New Greenland Ice Cracks Worry Scientists

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - New Greenland Ice Cracks Worry Scientists stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

SETH BORENSTEIN | August 21, 2008 09:01 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
This image provided by the Byrd Polar Research Center, Columbus, Ohio, taken July 25, 2008, shows a growing giant crack and an 11-square-mile chunk of ice hemorrhaging off a prominent glacier in northern Greenland. The crack, at center, right, is seven miles long and about half a mile wide. It is about half the width of the 500 square mile floating part of the glacier. If the cracking continues, the floating part of the glacier could lose up to one third of its size. (AP Photo/Byrd Polar Research Center)

WASHINGTON — In northern Greenland, a part of the Arctic that had seemed immune from global warming, new satellite images show a growing giant crack and an 11-square-mile chunk of ice hemorrhaging off a major glacier, scientists said Thursday.

And that's led the university professor who spotted the wounds in the massive Petermann glacier to predict disintegration of a major portion of the Northern Hemisphere's largest floating glacier within the year.

If it does worsen and other northern Greenland glaciers melt faster, then it could speed up sea level rise, already increasing because of melt in sourthern Greenland.

The crack is 7 miles long and about half a mile wide. It is about half the width of the 500 square mile floating part of the glacier. Other smaller fractures can be seen in images of the ice tongue, a long narrow sliver of the glacier.

"The pictures speak for themselves," said Jason Box, a glacier expert at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University who spotted the changes while studying new satellite images. "This crack is moving, and moving closer and closer to the front. It's just a matter of time till a much larger piece is going to break off.... It is imminent."

The chunk that came off the glacier between July 10 and July 24 is about half the size of Manhattan and doesn't worry Box as much as the cracks. The Petermann glacier had a larger breakaway ice chunk in 2000. But the overall picture worries some scientists.

"As we see this phenomenon occurring further and further north _ and Petermann is as far north as you can get _ it certainly adds to the concern," said Waleed Abdalati, director of the Center for the Study of Earth from Space at the University of Colorado.

The question that now faces scientists is: Are the fractures part of normal glacier stress or are they the beginning of the effects of global warming?

Story continues below
advertisement

"It certainly is a major event," said NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally in a telephone interview from a conference on glaciers in Ireland. "It's a signal but we don't know what it means."

It is too early to say it is clearly global warming, Zwally said. Scientists don't like to attribute single events to global warming, but often say such events fit a pattern.

University of Colorado professor Konrad Steffen, who returned from Greenland Wednesday and has studied the Petermann glacier in the past, said that what Box saw is not too different from what he saw in the 1990s: "The crack is not alarming... I would say it is normal."

However, scientists note that it fits with the trend of melting glacial ice they first saw in the southern part of the massive island and seems to be marching north with time. Big cracks and breakaway pieces are foreboding signs of what's ahead.

Further south in Greenland, Box's satellite images show that the Jakobshavn glacier, the fastest retreating glacier in the world, set new records for how far it has moved inland.

That concerns Colorado's Abdalati: "It could go back for miles and miles and there's no real mechanism to stop it."

___

On the Net:

Ohio State University images and data: http://bprc.osu.edu/MODIS/

WASHINGTON — In northern Greenland, a part of the Arctic that had seemed immune from global warming, new satellite images show a growing giant crack and an 11-square-mile chunk of ice hemorrhagi...
WASHINGTON — In northern Greenland, a part of the Arctic that had seemed immune from global warming, new satellite images show a growing giant crack and an 11-square-mile chunk of ice hemorrhagi...
Filed by Nick Graham  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
410
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
photo

Cracks in Greenland?

I thought the North Pole was melting? Well not THIS year:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

"Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil"

-Orwell

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:52 AM on 08/22/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

It is interesting you should quote Orwell because the kind of semantical deceptions he describes in the novel 1984 are the basis for the modern conservative movement and all your ideas about denying warming. "The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil" That statement describes how Bush spoke of Saddam and then Iran and now Russia.

The North Pole was originally supposed to be ice free in like 2040. Given that it is almost ice free during the summer now descibes how quickly warming is proceeding.

"Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf (page 8)

"For example, Arctic sea ice cover is decreasing rapidly and glaciers are retreating and thinning, NASA data show that Arctic sea ice shrunk to a new record low in 2007; 24 percent lower than the previous record (2005), and 40 percent lower than the longterm average.

