If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Permafrost in Arctic regions becoming neither permanent nor frost   ( news.bbc.co.uk) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

21352 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Dec 2004 at 4:53 AM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

996 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

2004-12-29 08:56:59 AM  
I guess we're gonna have to rename permafrost. How about soggyfrost or amerifrost?
2004-12-29 09:00:50 AM  
Just for the record, I'm an industrial scientist with 25 years experience (I'm an oilman, true, but still a scientist) and find all the emotive rhetoric on global warming to be somewhat suspect.

There are climatic cycles measured in the tens of thousands, hundred of thousands, and millions of years (someone previously wondered if and how global warming could cause another ice age: the answer is that were still in an ice age, just a recently (geologically speaking) warmed interglacial stade), however the data comes from a variety of sources: tree rings, ice cores, fossil pollen, ocean sediments, corals and historical data. The best climatic data from ice-cores give us reliable data to about 600ka (600 000 ybp). Dendrochronology (tree rings) works to about 60ka. O16/O18 ratios (ocean and lake sediments) data can supply data back into geological time, but are difficult to correlate to short-term climatic changes (which is what were trying to understand with global warming), palynology (fossil pollen) gives us rough estimates like ocean sediments, but also have the same time problem (although they make dandy paleoenvironmental indicators for a specific time) and accurate, reliable historical data maybe (giving it a stretch) works for the last 300 years.

Yet, the global warming advocates take into account sketchy (at best) historical data, and create a microcosm/macrocosm fallacy. The brutal answer is that we simply dont know if what were seeing is (a) anthropogenic (i.e., man made), (b) is a natural climatic cycle, (c) a bump on a much larger (and longer) climatic cycle or (d) is real at all.

Simply ascribing it all to man made greenhouse gases is both logically fallacious and ridiculously premature. Remember, there is a human cost to eco-friendly actions, so there may be a massive case of pouring money down a rathole where what we do as a species matters not one whit to a global climatic cycle expressed in hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Finally, man is a hubristic animal. We think were so top of the food chain. A quick look at what even a single volcanic eruption can do re: global climatic modification sort of make what we do, in the long run, pale in comparison.

See http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/greenhouse_2000e.htm for an interesting climatic expose on Mt. Pinatubo.
2004-12-29 09:03:55 AM  

Sarcasm or the common mistake of theatre goers everywhere?

Dennis Quaid does not equal Kevin Costner

Kevin Costner was pictured, I think, because he was the "star" of Waterworld, not because someone thought he was in the Day after tomorrow.
2004-12-29 09:04:12 AM  

do you agree, that there exist an incredibly strong correlation between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature level, throughout history?
2004-12-29 09:04:35 AM  
More grant money for scientific studies please. Farkers need more links with point / counter-point info to use in online debates.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2004-12-29 09:04:36 AM  
USA today says the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps represent 65 meters of sea level rise. Almost 80% of the ice is in the East Antarctic ice sheet, which is highly resistant to melting. National Geographic says Greenland's ice sheet could melt and raise sea level by seven meters over the next thousand years. The West Antarctic sheet is slightly smaller than Greenland's.
2004-12-29 09:05:14 AM  

There is a petition signed by 15000+ scientists stating that global warming is bogus. http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html

And how many of these are climate experts?
This "petition" has already been debunked as being bogus itself, using a fake Header (its not from the National Academy of Sciences but from the obscure private Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine whose specialities involve "Nuclear War Survival Skills".)
Furthermore, only a very small % of the people on the list are actually climate scientists (a BA in ancient indian music doesnt make you a climate expert). Hence its relevance is going towards zero.
The petition comes from a non-expert group, the signing people are not experts, but yet they claim they want debunk scientifical innacuracy. How ironic.

/BTW, the SEPP, which you linked to, was sponsored by Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO and the Rev. Moon sect. Quite a nice sponsor-group to assure sincere global warming studies :)
//waits for the first "expert" to come up with the Global climate coalition
2004-12-29 09:05:40 AM  
As if my opinion means anything...here goes.

