Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    On endless ice, searching for clues to our future

    ON JAKOBSHAVN GLACIER, Greenland (AP) — The pilot eased his five-ton helicopter toward the glacier's rumpled surface, aiming for the lightest of setdowns atop one of the fastest-flowing ice streams on Earth.

    David Holland's voice suddenly broke in on the intercom.

    "Carl doesn't like this!" the scientist shouted. "Carl says it's snow bridges!" — drifts that can hide a deep crevasse.

    The chopper pulled up sharply and veered off over the chaotic icescape of white knobs and pinnacles and bluish glints of meltwater, on to another, safer landing spot where Carl Gladish, Holland's lanky, ponytailed assistant, stepped cautiously off the skid and onto the ice, under the thudding rotor blades, to swiftly carry out his assigned task.

    It was one of eight 2-minute touchdowns on which the New York University research team positioned instruments to measure the movement and internal cracking of Jakobshavn Glacier, a risky operation meant to shed light on one more tiny piece of the giant puzzle called Greenland.

    Other scientists elsewhere were working on their own pieces, on demanding and often dangerous missions, sometimes in subfreezing temperatures and high winds, sleeping in tents on the ice, isolated for weeks at a time, linked tenuously by satellite phone.

    On this same July day, Alun Hubbard was on a solitary trek to the north coast's spectacular, remote Petermann Glacier. Liz Morris was in the first hours of a monthlong research traverse along the hump of Greenland's vast, 3-kilometer-thick (2-mile-thick) ice sheet. Asa Rennermalm and her colleagues, at the ice's western fringe, were in their fourth summer of meticulous, tedious sampling of the meltwater flow from the interior.

    Scattered across the world's largest island, as big as Alaska and California combined and 80 percent covered by ice, small bands of specialists tended to GPS sites and automatic weather stations, drilled down into the island's frozen cap, and analyzed the air and clouds overhead, working long hours under the midnight sun to help begin answering a crucial question:

    How much of Greenland's ice will melt, and how quickly, in a world growing warmer, and warming fastest in the Arctic?

    If all the ice eventually slipped into the ocean, it would be enough to raise global sea levels by 7 meters (23 feet). Even a fraction of that would inundate Bangladesh and south Florida, drown small islands, threaten Shanghai and New York.

    But as temperatures rise from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the answer isn't coming easily. The challenge — scientific, logistical — appears greater than the resources devoted to it.

    This Greenland puzzle, and uncertainty over Antarctica's ice, led the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to essentially disregard the impact on oceans of an accelerating polar melt. In its 2007 global warming report, the IPCC projected a sea-level rise of only 18 to 59 centimeters (7 to 23 inches) this century, mostly from water expanding when warmed.

    But researchers have since determined that Greenland lost ice in the 2004-2009 period four times faster than in 1995-2000. This May, the eight-nation Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program forecast a much higher global sea-level rise — of 90 to 160 centimeters (35 to 63 inches) by 2100.

    To those best informed, like Cambridge University's Morris, a polar research veteran, melt is inevitable in a place where temperatures over the ice sheet have risen by 2.2 degrees C (4 degrees F) in just 20 years.

    "There's no way that you put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and it won't warm and the ice won't melt," she said before setting out on her snowmobile expedition. "The uncertainty is when."

    The "when" hinges on a web of variables in what Morris called Greenland's "massively complex" ice system.

    When and where, for example, are warmer southern waters reaching Greenland's fjords, spreading under their glaciers? How effectively is meltwater percolating from the ice sheet's inland surface to its base, lubricating movement toward the sea? How much does snowfall — water drawn from the oceans — offset the melted ice?

    Researchers long focused on southern outlet glaciers like the west coast's Jakobshavn, an awesome iceberg producer 6 kilometers (4 miles) wide, believed to be the Northern Hemisphere's biggest single contributor to ocean rise. The ice where doctoral candidate Gladish did his quick work is streaming toward the sea at a rate of 30 meters (100 feet) a day, twice as fast as in the 1990s.