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

Slagle, don't you occasionally get tired of the propaganda you digest and quote here?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 PM on 08/22/2008
photo

"sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade"

10% / 2.5% per decade = 4 decades worth of melting reversed

in just ONE YEAR!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:37 PM on 08/22/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

Slagle, you should read your own articles:

* Editor's note:
Walt Meier, research scientist at the NSIDC, has contacted us disputing the validity of Steven Goddard's (the author of Slagle's cite) methodology, and of his use of University of Illinois data to question the NSIDC's charts. We accept that these two data sets are not directly comparable

The author asserts that NSIDC's estimate of a 10% increase in sea ice compared to the same time as last year is wrong. Mr. Goddard does his own analysis, based on images from the University of Illinois' Cryosphere Today web site, and comes up with a number of ~30%, three times larger than NSIDC's estimate. He appears to derive his estimate by simply counting pixels in an image. He recognizes that this results in an error due to the distortion by the map projection, but does so anyway. Such an approach is simply not valid.

The proper way to calculate a comparison of ice coverage is by actually weighting the pixels by their based on the map projection, which is exactly what NSIDC does. UI also does the same thing:

Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:51 PM on 08/22/2008
- BCubedReg I'm a Fan of BCubedReg 6 fans permalink

Why do they continue to call these "single events" that they do not want to directly attribute to global warming. This has been happening pretty regularly both in Greenland and Antarctica the last 10 years. The hottest 10 years on record all happend within the last 20 years... why are we still guessing if global warming is real?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 AM on 08/22/2008
photo

Wait for them to tell you:

1934 was the warmest year on record for the world (only in the US)
all the thermometers are miscalibrated due to the fact of urban sprawl
the satellite data is erroneous because NOAA had to adjust their findings

Meanwhile another ice chunk the size of Manhattan will break off into the sea.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 AM on 08/22/2008
- jsgaetano I'm a Fan of jsgaetano 204 fans permalink
photo

Another LIBERAL ice chunk the size of Manhattan, you mean. Cuz all those New Yorkers hate Bush. It's obvious the icebergs are only trying to make Bush look bad.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:46 PM on 08/22/2008
- NL207 I'm a Fan of NL207 8 fans permalink

"break off into the sea"

Read the blog again. The ice is already floating on the Sea. Therefore, it can neither break off into the Sea nor can it have any further effect on Sea Level.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:33 PM on 08/22/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 85 fans permalink

Your question illustrates a misunderstanding of what they're saying. They're intentionally not attributing this to global warming at this point because there may yet be some question as to what "normal" is. Keep in mind that orbital observations have only been possible for a couple of decades and watching the ice wasn't on the top of the list of what to study from space. In short, we know glaciers go through a cycle of birth and death, and in between may be stable for long periods. Characterizing these cycles is what's causing the scientists to pause on reflection if this is a break-away from a stable, near static phase or not.

The question of global warming was simply not addressed at all. That is, we know it's going on, but whether _this_ event is directly related or not is a question.

BTW, the scientist's thinking is directly analogous to the question of weather versus climate; any given storm is not climate - it's a single event. Taken as a whole, you get "climate." Clearly climate and weather are related, but one should not confuse one for the other.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:50 PM on 08/22/2008
- mergina I'm a Fan of mergina 85 fans permalink
photo

Bugs shall inherit the earth? Definitely WATER CREATURES.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 08/22/2008
- Podewumun I'm a Fan of Podewumun 32 fans permalink

The tr0//s can keep their cockroach overlords company.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 PM on 08/22/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 85 fans permalink

If all the ice on land melted, sea level would rise about 160' or so, if I recall correctly.

There's a lot of land higher than that.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 PM on 08/22/2008
- Podewumun I'm a Fan of Podewumun 32 fans permalink

Plenty of high ground is hardly the point, RTIII.
IF as many as a BILLION people are forced to move to higher ground, what kind of effect will such a massive migration have on global economies and politics?
Think war for resources on a global scale.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 PM on 08/22/2008

It's okay, Michael Phelps will swim us all to safety.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 08/22/2008

year 3000.
Funny thing happened on the way to global warming,Mother Nature erased all the band aids "frontiers" set up by the human species who like Aphids on a Rose ate up &destroyed their life base

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 08/22/2008

Dr Jay Zwally says he thinks it's "a signal alright, we just don't know what it means". True enough. One thing it probably does mean is that the process as understood over time is continuing and, he should add, thankfully it looks like our planet isn't heading into another ice age right now, which at one time was a legitimate concern, and really should still be even today. We are more likely to survive global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, than we would be able to survive another ice age...even a mini-one.. since our pupulaton is so great that even a minor reduction of growing season due to cooling would cause social disruption (famine leading to war) on a scale never before seen. In the mean time increased CO2 actually is producing an increase in crops since CO2, contrary to the considered view of the learned TV watching audience, is not toxic but IS actually food for plants.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 AM on 08/22/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

Ah, yes, the "plant food" argument.