The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. From a statistical standpoint, I really don't believe that even 30,000 yrs. worth of climate data would be of use here. And at best, we have roughly 500 yrs. Volcanoes put out more "greenhouse gasses" than man ever has and there have been active volcanoes for...I don't know, 4.5 billion years...

I like a previous farker's idea..have some chips and dip.
2004-12-29 09:05:44 AM  

Oh, and to suggest that we, as humans, could alter the earth's weather and climate by using hairspray and driving SUVs, is arrogant, ignorant, and emotionally stupid.

Please do send me some of your literature.
2004-12-29 09:08:47 AM  
2004-12-29 09:05:44 AM clevershark


Please do send me some of your literature.

He's got a children's story about a boy and a turtle that will knock your socks off.
2004-12-29 09:08:57 AM  

how susceptible to melting is the west antarctic ice sheet?
2004-12-29 09:10:05 AM  

Mike claims that he gets his talking points out days before Rush does. Therefore the Republican party are cheerleaders for Mike 71
2004-12-29 09:10:30 AM  

Report 1386 has been refuted on several fronts. The biggest logical error being the density of .9 (37 year old estimate) being used instead of .917 for the density.

Why can't the "models" and "experts" you depend on for this global warming scare even admit the existance of Rogue Waves much less define them?
2004-12-29 09:10:32 AM  


do you agree, that there exist an incredibly strong correlation between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature level, throughout history?

No. The stronger correlation rests with sulfur and it's oxides: SO, SO2, SO3, SO4, in all their valencial predelictions (i.e., molecules); and with oxygen, particularly it's isotopes.
2004-12-29 09:11:15 AM  
He's got a children's story about a boy and a turtle that will knock your socks off.

2004-12-29 09:12:12 AM  

He's got a children's story about a boy and a turtle that will knock your socks off.

Surely I can get my own copy of "My Pet Goat" from him as well.
2004-12-29 09:12:44 AM  
you will all perish in a watery grave! ha ha ha ha ha !!
/inflates his arm bubble/water wing thingies
2004-12-29 09:14:34 AM  
Personaly I welcome our global warming overlords

/had to be said
//will soon be welcoming the ice age overlords
///also had to be said
2004-12-29 09:15:57 AM  
sinner4ever, lol, you got owned with your fake petition.
2004-12-29 09:18:15 AM  

I didn't see a fake header,I read it as being from the Oregon Institute.I fail to see how that debunks it.Also,very few on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are climatologists.Do you now say that they have been debunked because they have few actual scientists in that field?What about the fact that the IPCC is run by the U.N. and didn't need all but just a majority in it to say global warming is real?

How about the quote from said group that states "Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, through the 20th century."?
2004-12-29 09:18:56 AM  
The Science & Environmental Policy Project or SEPP has the huge credibility of a prominently displayed "PayPal" donate button on the front page.

2004-12-29 09:20:14 AM  

the amount of sulphur traditionally impedes the level of global warming (which is caused in part by the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). am i right?
2004-12-29 09:20:18 AM  
All this really started when man caused the last 3 ice ages.
2004-12-29 09:20:24 AM  
The thrust of the article is to not build your Alaska house on permafrost. When the spring thaws come every year, your foundation will sink just a few more inches. Eventually, you'll have to step down to enter your house.
2004-12-29 09:22:41 AM  

I never shut off my truck, cause its my employer's gasoline. I like to think in some small way I am contributing to this 'problem'
2004-12-29 09:28:40 AM  
America caused the Tsunami
2004-12-29 09:29:52 AM  



the amount of sulphur traditionally impedes the level of global warming (which is caused in part by the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). am i right?

Actually, yes and no. Mostly no.


Sulphur exists in many valences and is a right whore. When an oxide (monoxide, dioxide, trioxide, sesquioxide), it'll bond to just about anything bondable, be it halide, metal or nonmetal. In fact, under the right catalyzing circumstances, (i.e, under ionizing radiation, heat, etc.) will usurp a molecule and kick out the bonding pair to couple with the opposite valence group (bed hopping little trollop...))

