What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
121 Comments
- pictureDIGGER, on 10/11/2007, -5/+90Who cares if it makes it to the front page. 99% of digg is not on the front page. I am glad you liked this submission.
- redrock34, on 10/11/2007, -24/+97This is stupid crap anyway. I don't care about a new cold ass island. Now if you will excuse me, I have to drive down the block in my Hummer.
- UGM2099, on 10/11/2007, -6/+70Turn on street view and you can see a guy peeing on the ice to melt it.
- twitmer, on 10/11/2007, -12/+55-- Comment Hijack --
Quick somebody claim it for The Pirate Bay!!!! - americamatrix, on 10/11/2007, -13/+38Marked as inaccurate.
"PICTURES: Global Warming Reveals New Island off of Greenland"
The article mentions nothing about Global Warming. It is a NASA website.
Next time don't add your own slant to the story.
kthxbai - AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22"[19] v) There are significant differences between the global temperature and the Greenland temperature records within the 1881-2005 period. While all the decadal averages of the post-1955 global temperature are higher (warmer climate) than the pre-1955 average, almost all post-1955 temperature averages at Greenland stations are lower (colder climate) than the pre-1955 temperature average."
It's interesting to see how the local climate near Greenland is out of step with the global climate.
In 10,000 years, scientists may do experiments to see what the atmosphere and climate were like in 2007. Imagine their surprise when they see that the Greenland does not show a significant warming trend while all of the other do.
This is why I love science. It also demonstrates why an errant data point or two do not debunk a scientific theory!
Cool article though. - lickmygiggle, on 10/11/2007, -13/+30@opus
That's so ***** innacurate, I'm not even going to begin to correct that *****. - mvandemar, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Same location on Google Maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=71+24+54+N,+22+05+55+W&ie=UTF8&ll=71.415,-22.098611&spn=0.279245,1.277161&t=k&z=10&om=1 - Railer, on 10/11/2007, -8/+23Does anyone even care that Greenland continues to warm and cool in a non exceptional fashion? My guess is this island appears and disappears on a regular basis.
"The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades."
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf - SerifTheRobot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Welp, you found my secret evil mastermind lair. Anyone know a good real estate agent?
- hambend, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14@pogfreak
I appreciate your sentiment, but in this case you're way off the mark. Take a look at any prediction made on the effects of global warming and you'll see the receding Greenland ice cap right up there at the top of the list. I'm confused at how you try to distinguish global warming from "something getting warmer," which might be a reasonable assertion if we weren't talking about a mass of ice around three times the size of Texas. To me, that's more or less the definition of global warming. Maybe you were arguing over man-made warming?
Also, if you agree that global warming is happening, how is it that you think the mere mention of it in a headline is sensationalism? Surely if it's a fact, we should be allowed to talk about it without being labeled alarmists. - SkippyDoorknob, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14And already it's crawling with Google camera cars taking street level photos!
- biotch, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12@ razster
Listen and learn?
In the first couple minutes of that video someone claims in the past when co2 levels were 3 times or 10 times what they are now, the temperature on earth should of changed.
As far back as we have been able to measure (600,000 years), CO2 levels have NEVER been as high as they are now.
The 10 hottest years ever measured occurred in the last 15 years.
Here is a graph of CO2 levels and corresponding temperature levels over the past 600,000 years.
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/PyrotechnicGore.jpg
That includes multiple ice ages so claiming the earth warms this much naturally or spews more CO2 in the air after an ice age is not an argument against man made global warming.
Stop listening to oil industry propaganda and start paying attention to actual science. - Railer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12The name "Greenland" comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find the land that was rumored to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grønland ("Greenland"), possibly in order to attract more people to settle there. Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") on early maps. Whether Green is an erroneous transcription of Grunt ("Ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. It should also be noted, however, that the southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer, and was likely even greener in Erik's time because of the Medieval Warm Period. - wikipedia
Icelandic settlers led by Erik the Red found the land uninhabited when they arrived c. 982. Around 984 they established the Eastern and Western settlements in deep fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island, where they thrived for the next few centuries, and then disappeared after over 450 years of habitation.
The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland, and when the Norwegian kings converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland as well, subordinate to the archdiocese of Nidaros. The settlements seem to have coexisted relatively peacefully with the Inuit, who had migrated southwards from the Arctic islands of North America around 1200. In 1261, Greenland became part of the Kingdom of Norway.
After almost five hundred years, the Scandinavian settlements simply vanished, possibly due to famine during the fifteenth century in the Little Ice Age, when climatic conditions deteriorated, and contact with Europe was lost. Bones from this late period were found to be in a condition consistent with malnutrition. Some believe the settlers were wiped out by bubonic plague or exterminated by the Inuit. Other historians have speculated that Spanish or English pirates or slave traders from the Barbary Coast contributed to the extinction of the Greenlandic communities.