    The big melt is now moving northwest. Last year, U.S. and Danish scientists reported that "crustal uplift," the rising of land as the weight of ice melts away, was detected far up the coast.

    "There are big red zones, big thinning rates going on in the far northwest, and that's bizarre because it's meant to be very cold up there," said Hubbard, of Wales' Aberystwyth University.

    The ruggedly built British glaciologist spoke with a reporter at Kangerlussuaq, a southern research hub, hours before helicoptering off on a one-man mission to collect GPS and other data from Petermann Glacier, just 1,000 kilometers (600 miles) from the North Pole.

    A year ago, a 290-square-kilometer (110-square-mile) piece broke off giant Petermann and into the sea — a chunk of ice three times the size of Manhattan island.

    But Hubbard, like others, said intensive research is now most needed deeper in the interior, to learn how the main body of ice is reacting to longer, warmer summers, and particularly whether meltwater pouring down to its base might cause "runaway instability" in the ice sheet.

    He said the melt has moved inland up Greenland's icy dome to 1,500 meters (5,000 feet) elevation, some 120 kilometers (75 miles) in from the ice cap's edge.

    This summer a U.S.-Swiss team was drilling boreholes into the ice sheet northeast of Jakobshavn Glacier to better understand how ice movement detected by GPS stations relates to the "plumbing," the under-ice meltwater system the boreholes find below.

    Far up the slope, at the 3,200-meter-high (10,500-foot-high) frigid heart of the ice sheet, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) maintains its remote Summit Station research site, serviced by big New York Air National Guard LC-130 transport planes equipped with ski landing gear for the ice runway.

    In small labs bristling with rooftop sensors, American researchers at Summit upgraded their instruments this summer to better study cloud formation and thickness, precipitation, the reflectivity of the snow and ice, and the presence of "black carbon," falling soot, that would dim that reflectivity and absorb warming sunlight.

    Snowfall is key, but "we know so little detail about Greenland," said Summit visitor Erica Key, an Arctic program manager for the NSF, a major funder of Greenland research.

    "Most models" — computer climate simulations — "block out Greenland as a black box," she said.

    It was in Summit's thin air that 64-year-old Morris, her 155-centimeter (5-foot-1) frame bundled in orange cold-weather gear, set out with assistant John Sweeny on a one-month, two-snowmobile mission to supply her piece of the puzzle: measuring the snow density along a 400-kilometer (250-mile) route, to give the new European Cryosat 2 satellite some "ground truth" data to compare and calibrate with its own remote readings of ice thickness.

    Those readings are badly needed. The European Union's first ice-surveying satellite failed on launch in 2005, and NASA's ICESAT orbiter stopped working in 2009, not to be replaced until at least 2015.

    Any hard-won data emerging on the ice sheet's dynamics would help refine computer models for a better fix on how a warmer Greenland will produce higher seas. But modelers are short not only on satellite readings, but also on ground observations from a too-thin corps of scientists.

    Below its gravelly fringe, near Kangerlussuaq, Rennermalm's team was measuring the volume of meltwater gushing down stream beds from the ice sheet — at up to 2.3 meters (7.5 feet) per second. But this was only one spot on a huge white map.

    "I want to understand how much water is coming from the ice sheet," said the Danish researcher, a leader of the Rutgers-UCLA project. "But there are very few measurements like this in Greenland. This is a difficult place to do science, a logistical challenge."

    Back up at Summit, two young Dartmouth College engineering graduates put one potential answer on display, testing the tiny, tractor-like "Yeti" autonomous robot over the ice. Like humans, Yeti could deploy ground-penetrating radar, meteorological gear and other research tools, say its designers, who envision hundreds crisscrossing Greenland offering up-to-the-minute data.

    Someday. For now, NYU's Holland has opted for ringed seals, two sea mammals he fitted with instruments for recording temperature and depth in a southeastern fjord of interest — "researchers" whose findings were transmitted by satellite back to his NYU lab.

    But two seals against 44,000 kilometers (27,000 miles) of Greenland coastline still come up short.