Yes, all other things being equal, more CO2 will lead to more plant growth.
But in a warming world all other things will definitely not be equal.

In the real world plant growth is limited by the nutrient is shortest supply, not the one in greatest supply. A warmer climate and higher CO2 level is of no benefit if water is in shorter supply, for example, and one thing that a warmer climate is sure to mean is a change in precipitation distribution and timing. This is already happening in Australia, which was once a huge exporter of wheat, but no longer. (Look it up.)

And a shift north in the climate zone suitable for growing wheat will mean less arable land suitable for growing wheat, not more. (Look at a globe, and at a geologic map of Canada and Siberia)

And never mind that more CO2 in the atmosphere means more CO2 in the ocean, which means a lower ph (more acidic) ocean, which means a drastically altered marine food chain. Ooops, there goes the protein source for half the world's population.

But hey, never let facts get in the way of expresssing an ignorant opinion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 AM on 08/22/2008
photo

Well then lets look at the Data:

As the Earth warms, and CO2 levels increase, food production increases.

In fact, the US just had one of the biggest harvests EVER.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 AM on 08/22/2008
- Mr Grey I'm a Fan of Mr Grey 5 fans permalink

When sea level rise floods cities like New York and London and make New Orleans look like a tea party, what are you going to say then. Damn hippies and Socialists. Bury that head in the sand a little deeper. That way you won't see the flood waters rushing up on you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 AM on 08/22/2008
photo

you are SO wrong.

The ocean rise is going to be gradual over the next 1000 years.

PLENTY of time to get the school busses out of the Parking Lot..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 08/22/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

You deniers are funny. You can no longer deny man-made global warming so you fall back on all kinds of silly arguments that we are going to like warming and it will be good for us, so just buy some extra sun block.

"Increases in sea level are consistent with warming. Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. Whether this faster rate for
1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer term trend is unclear."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

The one meter sea level rise generally predicted if no action is taken about global warming will inundate more than 15 percent of Bangladesh, displacing more than 13 million people and cut into the crucial rice crop.

"Even if we are not completely flooded, " said Laupepa, "in 50 to 70 years we face increasingly strong storms and cyclones, changing weather patterns, damage to our coral reefs from higher ocean temperatures, and flooding of all our gardens." Not growing enough food and decreasing fish catch if reefs are damaged would mean "importing more food, more foreign exchange, and more health and diet problems, " he said.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:51 PM on 08/22/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

A global average sea level rise of 9-88 cm (3.5–34.6 inches) is expected over the next hundred years,

Even this comparatively modest projected sea level rise will wreak havoc. Coastal flooding and storm damage, eroding shorelines, salt water contamination of fresh water supplies, flooding of coastal wetlands and barrier islands, and an increase in the salinity of estuaries are all realities of even a small amount of sea level rise. Some low lying costal cities and villages will also be affected. Resources critical to island and coastal populations such as beaches, freshwater, fisheries, coral reefs and atolls, and wildlife habitat is also at risk.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/impacts/sea_level_rise

New maps show that neighborhoods and roads in many cities near the San Francisco Bay shoreline would be under water if global warming causes tides to rise as much as 3 feet in the coming decades, and officials say regions face key decisions about where people will be able to live and build.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/18/MNG6SO72DJ1.DTL

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 PM on 08/22/2008
photo

Avoiding, for the moment, the debate over who or what is responsible for global warming or even is global warming is "real", many are busying themselves wondering how they can prepare for the natural adjustment ahead. So many seem content to argue and debate, all along ignoring any thoughts of preparedness. I don't think it's time to head to the storm cellar with our water and non-perishable foods just yet, though it may be time to listen with an open mind and wonder what we will all do in a future that might not look climatically similar to our present state.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 AM on 08/22/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

Excellent point, BB.

Global warming or peak oil, either way big changes are in store for human civilization.

Right now it takes fossil fuels to manufacture wind turbines and solar arrays and to drill geothermal wells and construct nuclear plants, and that will remain so until those energy sources reach a sufficient level such that they can power their own manufacture. If we wait until fossil fuels begin to decline before we reach that level, then what will we use to manufacture their replacement?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 AM on 08/22/2008
photo

"until those energy sources reach a sufficient level such that they can power their own manufacture"

If a solar cell cannot supply the energy it takes to manufacture, then it is not an energy source.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 AM on 08/22/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

No surprise that the meaning of the words were lost on Timmy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 08/22/2008
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 78 fans permalink
photo

sorry onevoice, you and exursian are right, i should have provided a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Geography_and_climate and scroll down. onevoice, i'm not a global warming denier, i just think that we're contributing to a natural process, meaning if we all stopped reintroducing old carbon today it would not stop the process. then again i could be wrong, ya think?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 AM on 08/22/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

But what is this natural process that you refer to, and how is it causing the observed changes?

