Your video, NASA finds shrimp below Antarctic ice sheet, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Four more and you got a cocktail!

>> ^deathcow:
what an ice hole!


Bastage!

It's been mentioned in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth as well, but with a much bigger implication.
If the Greenland ice sheet melts and pours enough fresh water into the North Atlantic, we'll have far worse consequences than a few meters of higher sea level.

>> ^Kalle:
If you test fire 10 of those things simultaniously could you alter the earths rotation a little bit?


no
to move earth you need to propel something to the opposite direction.. what this thing is capable of doing is causing a relatively tiny vortex in the air above the rocket.. nothing is propelled anywhere(from earth), thus no movement is transferred
it's the same thing as fears of nuclear testing altering earth's orbit (like in that '61 film 'day the earth caught fire' (fun apocalyptic film though))
you would have to jetison a ridiculous amount of rock, or something, to push earth anywhere.. if it just goes boom it doesn't do anything

best chance of this moving earth anywhere would be to tie houndreds of them to the north pole ice sheet (largest untethered mass on earth), and even then the acting mass would be that of the ice
though even the success of that would probably be fairly limited as the rocket would still have to outrun the vortex it created above it

bonus points to original poster for pun

Article I ran across recently got me thinking about this so I gathered a few details which might be interesting. First a few visuals.

Satellite imagery of the arctic ice sheets dated September 4 2001, September 4 2006, and the most recent at September 4 2007.

As you can see the ice sheets are melting, and fast. The Northwest passage which has been a legend of sorts for as long as we've known about the area is about to become very real, it's all but open now and will be soon. The estimates used to be a ice free summertime Arctic somewhere between 2070 and 2100, then 2050, now they are estimating as early as 2030. 23 years. Interesting thing seems to be that as it melts that in itself accelerates the melt, dark water absorbs heat the white ice used to reflect, 1/3 of it gone in the 30 years we've tracked it.

The Guardian, a British newspaper, did a short article on the subject which can be found here.

The estimates and more esoteric work have always been easier to argue or ignore but it's starting to take a pretty solid form which is hard to deny these days. Yes, the estimates are still subject to change but the problem is no longer one we can really deny. Only debate left seems to be what to do about it.

"Polar bears need ice and snow, but as climate change takes a steady hold, their habitat is being rapidly lost. This year, for the first time, the polar bear has been classed as endangered on the IUCN Red List."

"The Montana park has 26 named glaciers today, down from 150 in 1850. Those that remain are typically mere remnants of their former frozen selves, a new gallery of before and after images reveals."

"Study Previews Ice Sheet Melting, Rapid Climate Change."

When will conservatives stop treating facts as if they were opinions?

So I poked around YouTube and Google to find out more. This was filmed in the spring of 2003, not the bitter winter we have now, and it's not waves turning instantly into ice, as I first thought. (Note that the people are dressed for light winter or cold spring conditions, not an Arctic deep-freeze.)

This is probably something called "ice-shove". From this Army Engineers site:

Ice shove (Figure 2) is caused when wind and wave energy is transmitted to an existing ice sheet and pushed onshore. Structures not designed to withstand ice could be extensively damaged.

Seriously Slyrr, every time you post you manage to reach new intellectual lows.

I won't address your moonbat theories, since obviously you show large favoritism towards big business that is more willing to rape America for a dollar then give a shit about it's future generations. Instead we'll look at your so called "facts".

Clearly you didn't read the paper that you simply link to, because if you did you would know that Micheal Crichton comments were on that belief in purported scientific theories without a factual basis is more akin to faith than science. That is true and I agree with that, what you fail to mention is that the speech was delivered in 2003. Nearly 4 years ago.

Why did Crichton do it? He had a book called State of Fear. Many of Crichton's publicly expressed views, particularly on subjects like the global warming controversy, have caused heated debate. An example is meteorologist Jeffrey Masters' review of State of Fear:

"Flawed or misleading presentations of Global Warming science exist in the book, including those on Arctic sea ice thinning, correction of land-based temperature measurements for the urban heat island effect, and satellite vs. ground-based measurements of Earth's warming. I will spare the reader additional details. On the positive side, Crichton does emphasize the little-appreciated fact that while most of the world has been warming the past few decades, most of Antarctica has seen a cooling trend. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually expected to increase in mass over the next 100 years due to increased precipitation, according to the IPCC. Additionally, Crichton points out that there has been no rise in hurricane activity in the Atlantic over the past few decades (a point unchanged by the record four hurricanes that struck Florida in 2004)."

However, 28 hurricanes and tropical storms took place in the 2005 season, which was 7 more than the meteorologists had names for because historically, 21 names seemed far above what was needed for a season. In addition, Peter Doran, author of the paper in the January 2002 issue of Nature which reported the finding referred to above, that some areas of Antarctica had cooled between 1986 and 2000, wrote an opinion piece in the July 27, 2006 New York Times in which he stated "Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear".

Crichton has also been criticized for having the protagonist of State of Fear assert,

"Since the ban of DDT, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler."

Even though the DDT ban specifically exempts any and all use for disease prevention from any regulation, and even though the total number of deaths from malaria worldwide in the period described is actually less than fifty million. None of it is true. USAID, the World Bank, and WHO, all fund DDT for malaria prevention.

Please next time find out what you are talking about before posting.

Yes, we all know it's propaganda. Here's one of the scientists whose work was quoted in this ad calling shenanigans on the ad:

"But a scientist whose report about the Antarctic ice-sheet is featured in the adverts has denounced the CEI and said they have quoted his study out of context.

Professor Curt Davis of the University of Missouri-Columbia, said: "I think they are confusing and misleading the public."

Asked if he doubted the evidence of global warming, he replied: "Personally, I have no doubts whatsoever." Mr Davis's June 2005 study examined the ice-sheets of east Antarctic which showed an increase in mass.

However, he said his study did not look at coastal areas which are known to be losing ice and said the "fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global warming".

- http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article571678.ece
25 May 2006