What is Digg?96 Comments
- geekchic, on 09/06/2008, -8/+25It is worth noting though - that most maps of the world misrepresent the size of Greenland relative to the rest of the planet.
Greenland size = around 0.8 million sq. miles.
Africa size = around 11.6 million sq. miles.
Yet, on most maps, Greenland is shown to be about the same size as Africa (check Google maps).
A Peters Projection is more accurate in terms of landmass distribution.
Incidentally, Antarctica is around 5.3 million sq. miles - so if that melts, it'll make the sea level rise from Greenland look like a mild sea swell on a blustery day. - mr5150, on 09/07/2008, -9/+20buried for alarmist *****.
- anticon, on 09/06/2008, -3/+13KaffeeCluben Island, which is the northern most piece of land on the planet, is now almost completely under water.
- krazykor, on 09/07/2008, -0/+9Sounds like you're really getting your money's worth from that college.
- myAmygdala, on 09/07/2008, -1/+8Actually, you measure volumes of water in cubic meters/kilometers, not in a one-dimensional unit such as meters, as you've done. The volume of water required to raise sea levels by 7 meters is estimated as: (the 2-dimensional "area" of the ocean) times (the height of the sea level rise), or 361,000,000km * .007km = 2.5 million cubic kilometers.
This is a rough estimate, not accounting for the increase in area of the ocean as sea levels rise (more land "area" is replaced by ocean "area", but if you consider that, according to wikipedia, the amount of ice on the Greenland ice sheet is 2.85 million cubic kilometers, maybe scientists know what they're talking about. - mikephimikephi, on 09/07/2008, -2/+8Well then I guess its claim-to-fame isn't going to last much longer
- yosserhughes, on 09/07/2008, -1/+6Time to watch 'Waterworld' again for some more survival tips.
- wrathchilde, on 09/07/2008, -0/+5ugly
- nelliedawg82, on 09/07/2008, -3/+8There is no generally accepted method of measuring sea level. There are somewhere in the range of 16 different ways scientists try to figure out if the sea level is rising, falling, or just staying the same.
- inactive, on 09/07/2008, -3/+8Fools. You better pay your carbon tax to the central banks... OR THE EARTH WILL HEAT UP!! OMG. Wrong again..
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august200 ...
Alarmist scientists who predicted that the North Pole could be "ice free" this summer as a result of global warming have been embarrassed after it was revealed that Arctic ice has actually grown by around 30 per cent in the year since August 2007.
Back in June, numerous prominent voices in the scientific community expressed fears of a mass melting of the polar ice caps, including David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, who told National Geographic Magazine, "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]."
"This summer's forecast—and unusual early melting events all around the Arctic—serve as a dire warning of how quickly the polar regions are being affected by climate change," adds the article.
In February, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, told Xinhua, "If Norway's average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions."
As per usual, the reality has failed to match the hype of the climate doomsayers.
According to collated data from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and the University of Illinois, Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. This is a conservative estimate based on the map projection.
Blue pixels represent increased ice coverage over the North Pole in the year since August 2007.
(pic @ http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august200 ...
The video below highlights the differences between those two dates," reports The Register. "As you can see, ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer - with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980."
But what of the Antarctic down south? Figures tell us that ice coverage in the year since August 2007 has grown by nearly one million square kilometers.
As The Register article notes, "The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn't even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss."
A general cooling trend across the planet is now clearly apparent as sunspot activity, the main driver of climate change, dwindles to almost nothing.
As we reported last week, A top observatory that has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next two decades as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.
While the mass media, Al Gore and politicized bodies like the IPCC scaremonger about the perils of global warming and demand the poor and middle class pay CO2 taxes, both hard scientific data and circumstantial evidence points to a clear cooling trend.
How man-made global warming advocates will spin this one remains to be seen - maybe they will just continue to adopt their current tactic by claiming that any geological or weather event whatsoever, be it hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts or floods, temperature increase or decrease, and even a 30 per cent growth of the polar ice cap - is a result of that evil life-giving gas that we exhale - CO2.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august200 ... - geekchic, on 09/07/2008, -0/+5Are you suggesting that Google Maps is an "old map" - as they show Greenland being the same size as Africa right now.
There are indeed many different map projections around, and I find the Peters Projection to be the most accurate in terms of land mass. Which others should I be looking as alternatives? - overtoke, on 09/07/2008, -0/+5Why don't the people in this thread take ten seconds learning something instead of just posting a denial?