    Solving the problem, said the veteran glaciologist, means accurately forecasting sea-level rise for particular regions over particular time periods. And "we don't have that capability yet."

    He sees gaping holes: a need for new technology to comprehensively measure ocean temperatures; a need for an icebreaker dedicated to research in colder seasons.

    "We are making a really noble effort," Holland said. "But if you ask me whether we are making adequate progress at an adequate pace, I'd say no."

    The authoritative Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, in its May report, seemed to agree. Greenland's ice sheet is expected to melt faster and faster, but the impact remains highly uncertain, it said, and only "more robust observational networks" can change that.

    "The Fate of Greenland," a new book co-authored by glaciologist Richard Alley and other leading U.S. scientists, offers stunning photos of an extraordinary white world, and dark words of warning.

    "Our lack of fundamental understanding of ice-sheet behavior leaves open the possibility that we could be greatly underestimating the rate of response to warming, with potentially major implications," they write.

    The world must pay attention to Greenland, these scientists say, "because in the fate of Greenland lie clues to the fate of the world."

     

    250 comments

    • Angry Bird  •  9 mths ago
      Let's explain Our Friend the Atmosphere in smaller words, since some folk seem very lost.

      The earth is a spinning ball in space. It has two relevant sources of heat - solar energy coming in, and internal heat, mostly left over from the earth's formation or generated by internal radioactivity. Stars and other planets have zero measurable effect. Those two sources are all that matter.
      Earth's internal heat is not really a major player here, though it isn't chickenfeed - 10^13 watts. Solar influx is the major player, at 10^17 watts. For the purposes of driving weather, the sun is pretty much everything.

      Space is hard vacuum, so the only way heat gets in or out is by being radiated. Radiant energy travels until it hits something. Then one of two things happen: either it hangs around with the object it hits, usually as heat, until it re-radiates off again in some random direction; OR, it participates in a physical or chemical change of state. A physical change of state would be melting some ice or evaporating some water. A chemical change of state might be helping a plant grow. We call energy "consumed" when it changes something's state, but that's not quite accurate - it's just going to take it longer to re-radiate again, usually much longer - sometimes so much longer that you can ignore the effect.

      If you stop radiating heat at an object, it radiates off everything you put in, minus any state changes that happen to be permanent, as much as anything ever is. That's the key point. This is more or less a zero sum game.

      If it wasn't for the atmosphere, the earth would be an ice covered ball. Energy would come in, hit the surface, and re-radiate, mostly right back into space. It wouldn't hang around long enough change much, for the same reason that if you try to fill a pool with a hose, and the pool has a rip in the bottom about the same size as the hose's diameter, you don't collect much water, and the more you collect, the faster you lose it. If you want to hold more water, you need a way to close up that rip.

      Enter CO2, CH4 and H20 - three gasses that do a bang up job of hanging onto heat. Here's how - energy pours in from the sun at different frequencies. Most of it is in the visible light frequencies, which the atmosphere is very transparent to. So much of it hits the ground or ocean. Then it becomes heat, and tries to re-radiate away again, as heat.

      But the atmosphere is not as transparent to heat, so what got in doesn't get out so easily. CO2, H20, CH4, NO - all these gasses are very good at catching heat. When they re-radiate it, it happens in a random direction - so about half goes back towards the ground. Some of the heat ends up banging around for a long time between the ground and these gasses, before it manages to find a path through the atmosphere and radiate away again. In effect, these gasses "clog" the rip in the bottom of the pool, so you can manage to keep more water in the pool when you fill it.

      CO2, H2O and CH4 all have natural sources. Over many centuries, plants and the atmosphere hit a balancing act. Plants help suck down CO2 and H20, and absorb energy, so they have a net cooling effect - that's that chemical change of state stuff. If they suck down enough, temperature drops and plant growth slows and dies off. Decaying plant life puts heat, CO2 and H20 back into circulation. What you end up with is a rough equilibrium, with occasional variation, but it's largely self-balancing. Unless you screw with it hard enough, it will run just fine.
      (Continued into Reply).
      • Angry Bird 9 mths ago
        The problem is, for the last hundred years, we've been screwing with both plants and CO2 balance on a vast scale. From 1960 to 2010, the CO2 percentage in the air went up almost 25%. We did that; it tracks very closely to the spread of industrialization. (people talk about volcanoes, but that's 1% of the CO2 output, to man's 99%). We've also cut into forests and jungles, so at the same time we're pushing carbon into the air, we're limiting the ability of land to do carbon uptake again.