- http://web.mac.com/luchardy/iWeb/Greenland%202007/Greenland%20Facts.html
How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Norse legends written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in A.D. 983-986 and gave the country its name because people would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name. Greenland was warmer in the tenth century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast; the sea was excellent for fishing; and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. At the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Thus Greenland actually deserved its name. Another attraction of Greenland was that Iceland and northwestern Europe, including England, had a grievous year of famine in 976, and people were hungry for food as well as land. - http://www.answers.com/topic/greenland
what part of opusagogo statement was wrong? - pogfreak, on 10/11/2007, -23/+33So where in the article does it talk about Global Warming? Don't tell me the headline was sensationalized to garner more attention? I thought thats what foxnews was for!
Look, don't get me wrong people, Global Warming is happening, we are probably contributing to it, but its not responsible for everything having to do with something getting warmer. If you want to make scientific claims - please back them up with science not flashy headlines! - AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Okay Bronco!
Perhaps I was overstating things when I said "all."
Let's check the validity of your arguments:
Antarctic cooling - proves my point and has does not disprove global warming.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/02/04/MN159039.DTL
Urban heat islands - definitely play a role, but won't show up as measurable data 10,000 years from now. And who's to say CO2 isn't playing a role.
Kilamanjaro - "The need for additional field measurements is emphasized in order to better understand the complex processes of glacier-climate interaction on Kilimanjaro."
Sorry, can't pin that solely on aldebo (which is your oversimplification)!
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003JD003546.shtml
American Midwest cooling - caused by warming ocean temperatures, which is caused by global warming.
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/01/02ocean.html
"um 2/3s of the warming of the last 100 years being due to cosmic rays, not CO2." - some ***** you made up.
Sorry, thanks for playing. - wardrox, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@atb12688
Is that the medieval warm period which only effected Europe your referring too?A
Although I would normally not recommend Wikipedia as a particularly good source for scientific knowledge, it's still well worth a quick read if you have the time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period - thebaron2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Yes, Greenland was warm once, at least the southern parts of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
"The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland...
After almost five hundred years, the Scandinavian settlements simply vanished, possibly due to famine during the fifteenth century in the Little Ice Age, when climatic conditions deteriorated, and contact with Europe was lost." - bergerdml, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6And here is a link with a few pictures from the island:
http://www.wild-ideas.net/news/archive/2004_07_30_archive.html
If there is much interest, I'm sure I could get my dad to post some more for us. - atb12688, on 10/11/2007, -8/+12When meteorological measurements first started, the Earth was at its coldest point over the last thousand years. We are at a hotter point now but there is no way to prove that the increase in surface temperature has anything to do with CO2 emissions, that is only a guess. The medieval warm period and the little ice age were much more extreme that the temperatures we are experiencing now.
The CBC did a great documentary on it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295 - heaintheavy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Oh, and craka, please list the names of the scientists asking to be removed. You write "many," can you name some of them?
- Coltb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Craka mars is heating up because of red dust which has nothing to do with earth (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1891367.htm), Al gore isnt exactly a Neo-Enviromentalists and college students cant exactly be old eviromentalists so whats with the term and guess what green house gases are at an all time high. do some reserch before you go trying being smart
- elementop, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Up here in Alaska where I live, we think so! :P
- heaintheavy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@craka
Satellite observation of the Sun since 1978 have shown no significant solar output over that period.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
I like how you will point to Mars and Neptune, but choose to ignore the fact that on Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers world wide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting and stratosphere cooling. - spz104, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Ah, we are starting to see a lot of articles starting off with "Global warming causes...".
Could also be "Modern satellite imagery reveals..." , though less sexy. That goes for a much of the new records we are observing. It has a lot to do with the fact that we have a much better ability to take observations in more places than we could in the past. An a little to do with how the statistics are presented.
Consequently, we are observing a lot more hurricanes than we did 100 years ago, my guess is that we have satellites now...... - magicjava, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3So you knew about Shaviv's stuff but claimed it was just something I made up? Why? And you have to know he's not the only one saying this if you know enough about it to throw up Rahmstorf 's report (a report that's not even internally consistent btw).
As to your other questions.
Cosmic ray aren't localized in the Midwest they're all over the planet. That doesn't mean there won't be local variations. It's certainly something worth looking at. But because we have proof that cosmic rays affect the climate, we also have proof that climate model's like Hanson's are wrong, as they don't include cosmic rays.
No, the heat island of San Fran is not warming up the rest of the state. The entire state is a heat island.
And no, the "Can't prove it doesn't exist" doesn't work both ways. This type of argument is the weakest there is. When there's no proof to support what you're saying, you can almost always fall back on "can't prove it doesn't exist". Science can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. It can't prove there's not a 19th century teapot in orbit around Neptune. It's not the job of science to prove what doesn't exist. It science's job to deal with the real world and show how it works. And on that measure, CO2 global warming still has work to do. - pilgrim3970, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3opusgogo wrote: "Actually the Vikings used to farm on Greenland thats why it was called Greenland. Then, over time, it froze up. it is a natural cycle."
Please be considerate of those who are blissfully sleeping in ignorance (hence the reason you are getting dugg down). Comments like this might wake them up. - ButtonDownBobby, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I am in no way the type of person that sees Jesus in a bowl of spaghetti or the image of the Virgin Mary in a toasted tortilla but when I saw the last picture it reminded me of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dcp7323-Edirne-Eski_Camii_Allah.jpg
My friend wears a necklace with that symbol on it and it just popped into my head...