It's not enough to just say it's a natural process, you have to demonstrate how it can account for all of the currently observed and measured phenomena.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 AM on 08/22/2008
- Annette I'm a Fan of Annette 15 fans permalink

The natural processes that the deniers are so quick to trot out all had one thing in common. They have led to the extinction of species. If humans are making a natural process accelerate and intensify it just might be our species that we ensure goes extinct.

Those that are so worried that if we don't drill and burn our economy will be damaged are idiots eating their seed corn. Definately grasshoppers not ants.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 PM on 08/22/2008
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 78 fans permalink
photo

huh? now you're being silly exursian. you're not now positing that the earth's climate is at our mercy are you, rather than the inverse?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 PM on 08/22/2008
photo

No worries Fumes- We have had this debate before, we stand on other sides of the thought fence. I just read the climateprediction.ne stage 5 prelim results http://climateprediction.net/science/results_sulphur.phpp)- you may find it interesting as it is one of those distributed computer prediction model engines. I am not familiar with the underlying science in the model but phase 5 results address sulphur in the atmosphere.

From a more fundamental level I do not believe that core samples showing warming periods in our history have any impact on the discussion regarding mans impact on the climate. Warming periods are understood to have taken place, as well as cooling periods. the question in my mind is are we artificially increasing the rate of that warming, and what are the ramifications of a warming period on our societies.

If we are, and they are negative (resp) than we should adapt our societies to reduce that artificial warming.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 AM on 08/22/2008
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 78 fans permalink
photo

i remember our debate, onevoice. i'm not an anthropogenic exacerbation denier either, i just think that adaptation is our only hope, the same thing creatures have been doing since creatures first appeared. so go make your war on co2, just don't expect any results any time soon! rent waterfront property don't buy, that sort of thing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:51 AM on 08/22/2008
- javaman I'm a Fan of javaman 5 fans permalink

so while the population obsesses on dropped olympic relay batons, who is going to be whos VP and russia's new take over of the former soviet states, the world, in the mean time continues to fall apart around us. It's only the air we breath, it's only the land we grow our food on, it's only our future as a planet, but hell, if I can get to hear brittney's real voice on youtube, hell, isn't that is all that really matters????

we are so done. I want to now give a personal shout out to our new cockroach overlords.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 AM on 08/22/2008
- Gabrielle I'm a Fan of Gabrielle 17 fans permalink
photo

you forgot about the dead zones in the oceans getting bigger by the day....no more seafood to eat pretty soon....
IT IS EXTREMELY DEPRESSING, BUT WE HAVE TO ELECT OBAMA so may be if the racists don't get rid of him we can take a different direction and rebuild some of the disaster..­.YOU THINK?

WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME HOPE....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:54 AM on 08/22/2008
photo

New Article Title:

Hippies and Socialists Invent New Reason To Worry About Al Gore's Wet Dream

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:42 AM on 08/22/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

The ignorant speak again.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 AM on 08/22/2008
- Heavy I'm a Fan of Heavy 236 fans permalink
photo

Brilliant. You might want to do some reading...­on second thought, I doubt it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:15 AM on 08/22/2008
- jmpurser I'm a Fan of jmpurser 157 fans permalink

I do find it interesting that "conservatives" feel that only hippies and socialists could possibly have facts and science on their side.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:25 AM on 08/22/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 85 fans permalink

Good point! ..._They_ sure don't, and they know it!
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 PM on 08/22/2008
- protagonia I'm a Fan of protagonia 77 fans permalink

FOR,

Hippies and socialists?

Where?

I NEVER see any of them anywhere - ever.

There must be some secret, hidden lair where they all hang out.

I believe what many scientists say about our future. We are seeing changes in many climates. Only Rapture Dominionists are trained to see it differently. They want the Earth destroyed so it can be made anew again.

You are being used by a group that cares not one whit what happens to you once you are no longer of any use.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 AM on 08/22/2008
- AmandaBC I'm a Fan of AmandaBC 575 fans permalink
photo

You're sooooo right!!!