        If that were the whole story, it would be no big deal. So we trap some extra energy in the atmosphere - we get more violent weather, yeah, so what. Couple more hurricanes, some tornadoes, no biggie. Plants shifting their growing range north, so what. The oceans can still do carbon uptake. Smaller ice caps, who cares?

        You do. The ice caps might look like useless white stuff to you, but they are not useless. They reflect a lot of sunlight without turning it into heat. And when temperatures go up, they can neutralize the increase to some degree because it takes a LOT of energy to melt ice. Ice caps buffer temperature changes, but they buffer it by changing state: melting.

        Increased temperatures are causing more melt. That means less ice to reflect heat and less buffer to moderate temperatures. If we lose enough ice, the changes we started will simply accelerate. In the arctic, less ice means more exposed sea water, and water is great at trapping heat. That means yet less ice. If we lose the arctic, this planet will see conditions it has not seen since before there was a mankind here.

        Is this a problem yet? No. Ice volume is definitely down, but it would take decades before we really see effects. Even then, the PLANET will be fine. Only humanity will be in trouble, and that's because we are not POLITICALLY ready for this kind of change.

        The problem is that humanity is inflexible. We grow certain plants, we need water, and we have this fixed idea of land ownership. If water and plant domains shift (already starting to happen), it's not as simple as following them wherever they go. That worked great for early man, but now you need passports and friendly borders to pull that stunt.
        (more)
      • Angry Bird 9 mths ago
        So the real problem, the real reason why climate change is a risk, is purely political. When your local glaciers melt away and your drinking water is GONE, it's not much help to hear that rainfall and available water have increased 2,000 miles away. The people 2,000 miles away have already made plans for that water, and if you try to show up for it, they will shoot you. Of course, if you're thirsty enough, that won't stop you, you'll just bring guns of your own. Political fights in the American west are already starting over shrinking groundwater, and there's been barely any change in the available rain so far. But it is changing, and if it keeps changing, eventually those fights will not be merely political. This kind of conflict is happening now, in Africa.

        Ultimately it depends on the kind of world you want for your grandchildren. If we hit a tipping point, their world will suck - wars over the ownership of water and food will affect everyone at some level. America rocks as a nation in part because the midwest and southeast are veritable food pumps; this really is a land of plenty. What shape will we be in if the midwest dries out and the southeast is a kudzu swamp? You won't live to see it, but your grandkids might.

        This is why scientists have started putting up Dangerous Curves Ahead signs. We can see the CO2 increasing - that's trivial to measure. We know without question we're behind almost all of that increase. We know without question that CO2 traps heat. We can see plant domains creeping north. We can see ice beginning to melt. We know average temps are creeping up, but unpredictably. And we know it took 100 years and more of hard core coal, wood and oil burning, world wide, non-stop, to make these still-small differences appear. If we keep going, is there a tipping point 50 years off? 100? 75? Impossible to say for sure. But if you even THINK there's a cliff ahead and your kids are in the car with you, sane people ease off the gas and start paying attention to the surroundings.
        (more)
      • Angry Bird 9 mths ago
        Of course, oil and coal companies don't want to, and as the biggest businesses in the world, they are happy to pay people to say that none of this is really going to be a problem. Follow the money - the only people sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting La La La at the science, have financial ties to the folk who stand to profit the most by pumping carbon. I stayed skeptical on this topic until I realized that the only people saying we needed to remain skeptical, year after year, had financial or political ties to oil and coal. They've gone from denying it's happening, to blaming the sun (solar energy is nearly constant, and is currently trending downwards), to blaming cows, to hiding behind cloud cover. Not one of them will say "Oh, and CO2 is up 20% and more, I suppose that factors in."

        I think people have a responsibility to future generations. Y'all can think as you please, but would it really kill you to try some new light bulbs and inflate your car tires? From the sounds of Yahoo, apparently so. And please feel free to call this conservative leaning, independent voting, evangelical Christian, old bird whatever names you please. It amuses me.
        (End)
    • everlast69  •  9 mths ago
      Same old song..Just a drop of water in an endless sea..
      All we do..crumbles to the ground but we refuse to see..
      • mb 9 mths ago
        wow..excellent beautiful words..You should be a poet or writer
      • bugaloo79 9 mths ago
        Uh, it's "Dust in the Wind" by Kansas, the most pretentious Top 40 song ever.
    • Weeping Willow  •  9 mths ago
      From Wiki--A radiocarbon-dated box core in the Sargasso Sea (700mi wide X 2000mi long south of Greenland) shows that the sea surface temperature was .....approximately 1 °C warmer than today, 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).
      • DouglasL 9 mths ago
        Apparently from all the home cooking fires and "industry" of the time. Lucky for us, a man named Alamus Gorus cam along and saved humanity from their own stupidity.
      • JB 9 mths ago
        So we trust some scientific evidence but not other? I could post a wiki fact to support me, but then you wouldn't believe it.
      • DShadbolt 9 mths ago
        No offense but give me enough time and I can make the wiki say something else. I'm not disputing the facts, but if you do find something to prove your point make sure it is not easily editable.
    • Muslim King  •  9 mths ago
      Yes, high probability,.the earth has warmed a bit in the last 100 years and just maybe (lower probability) some of that warming was caused by CO2 emissions. However, predicting the climate of the earth for the next 75 years is just about as accurate as a 3 sided coin toss: it will be warmer, it will be colder, it will be about the same. Then they make projections of immense human suffering based on the coin toss with a heavy dose of extrapolation. This is not science, it is not even wild arse guessing, it's agenda - pure and simple.
      • QuietFlirt 9 mths ago
        It's like putting Lipstck on a pig !
      • BOO BOO The FOOL 9 mths ago
        considering that we have been in what 4 ice ages allready and we acurrently in one now its hard to tell.

        also some habitats have been shown to shift from desert to wetlands every few thousand years
      • Angry Bird 9 mths ago
        Well, of course. In 75 years will have 100% certainty about what things are like 75 years from now.

        Apparently your plan is to wait for that, and see if we like the resulting world. Your plan certainly saves time, trouble and effort. And best of all, YOU won't be here to see how it turned out! Doing nothing is absolutely the best bet... for you.

        I'm so pleased that it's all about you. Maybe we should just rewrite the internet so only you can post and everyone else can read what you post, since, after all, it's all about you.
    • WillieJohn  •  9 mths ago
      I have a solution
      --throw my ex wife in the arctic ocean
      --if she does half the job of freezing over the arctic
      --like she did our marriage
      --expect another ice age, your problem is solved
      • Ken 9 mths ago
        Good answer. Problem solved is right on the money.
      • The first Brevityn 9 mths ago
        Rofl
      • Long on America 9 mths ago
        William, ...so sorry, but Kenny next door wasn't lying when he said he found her quite warm. Thermal energy is usually the product of 2 things rubbing together or the release of potential energy appropriately elicited from stored source. Either you didn't rub it right or you didn't have the potential..that is it takes two to tango.
    • Scrubs  •  9 mths ago
      Any eco-nut owning beach front property who is saying in 10-20 yrs their property will be under water, I'd be interested in buying for pennies on the dollar, take the risk global warming is a myth........
    • Angry Bird  •  9 mths ago
      Attention all oil and coal shills and misinformation handlers: it really bugs me when I can see what websites you're getting your statements from AND YOU CAN'T EVEN QUOTE THEM PROPERLY. So far we have the earth emitting carbon into space, water that doesn't expand when heated and 93% of Greenland's ice BELOW sea level. (Not to mention people who seem to think that Greenland was entirely arable farmland, within human history.)

      Since I don't really feel like debating with people who couldn't pass a high school science quiz if their life depended on it, I'm heading off to bed, but I'll leave you with this one basic observation:

      If this is the best the oil and coal folk can afford for their parrots and shills, it looks to me like Big Oil is on, excuse the pun, very thin ice. I know this is only Yahoo, but come on; this is beyond pathetic, even for this crowd.
    • American Crisis  •  9 mths ago
      We already know the future, all we need to do is look at our behavior. Just a moment in time, we'll be history when the next species gets a crack at it.
    • Ken  •  9 mths ago
      If Al gore is really worried about rising sea levels then why did he but a house on the beach in malibu
    • patois  •  9 mths ago
      The reason funding is limited is because advanced computer modeling, unavailable to the public back in the 1990's, adequately revealed the "clues to our future" in this irreversible melting of Greenland's ice and that information has already been incorporated into logterm global planning related to its economic, geopolitical and social implications and longterm investments. Earlier models were being acted on with many nations and organizations already planning gradually funded longterm preparations. An example of "gradually funded longterm preparations" is how many western states in the USA, fully aware of future water shortages, put it before their voters to gradually prepare with costs spread out over 30-40 years to build appropriate water system infrastructures to meet the needs of their states in the future vs. waiting until the last minute and either abandoning the state and its economy when the water runs out, based on pre-American Revolution notions of wanton land resource plunder OR leaving tax payers in one generation alone in the future stuck with an impossible to pay for humongous bill all at once to build new water infrastructure. Needless to say, the more conservative, the more myopic and tending to leave the future taxpayer with all the bill. Nations spreading out the costs of climate change for 30 years now with sea walls and such, will remain economically sound in the future. Nations that do not, as with the project to reinforce Manhatten's barrages, will not remain economically viable and will be incorporated by less myopic economies. If there's any money to be made in "climate change", as conservatives have been brainwashed about, its in carpetbagger type savvy farsighted opportunistic capitalization during that re-organization of failed taxed-strapped economies, in knowing where myopia will lead to failure and then investing wisely around that. Many nations, corporations investment groups and investors are swirling around that potential and couldn't care less if there's anymore funding today to "p-r-o-v-e" the inevitable.
    • Steven  •  9 mths ago
      Statement Concerning Global Warming
      Richard S. Lindzen
      Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
      Massachusetts Institute of Technology
      Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
      [Illustrations appearing in the article are omitted in this document]
      June 10, 1997

      The Union of Concerned Scientists, illustrates the general procedure. The statement begins
      with a clear misrepresentation of the IPCC statement: "Predictions of global climatic change are becoming more confident. A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now `a discernible human influence on global climate." TheUCS immediately continues: "Climate change is projected to raise sea levels, threatening populations and ecosystems in coastal regions. Warmer temperatures will lead to a more vigorous hydrological cycle, increasing the prospects for more intense rainfall, floods, and droughts in some regions. Human health may be damaged by greater exposure to heat waves and droughts, and by encroachment of tropical diseases to higher latitudes."

      The UCS proceeds to then associate climate change with forest depletion, water scarcity, food security, and species destruction. It concludes that scientists must endorse a strong climate treaty at Kyoto. The implication is that the so-called IPCC consensus extends to these claims as well. This is clearly a misrepresentation of the IPCC.

      I use the phrase `so-called' advisedly. The IPCC went to great lengths to include as many names as possible among its contributors. Against my expressed wishes, even my name was included. I can assure the committee that I (and the vast majority of contributors and reviewers) were never asked whether we even agreed with the small sections we commented on. Nevertheless, the usual comment is that 2500 scientists all agree with whatever it is that the environmental advocates are claiming. To the credit of the IPCC, it extensively documented the shortcomings of various projections, and made few claims for any confidence.

      The document was deeply biased insofar as it took as its task the finding of global warming rather than the more objective approach of determining whether it is indeed a significant problem. Such an approach could be rationalized on the basis of sincere concern. However, even this document puts forward comments which are misleading. For example, on page 45 which deals with potential surprises, the possibility of an instability of the West Antarctic ice sheet is mentioned without any reference to the fact that such an unlikely instability is largely unrelated to climate (Bentley, 1997).
    • A Yahoo! User  •  9 mths ago
      I couldn't read the article because it is too long as has big words.
      But I don't be-leaf in global warming because it was cold last winter and I was watching TBN an Benny Hinn said it's not true and if it was we just need to re-pent.
    • MIKE  •  9 mths ago
      Greenland was not named ironically. It was green. Just hundreds of years ago.

      And that was long before we began burning fossil fuels.

      Perhaps we have to give our egos a break and admit that the climate changes without our help.
    • Centrist  •  9 mths ago
      Think of the ice in your glass. It melts and keeps liquid cool. Done melting and things heat up rapidly. Arctic will soon be ice-free in summer. Instead of sun-reflecting ice the dark water will soak up sunlight. The ocean heats up. Eventually that changes ocean currents and that changes global weather.
      Everything is connected ..... and consider the trillions of tons of frozen methane along continental coasts that will make the ocean look like a Pepsi when it warms up.
    • Thurston Moneybaggs IV  •  9 mths ago
      The following scientific organizations have all acknowledged the role of greenhouse gases in the warming of the earth over the last 50 years. But, who is a reasonable person to believe, professionals trained in the scientific method of inquiry, or people foaming at the mouth about Al Gore?

      National Science Academies of:
      Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Royal Society of Canada, China, France, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Royal Society of New Zealand, Russian Academy of Sciences,South Africa, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkey, Royal Society of the United Kingdom, United States.

      And:
      InterAcademy Council,European Academy of Sciences and Arts, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Society of the United Kingdom, National Research Council (US), American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society, European Science Foundation, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, American Geophysical Union, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, American Meteorological Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), World Meteorological Organization, American Quaternary Association, International Union for Quaternary Research, American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Society for Microbiology, Australian Coral Reef Society, Institute of Biology (UK), Society of American Foresters, The Wildlife Society (international), World Federation of Public Health Associations, World Health Organization, American Astronomical Society, American Statistical Association
      Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
    • Steven  •  9 mths ago
      High precision dates are not currently obtainable but evidence supports this interglacial began about 18,500 y.a. No one can predict how long this interglacial will last but glaciation lasts much longer. Eventually, Earth will look like the much older Mars. The spinning core will slow and the relative motion of the conductor willno longer generate a magnetic field of sufficient power to shield Earth from the solar blast. Then, the atmosphere will be stripped away. Until then, ice age/interglacial will continue with the precession of the equinoxes.
    • seanC  •  9 mths ago
      There is this thing called the sun... it heats up the earth. Sometimes it fluctuates, and the earth gets warmer, also the earth has cycles that have been going on for a VERY long time.

      The climate changes.... accept it.
    • Russian Life  •  9 mths ago
      Water does not expand when warmed..... It expands when frozen...

      Think: frozen water in pipes=busted pipe. water bottle in freezer pops. soda can in freezer explodes.
    • bw  •  9 mths ago
      A trilion and a half deficit, no jobs, the European economy collapsing the loss of the US credit rating, and we borrow money for Gore's globial warming scam.
      Pathetic, no wonder we're going broke.
    • WildBillCody  •  9 mths ago
      NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
    [ [ [['Connery is an experienced stuntman', 2]], 'http://yhoo.it/KeQd0p', '[Slideshow: See photos taken on the way down]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['Connery is an experienced stuntman', 7]], ' http://yhoo.it/KpUoHO', '[Slideshow: Death-defying daredevils]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['know that we have confidence in', 3]], 'http://yhoo.it/LqYjAX ', '[Related: The Secret Service guide to Cartagena]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['We picked up this other dog and', 5]], 'http://yhoo.it/JUSxvi', '[Related: 8 common dog fears, how to calm them]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['accused of running a fake hepatitis B', 5]], 'http://bit.ly/JnoJYN', '[Related: Did WH share raid details with filmmakers?]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['accused of running a fake hepatitis B', 3]], 'http://bit.ly/KoKiqJ', '[Factbox: AQAP, al-Qaeda in Yemen]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['have my contacts on or glasses', 3]], 'http://abcn.ws/KTE5AZ', '[Related: Should the murder charge be dropped?]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['have made this nation great as Sarah Palin', 5]], 'http://yhoo.it/JD7nlD', '[Related: Bristol Palin reality show debuts June 19]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['have made this nation great as Sarah Palin', 1]], 'http://bit.ly/JRPFRO', '[Related: McCain adviser who vetted Palin weighs in on VP race]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['A JetBlue flight from New York to Las Vegas', 3]], 'http://yhoo.it/GV9zpj', '[Related: View photos of the JetBlue plane in Amarillo]', ' ', '630', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['the 28-year-old neighborhood watchman who shot and killed', 15]], 'http://news.yahoo.com/photos/white-house-stays-out-of-teen-s-killing-slideshow/', 'Click image to see more photos', 'http://l.yimg.com/cv/ip/ap/default/120411/martinzimmermen.jpg', '630', ' ', 'AP', ], [ [['Titanic', 7]], 'http://news.yahoo.com/titanic-anniversary/', ' ', 'http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/b/4e/b4e5ad9f00b5dfeeec2226d53e173569.jpeg', '550', ' ', ' ', ], [ [['He was in shock and still strapped to his seat', 6]], 'http://news.yahoo.com/photos/navy-jet-crashes-in-virginia-slideshow/', 'Click image to see more photos', 'http://l.yimg.com/cv/ip/ap/default/120406/jet_ap.jpg', '630', ' ', 'AP', ], [ [['xxxxxxxxxxxx', 11]], 'http://news.yahoo.com/photos/russian-grannies-win-bid-to-sing-at-eurovision-1331223625-slideshow/', 'Click image to see more photos', 'http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/1/56/156d92f2760dcd3e75bcd649a8b85fcf.jpeg', '500', ' ', 'AP', ] ]
    [ [ [['did not go as far his colleague', 8]], '29438204', '0' ], [ [[' the 28-year-old neighborhood watchman who shot and killed', 4]], '28924649', '0' ], [ [['because I know God protects me', 14], ['Brian Snow was at a nearby credit union', 5]], '28811216', '0' ], [ [['The state news agency RIA-Novosti quoted Rosaviatsiya', 6]], '28805461', '0' ], [ [['measure all but certain to fail in the face of bipartisan', 4]], '28771014', '0' ], [ [['matter what you do in this case', 5]], '28759848', '0' ], [ [['presume laws are constitutional', 7]], '28747556', '0' ], [ [['has destroyed 15 to 25 houses', 7]], '28744868', '0' ], [ [['short answer is yes', 7]], '28746030', '0' ], [ [['opportunity to tell the real story', 7]], '28731764', '0' ], [ [['entirely respectable way to put off the searing constitutional controversy', 7]], '28723797', '0' ], [ [['point of my campaign is that big ideas matter', 9]], '28712293', '0' ], [ [['As the standoff dragged into a second day', 7]], '28687424', '0' ], [ [['French police stepped up the search', 17]], '28667224', '0' ], [ [['Seeking to elevate his candidacy back to a general', 8]], '28660934', '0' ], [ [['The tragic story of Trayvon Martin', 4]], '28647343', '0' ], [ [['Karzai will get a chance soon to express', 8]], '28630306', '0' ], [ [['powerful storms stretching', 8]], '28493546', '0' ], [ [['basic norm that death is private', 6]], '28413590', '0' ], [ [['songwriter also saw a surge in sales for her debut album', 6]], '28413590', '1', 'Watch music videos from Whitney Houston ', 'on Yahoo! Music', 'http://music.yahoo.com' ], [ [['keyword', 99999999999999999999999]], 'videoID', '1', 'overwrite-pre-description', 'overwrite-link-string', 'overwrite-link-url' ] ]