/ Commence with the Al-Queda connected with global warming jokes - OregonTrail, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Finally
Lets run some fiber up there, call it a new country, and start a torrent tracker!
Making your own laws is great! - heaintheavy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4How exactly did all that ice melt then? Magic?
- burkay, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Dude, I was just leaving a comment with the same intention.
It just looks a lot like the name of God in Arabic.
http://www.livingislam.org/k/allah_gr.jpg - PR0NW4R, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2methane, even better
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061213/20061213_09.html - hindinburg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2just what i needed...another reason to visit greenland
- COMPACTION, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3If you believe that man is responsible for warming the earth you are a sucker. I've been aware of the man made global warming theory for almost thirty years and have studied it and it is a money making fraud.
- GuyHitByTruck, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Burried as Inaccurate.
The island was there the whole friggin time! Also, the article doens't mention global warming as the cause. - Quidam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2wow...I thought I was the only one who noticed that! It does look like God written in arabic.
- heaintheavy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Wow, you aren't even on the same page as the rest of the skeptics. You need to update your talking points, the consensus is indeed there is global warming, now the debate is whether humans are causing it. Oh, and you are supposed to say humans aren't causing it -- just in case you couldn't figure it out.
- Wacer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Though I myself debate wonder as well, I can give you an answer to the title of the story. Since the UN and the global consensus now says that global warming is in fact real, there is going to me more and more of the "global warming" phrase being used in stories as a fact. This became the general consensus amongst the governments worldwide and now they switched to the planning and action phase instead of the debate phase.
You are not alone when it comes the relabeling of the title but I am sure I can place you as being a skeptic of the idea. That's OK tho. - Wacer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They just couldn't see that it wasn't connected to the mainland, thus its an island.
- Wacer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You idiot, they knew the land mass was there all along. They just couldn't see that it wasn't connected to the mainland. I think you can't even grasp the one of the most obvious facts let alone tackle a complex subject such as the global climate.
- palatka, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8boy, this global warming is turning out better than we thought
- Wacer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Lame excuse to flee.
- magicjava, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Here's the link on California's urban heat islands: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/catemp-20070328.html
And some quotes...
Quote - "Average temperatures increased significantly in nearly 54 percent of the stations studied, with human-produced changes in land use seen as the most likely cause."
Quote - "Across most of the state, minimum (nighttime) temperatures increased more than average and more than maximum (daytime) temperatures did."
That last one is the "signature" of urban heat island warming. Nighttime temps rise more than daytime temps.
I'll post the answer to the rest of your questions shortly. Unfortunately I'm being called to a meeting. :( - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2weird how the guy discovered it in 2005, yet they have a picture of it with no ice in 2002. i think i might be reading this wrong, but yah im just confused.
- BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Earth - Global Warming Expansion Pack ( Only $49.95! )
The threat of global warming has begun! Lost continents await adventurers for exploration!
* Discover the new island south of Greenland!
* New massive weather disaster system adds elements of danger to formerly safe zones!
* Changed content to old familar zones! ( Work in progress. Sunken_Florida planned for '08 release. )
* New species of monsters evolving everyday!
* Dozens of new quests such as "Humanitarian Relief" and "Get Out Of New Orleans"
* Hundreds of new items to replace the old ones that caused global warming in the first place! - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Land masses all over arctic are rebounding after being compressed by glaciers in the last ice age.
Many new islands will continue to appear and is nothing new...... - magicjava, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2One last comment on the "disprove global warming" stuff. Science will _never_ disprove manmade CO2 global warming. For example, a report just posted on digg today has 1/3 of the Arctic's warming being due to dirty snow. When added to the 2/3s warming due to cosmic rays, this gives us 100% of the Arctic's warming accounted for, with no room for manmade CO2 left over.
Does accounting for 100% of the warming disprove manmade CO2 warming? No. Naturally there could be errors in the cosmic rays or dirty snow ideas. We have to go out into the world and find proof that supports a given idea. And when we look for proof of manmade CO2 global warming, we're not finding it. - dewyjuhl, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I couldn't help but notice global warming doesn't come up once in that entire article...
- magicjava, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Back.
Shaviv's work is taken seriously by Svensmark, Veizer, Ian Clark, Eigil Friis-Christensen, amongst others. You can find support for the work coming from the scientists of both CERN and SLAK. Articles on the subject have been published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, the world's oldest and one of its most respected science journals. The credentials of these folks are much greater than those of places who speak out against it, like the realclimate.com blog. But credentials, no matter how good they are, aren't really what makes good science. The real strength of the cosmic ray model is it's been measured in the real world. Manmade CO2 global warming hasn't yet accomplished this.
As to the climate models, could they contain something worth saving? Probably. But what? How do you seperate the good from the bad? If you can't test these things in the real world, there's no way to know. - tim620, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It is too bad that islands are discovered this way. I wonder how many more we will discover in the next 20 years.
Maybe I should start investing in these islands, so I can move my family there when it becomes tropical :-) -
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