The thickest part of the Greenland ice sheet is 3km (that's almost 10k feet.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet - kelmaster1, on 09/07/2008, -2/+7Greenland's interior is relatively high elevation and mountainous. The volume of ice withheld is substantial. You need to think about the third dimension and not just area. Antarctica still hold's way more ice though..,
But yes, it looks bigger because that's how you stretch a sphere into a 2-D rectangle. - aereaus, on 09/07/2008, -2/+67 meters? Child's play. Melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 61.1 m of sea level rise. Now that would be something.
- DontGiveADamn, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4Good news, I just got back from the beach and the water level is still the same. More good news (for me), I live 366 feet above sea level so even if all the ice melts I'll be OK. Too bad for you guys with your ocean front properties.
- halligan00, on 09/07/2008, -4/+8World Ocean 361M Sq Km
Greenland 2.2M Sq Km
Ratio of areas = 164:1
So a 7m rise would require 1150m of liquid water equivalent (average) on the island of Greenland. - VonBargenJL, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4greenlands glaciers ARE 'retreating' BUT they are also getting thicker in the center of the island. still holding equivalent volumes.
as for their looks on ice shelves, they dont matter, as 'ice shelves' are already FLOATING in the ocean. if they melt they wont rise the ocean levels because they already are in the water. - OriginalLucid1, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4Who the hell do you think you are, bringing facts into an emotion based arguement? How in the hell are you gonna scare anybody talking like that?
- synik, on 09/07/2008, -2/+6Glaciers in Greenland are not getting thicker, take your head out of the sand.
- VonBargenJL, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3antarctica is actually not ONE mass of land. alot of it is broken up by the ocean, if you figure all the ice melted off the top of it, but also not counting the RISE it would get out of the pressure of the ice coming off of that. thats much harder to calculate.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3 ... - nelliedawg82, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4Ahh right wiki is a valid source try using it a paper any where but junior high
- AirRaven, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3@nelliedawg82:
Wikipedia can be a perfectly reasonable source.
Why?
*References*- note the section at the bottom? Feel free to check those over after you've gone through the Wiki article itself- decide for yourself based upon those sources whether it's "accurate" or not. - mikephimikephi, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4bad
- BlatheringIdiot, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4The survivors will be classified into four groups:
* Traders, who ply the water in boats, collecting things from the ocean floor to trade to each other;
* Atoll Dwellers, who live in large floating constructs called atolls;
* Smokers, so called because they smoke and trade cigarettes, and because of the smoke from oil-power machines, such as jetskis, using oil left in oil tankers;
* Slavers, who are mentioned, but never seen.
oh yeah, some are mutants. - FairNUnBalanced, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3The website you are citing... Iceagenow.com was constructed by a man called Robert W. Felix to promote his self-published book about “the coming ice age”. It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the “ice age cycle”.
He is neither a climatologist, a vulcanologist, or an oceanographer. The claims he makes about glaciers around the world growing not shrinking is completely false. In fact, the sources he lists on his website such as the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland; have said that his assertions are "complete *****", as is his entire farcical site and self published book.
You are either intentionally spreading misleading and false information that fit your extreme political views, or you are simply as misinformed and misguided as Mr. Felix. - overtoke, on 09/07/2008, -1/+3I can't believe you typed SO MUCH and are SO UTTERLY and COMPLETELY wrong, jkal.
we have known for a very long time that Greenland, all by itself, if all the ice there melted it would mean about 23 feet of sea level rise.
the story is about no other melting other than Greenland - yes, 23 feet.
there is no hype here, no sensationalism. - johndi, on 09/07/2008, -1/+3If we call Australia an Island why not Antarctica? It makes no sense to arbitrarily exclude Antarctica from such a list. But why stop there? Eurafrasia could be the biggest island in the world.
- FairNUnBalanced, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2Tell that to the people of the Tuvalu islands who have already begun evacuating their nation, taking environmental refugee status in New Zeland. With a maximum elevation of 4.6 meters, they estimate their nation to be completely covered in water in the next 50 years.
- AirRaven, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2*Afro-Eurasia?
- outreach417, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2dugg in 1973 ...
- FairNUnBalanced, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2Right.
Yes I see the page I deep linked to doesn't show up with that URL. I'm sure it was so difficult for you to click on the "FREE DATA" link then take your pick. Paleoclimatology, tree ring, coral, ice core. Take your pick and click download data.
If you dig down far enough there are even links to individual scans of ice core layers. ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/AGDC/waiscores/zielinski/sipleB_63.4close.tif - jjesusfreak01, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2cept when you get to college and professors start encouraging you to use it...
- wootmacs, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2I haven't noticed anything, have you?