However, there is evidence that SO2 is the main culprit in global cooling (that which is the main constituient of volcanic exhalations). However, less is known about the climatic effects of SO3 and SO4. Both appear to be greenhouse gasses (gad...I hate that term), but seem to have some sort of feedback-equilibrating effect on each other, based on molecular composition.

It's a go around, come around sort of relationship.

In short, SO2 appears to be a cooling agent. SO3 and SO4, alone, are warming agents, but together, sort of null each other out.

That's why it's so premature to jump on the global warming bandwagon. The chemistry of the atmosphere is, well, sort of complex.

Hell, even I don't understand it fully.
2004-12-29 09:31:13 AM  
A Day Older than Yesterday

i don't know what you are trying to say. you initially stated

Quit with the hysteria!

If BOTH polar icecaps melted the average global ocean level would only rise eleven (11) feet.

the link i posted gave a level of, iirc, under half a meter, should they both melt. and now you are telling me my information has been debunked - wihtout giving me a credible way that your figure has been reached. i don't understand why you are picking me up, given that you were initally moaning about hysteria, and my figure was a tenth of yours. the only explanation i can think of is that when you said both polar ice caps you actually meant all ice - which was 80 meters by the chart (or 11 feet for you). if you can provide me a non-joke link that shows the latter, i'll buy you a crate of beer. otherwise what are you talking about?
2004-12-29 09:32:00 AM  
Folks, this global warming fad will pass. A few decades ago, it was global cooling. Before that, people were worried that the poles would reverse. If the Earth is warming, cooling, or if the poles do reverse, there's simply nothing you can do about it.

A few decades from now we'll have some Hollywood douche blaming us for increasing humidity or barometric pressure.

We've got Islamic nuts trying to kill us, and people are worrying about the temperature. Sheesh.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2004-12-29 09:32:36 AM  
As far as I know there is no consensus on the West Antarctic ice sheet. Some say it will melt.

Whatever the globe is doing, parts of West Antarctica are heating rapidly. The Antarctic peninsula is several degrees C warmer than it was 50-100 years ago. Tens or hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of ice shelves around the peninsula have broken up. This doesn't mean the ice sheet is melting, because ice shelves react differently and the inland climate is different.
2004-12-29 09:34:00 AM  

sorry i thought you were saying there was a strong correlation between sulphur and temperature that negated the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. so can you agree that there is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature
2004-12-29 09:34:38 AM  
Liberal Lies
[image from images.amazon.com too old to be available]
2004-12-29 09:35:03 AM  
The current administration seems to think their is some credence to pollution having some effect on global warming..

2004-12-29 09:35:55 AM  
Since the climate treaty was hatched in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, scientists have shown their dissent with four petitions: the 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," with more than 100 signatures; the 1992 "Heidelberg Appeal," with more than 4,000 signatures; the 1996 "Leipzig Declaration," signed by some 130 prominent U.S. climate scientists, including several who participated in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); and, this year, the "Oregon Petition" which has been signed thus far by 17,000 U.S. scientists.
2004-12-29 09:36:07 AM  
Don't worry. "The Day After Tomorrow" told me that only New York will experience flooding. And I only have to worry about that if my son is there.
2004-12-29 09:36:50 AM  
In other news, it moved here!

Been <20F for the past week and a half.
2004-12-29 09:37:23 AM  
By the time there is indisputable proof enough to convince the skeptics, it will be too late to avoid the consequences.

Remember that you're dealing with the same interests who have resisted every environmental proposal ever made. Were it left up to them, our rivers and lakes would still be their sewers. Even with the demonstrated ability of such regulation to spur innovation, they weep into their quarterly reports.