If it's not on Faux News, then it never happened!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:26 AM on 08/22/2008
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 78 fans permalink
photo

say, all this talk about glacier disintegration cracks me up... looky here: ''However, a recent study suggests a much warmer planet in relatively recent geological times:
Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said Thursday the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago. The existence of those DNA samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 °C (1 °F) in the winter. They also indicated that during the last interglacial period, 116,000–130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.[16]'­' and all this took place without any help from us at all, but how? and is it a bad thing? and do we control it? hmm...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 AM on 08/22/2008
photo

This really doesn't say anything about the rate of change does it.?

What is the link to your story?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:04 AM on 08/22/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

Fumes don't need no links, nor any attribution for the words he plagiarizes.

Try here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=11

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 AM on 08/22/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 85 fans permalink

All of what you're intimating may well be true and it _still_ doesn't apply to what's happening now.

We have trapped atmosphere in ice and much older in glass that was formed in ancient lightening strikes on sand. From this we know that the world _has_ had CO2 levels as high and higher than today, but NOT SINCE AEROBIC LIFE took over, some 2B - yes billion - years ago (or thereabouts). Let's put it this way, that was BEFORE there were land animals...
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 08/22/2008
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 78 fans permalink
photo

huh? my blurb above referenced periods 116,000 to 130,000 and 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, and you're going on about 2 billion years ago. what's your point? and as long as you brought up co2, tell me what do you think would happen, rt3, if fossil fuel combustion were to miraculously stop all over the world today? just curious...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 08/22/2008
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

"They also indicated that during the last interglacial period, 116,000"130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 �C (9 �F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.[16]'­' and all this took place without any help from us at all, but how?"

Do we not address the problem until Greenland almost melts entirely. A melting of Greenland would raise ocean levels by about 20 feet, I believe. Most major cities would be under water by that time.

"A one-meter [three-foot] sea level rise would submerge a substantial amount of Bangladesh," Jonathan Gregory, the study's lead author and a climate scientist at the University of Reading in England, said in a telephone interview.

Sea level rise has the potential to affect millions of people living in low-lying coastal regions, particularly the inhabitants of megacities developing on coasts around the world and those living on deltas of major rivers and small island nations," Church said.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0408_040408_greenlandicemelt.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 PM on 08/22/2008
- Heavy I'm a Fan of Heavy 236 fans permalink
photo

Google Union of Concerned Scientists. Read about global warming from the scientists who actually do the reasearch, not the flunkies that Booosh pays to rewrite their findings. 20 of the 60 scientists are Nobel Laureates. Sorry tro llies, but your masters are lying to you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 AM on 08/22/2008
- NL207 I'm a Fan of NL207 8 fans permalink

Union of Concerned Scientists is a leftist political organization comprised of scientists who have subverted their objective scientific principles in favor of political goals.

Their scientific credibility is minimal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 PM on 08/23/2008
- danoj I'm a Fan of danoj 17 fans permalink

I heard Al Gore was spotted with his giagantic SUV parked on top of the glacier reving the engine and offering to sell worthless carbon credits to feel good libs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:54 AM on 08/22/2008
- Annette I'm a Fan of Annette 15 fans permalink

Obvious to me that the Conservative whackos will believe anything, except science. I guess if it isn't mentioned in the Bible it can't exist in their world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:32 PM on 08/22/2008
photo

You're stereotyping.

Saying all Conservatives are fundamentalists is as ignorant as saying all Liberals are dirty atheist unemployed hippies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:03 PM on 08/22/2008
- alvdh1 I'm a Fan of alvdh1 24 fans permalink

Hey, not to worry. Joe Lieberman and John McCain will save the day. John McCain received a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters in 2007. This is way down from his lifetime rating of 24%. He has worked very hard to stay just on the edge of becoming one of the dirty dozen. The next
time you see one of his ad's invoking clean energy with scenes of giant wind turbines in the background, you might ask yourself or him why he didn't show up for any environmental votes in
2007. His campaign is a facade and a sham with regard to energy, climate change and the environment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:07 AM on 08/22/2008
- AmandaBC I'm a Fan of AmandaBC 575 fans permalink
photo

Scientists are so overrated. The only people you should trust when it comes to environmental issues are big oil executives and the "researchers" they sponsor so that you can be aware of the truth...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:57 AM on 08/22/2008
- Heavy I'm a Fan of Heavy 236 fans permalink
photo

Lol. Taking pride in being ignorant. The republican way.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 AM on 08/22/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

FYI, that was satire.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 AM on 08/22/2008
- AmandaBC I'm a Fan of AmandaBC 575 fans permalink
photo

1. Open dictionary
2. Look up "sarcasm"
3. Remove foot from mouth

:)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:23 AM on 08/22/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect