anything is possible. If you mean "here" on planet Earth, then no.

If the average global temperature over an entire year fell by 0.7 C, we'd probably be heading into an ice age. It rose about 1 C in the last 150 years. If it rises another two degrees, several major cities will be underwater.

Note that, within each year (or even within a single month), temperature can vary a lot. To analyze global temperature trends you need to "smooth" it out over 5 or 10 years (that also eliminates solar cycles as a factor - see below). Weather and climate are different things.

The average global temperature is likely to go down slightly (meaning about 0.07 C) over the next two or three years (there's a "peak" every 60 years or so, and the last one was in 2005 - hottest year ever), but the trend shows a clear increase.

Comparing just the peaks, the last one (~2000) was 0.45 C higher than the one before (~1940), which in turn was 0.05 higher than the previous one (~1880). Between 1910 and 2005 global temperature rose by 0.9 C. And not only is the temperature increasing, it's also increasing faster each decade.

This has nothing to do with "solar radiation cycles", which are of ~10.5 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-dat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Te...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Tempe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_...

I'd post links to climate journals, science magazines, etc., but most of those require subscriptions. Basically everyone with a clue and / or a science degree agrees that this is going on. It's unlikely to have a single cause, but ultimately that's irrelevant. We can't reduce solar radiation, so the only way to stabilize things is to play with the stuff we can control (greenhouse gases and amount of energy released into the atmosphere).


RE: Son of a...
By AnnihilatorX on 10/17/2008 4:07:09 AM , Rating: 2
Just because a certain person wins the jackpot in a casino doesn't mean the casino is losing money. In fact there are more players in that casino losing their money than that single person got from his jackpot.


RE: Son of a...
By spepper on 10/17/2008 6:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
If you mean our lovely US government wasting billions, I couldn't agree more strongly-- don't hold your breath though-- they're not known for their wise use of our tax dollars


RE: Son of a...
By McDragon on 10/20/2008 6:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen several articles mention increasing ice mass on the North Pole and now this.
Being a Dane, I regularily speak to people from Greenland, and they tell a vastly different story. They can tell the difference from year to year and all say there has never been so little ice. And if the ice was growing, how come we're just now opening the Northwest passage?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

I'm no fanatic, and I believe Nuclear power is the way to save the planet...But I do believe GW is here.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Related Articles
Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage
September 3, 2008, 2:44 PM
















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