First time since I'm on the web (and that's since around IE4) I almost missed the content below the fold.<p>I thought it was a myth that people might not know that they should scroll a bit.<p>But this page? Flashy animation, logo, social icons. First thought "Maybe that's all? Seems sufficient for 2013", but the title on HN suggested that this page contains some content. Second though "I guess it's broken. I'm on linux. Sometimes server don't respond fully. Possible."<p>"Maybe I hover over some things? But the animation has no distinct features. Maybe I click around. Maybe touch mouse wheel. Wow! Whoever approved this design was an idiot."
Page size: 22MB<p>Requests: 148<p>It choked my Mac mini. Tens of thousands of CPU's around the world are roaring to this web page, causing enough global warming to melt buckets of ice. BUCKETS, I TELL YOU!!
Whenever I see an article with a headline like this, I always wonder... was it actually faster than <i>anyone ever</i> predicted? Was there really not at least one crazy guy in the 70's who said "Man, Greenland's ice sheets are going to be completely gone by the year 2000".<p>Or at least a more aggressive model from somebody. Seems a bit unbelievable not a single scientist got the current melting within the range of one of their models.
What about this: <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/25/oh-what-a-difference-a-year-makes-in-greenland-melting/" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/25/oh-what-a-difference-a...</a>
Why would I even read a science article from 'The Rolling Stone' and presume there is any validity to it?<p>That isn't to say it isn't true, it may well be, but seriously, find a better source.
I'd like a TL;DR.
The global warming is sufficiently alarming that we shouldn't care about how its too much javascript, or fonts are not easy to read.<p>I read through most of the article and it doesn't seem to actually give the explanations for the phenomenon, how it exactly works, and how to make accurate predictions.
So Arctic albedo causes the new scary feedback in the climate system? What happens when the old scary feedback mechanism (water vapor) condenses into opaque white clouds?<p>Neat design though.
I know everyone turns to Rolling Stone for the latest research on climate science but don't miss all the articles on JavaScript:<p><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/search?q=Javascript" rel="nofollow">http://www.rollingstone.com/search?q=Javascript</a>
Err, so buy land in Greenland and expect frontier towns to spring up?<p>Climate change is de facto happening. We need to mitigate not hope we can stop the ball rolling.
On Arctic albedo affected by Box's wildfire hypothesis, I'm wondering if those earlier deep core samples correlate with historic big blasts like Santorini, Krakatoa's red sky for a year, and...is that Yellowstone super blow up recent enough?