What to do? Manhattan Project the problem of a clean, renewable energy source. The $200 billion wasted at stabilizing the world's oil-rich regions would have been a good start.
2004-12-29 09:38:31 AM  
I'm more worried about watching my carbs.
2004-12-29 09:38:46 AM  
I welcome global warming. If it's only -35 in Siberia, I can't see them complaining.
2004-12-29 09:39:05 AM  
sinner4ever, your "petitions" have already debunked a fake. they have no credibility.
2004-12-29 09:39:07 AM  
global warming is a natural cyclical event...*fact*
it has happened in earth's history many times and will happen many times more...sometimes after it tops out there has come an ice age...but not always...releasing green house gases has little to no effect on this...its a natural event....the earth heats up...the earth cools down...the earth heats up...and continues to spin round and round.....the possible tectonic shifting thats seems to be starting again is by far more of a worry to me than global warming...either way...these are long range possiblities that we wont see the effects of in our lifetimes.....all this aside...we should be more concerned with the affect we are having on the enviroment then we are...but not for these two reasons....
2004-12-29 09:39:32 AM  
This just reinforces my theory that the communication satellites are actually heating up the earth's atmosphere.
Microwaves from comsats and GPSsats are enough to raise the temperature even only a degree. This is actually signifcant.

/End of the beachfront props as we know it.
//Folks a mile inland gonna be resort owners.
///I wouldn't invest in winter ski resorts nor winter products.
2004-12-29 09:40:49 AM  
I guess we're gonna have to rename permafrost. How about soggyfrost or amerifrost?

2004-12-29 09:41:28 AM  



sorry i thought you were saying there was a strong correlation between sulphur and temperature that negated the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. so can you agree that there is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature

No, I cannot tacitally say that. If you are saying that increased CO2 levels equals increased global temperatures, I'd have to disagree. CO2 does not exist alone in the atmosphere. There's a cook's list of atmospheric constituients and to single out one as a major culprit, without understanding the effects and inter-relations of other atmospheric constituients, which are all dependent and interdependent variables, is not only premature, it's bad science.

Not to mention, that it doesn't take into account the global CO2 sink of the oceans.
2004-12-29 09:42:40 AM  

Let's examine our options:

1) A change in the climate is happening. If yes, go to 2, if no, go to 5

2) We are causing, or in someway effecting this change. If yes, go to 3 if no, go to 6

3) Our effect is not negligible. If yes, go to 4, if no, go to 6

4) Ok, so we're causing the environment to change. That's that organisms do! The only way to eliminate the human impact on the environment is to eliminate humans. If you're of the camp that says our effects are harmful, then guess what? We'll eliminate ourselves and this will be all over.

5) Nothing to worry about, move along.

6) Ok, so the climate is changing, but there is nothing we can do about it. So why worry? Just stock up on your parkas and sunscreen.
2004-12-29 09:45:00 AM  
I'm waiting for Algore to make another global warming speech on the coldest day of 2005. That'll be cool <- temperature related pun.
2004-12-29 09:46:23 AM  

i'm not asking you to say that correlation implies causation. i'm asking if there's a correlation, in your opinion.

why do the oceans need to take into account separately?
2004-12-29 09:48:07 AM  
2004-12-29 09:39:05 AM moops [TotalFark]

sinner4ever, your "petitions" have already debunked a fake. they have no credibility.

You are wrong sir,calling something fake needs proof to be effective.I have seen no proof from you or anyone else.Saying that they are not all climatologists does not mean that scientists can not recognize bad scientific procedures when they see it.

I know that you may be a firm believer in global warming but the fact that the scientific method used to come up with such an idea is flawed may be readily apparant to anyone familiar with scientific study.
2004-12-29 09:48:13 AM  

so we all agree we're stuck at 4 are going to do something about it or not?
2004-12-29 09:48:52 AM  
Al Gore.... Shudder.

I for one hope the republicans run McCain in 2008. Since the democrats seem unable to grasp the concept of politics (ie. becoming really, really good liars... they're mediocre at best) it's going to be a Republican world for a long time. McCain seems to be the only thing close to a human being over there with any sort of power in the GOP. McCain-Anybody 2008!
Displayed 50 of 996 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.