- JKAL, on 09/07/2008, -6/+8This so sensationalist that I'm almost out of words knowing this comes from a "Scientific type" mag.
Nothing is said about the fact that Greenland is NOT a large piece of flat land covered in ice, they don't mention that it is mountainous although to the untrained eye it looks like a look of ice to melt on face value, but the rocks that make the mountains are not going to melt into water and contribute to the volume so calculated, so they need to clearly take that into account.
Also about the Ice sheets melting, we need to remember that ice we see is only 20% of the whole, the rest of it (80%) is already under water, so it is already displacing the water and because it is ice, it's displacement volume is about 20% more than normal water.
So on an average ice floating on water and melts = 0 difference.
Another big factor they never include in these sensationalist articles is that the earth has many many pockets of air (ie caves) both on land and under water, if for arguments sake the water rises about 10-20Meters then some water banks will break and the water will first find it's way to the caves that are closer to sea level, also in the event of such a rise of that much water, the water preassure in many parts of the ocean floor will be under tremendous stress and it will break open some of the under water caves that have been ok until such an event, so water will fill those areas first.
So making an assumption that the ice our eyes see at face value and then imagining they will melt into an ocean with a sea floor resembling a bath tub with nowhere for the water to go but up, is NOT very scientific. - wrathchilde, on 09/07/2008, -1/+3Questioning the method does not invalidate the premise. Would you prefer the question be "how will the volume of water in the ocean be affected?"
- str3ama, on 09/07/2008, -2/+4From my Science experience, I'd say that it won't be too much of a problem because the only glaciers you have to worry about are the ones on land. The ones in water, regardless of how large will not really be a problem because of buoyancy - the weight of the glacier is already displaced in the water, so even if it melts it won't lead to increased sea levels. However glaciers on land, will raise the level but first they have to trickle through the land and down slopes, etc and enter the nearest waterbed before they become a problem.
I think the majority of glaciers are in water currently, so it shouldn't be a problem. The real problem with global warming is the threat of weather effects, water will be bountiful but only in certain areas - other areas that are now fertile, will become desert and arrid, water scarcity will increase and people will probably (in worst case situations) flock towards the coasts where water would be more accessible. I could definitely see food prices (specifically vegetables/fruits) increase dramatically within the next 5-6 years. - archivist, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Let's all learn how to get eaten by a fish as bait.
- OriginalLucid1, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Who knew a hockey mom from Alaska was gonna be the one to make libtards heads asplode? I love it, by God I do!
- FairNUnBalanced, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2Yet there's not a scrap of "data" anywhere in your post.
Furthermore, there is nothing standing between you and any global temperature data you wish to look at.
You can start with around a hundred international sources at the National Climatic Data Center http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/indexice.html.
It's the same "raw data" on which the Bush administration hired an Exxon mobile lobbyist to "review" before publishing. - AirRaven, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1*****
- edwartica, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1It has to do with tectonic plates.
- overtoke, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2wtf is this *****? read the article
also, did you know that even if there was no such thing as ice the ocean levels still rise due to warming? - shanesemler, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Drink your pee!
- painmedic, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2OMG another "THE WORLD IS GOING TO END" if you morons would do some real research all the 'GREENHOUSE EFFECTS" or "GLOBAL WARMING" is more due to the radius of the suns distance to earth then some car that ran too much. Have you ever heard of radiation? Well the sun puts out more the closer it gets and its distance is different every year. Now tell me I am wrong water watchers tell me your cars do more damage then the suns distance to earth. Smoke a J oh and btw 1 gallon of oil contaminates 1 million gallons of water. NOW that is interesting.
- sndream, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Before the whole Greenland icesheet is melted, most of the coastal city will already be flooded, greatly reduce the human ability's to generate green house gas and slow down global warming. See, natural always find ways to adjust itself.
By the way, the average Greenland Icesheet is over 2km thick. - FairNUnBalanced, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Whadya know, hatred and avocation of destroying entire cities of Americans coming from the extreme right.
I'm so surprised. - inactive, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1Who cares if a 1%-er looses one of their vacation villas. Working class people who own homes in midtown will instantly have 1 million dollar waterfronts!
Bravo Karma! - DestroyFascism, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1There is not that much water in the center of Antarctica. Its actually rocky and barren with not much in the way of moisture at all. If snow melts there, it evaporates..
- wunksta, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1see how these people act? they are disputing actual facts and trying to convince people that what we already KNOW about greenland is false
***** rubbish - edwartica, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2Because most diggers are republicans, so they are naturally dumb.
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 