Austria's glaciers shrank in 2012, study says

Apr 13, 2013
The Tiefenbach glacier in Austria on October 31, 2012. Nearly all of Austria's glaciers shrank significantly last year, with one glacier receding a record 97.3 metres (319.2 feet), the Austrian Alpine Association (OeAV) said Friday.

Nearly all of Austria's glaciers shrank significantly last year, with one glacier receding a record 97.3 metres (319.2 feet), the Austrian Alpine Association (OeAV) said Friday.

Out of the 95 glaciers measured, 93 retreated an average 17.4 metres (57 feet) in 2012 while just two were unchanged, the body said in its annual report.

One of the masses of ice, the Pasterze glacier that counts as Austria's longest, showed the biggest recorded loss—97.3 metres—since records began in 1879.

In 2011, the group found Austrian glaciers declined by an average of 17 metres, compared to 14 metres in 2010.

According to the latest findings, 98 percent of the country's glaciers retreated in 2012.

"The reason for the declines is last year's high ," said Andrea Fischer of the University of Innsbruck, charged with tracking the glaciers for the alpine club.

Fischer said she expected the country's to decline further in coming years.

Explore further: Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Austrian glaciers shrink dramatically

Oct 02, 2011

Austria's glaciers shrank dramatically this summer, the most since a record hot period in 2003, principally because of low amounts of snow the preceding winter, scientists said.

Shrinking glaciers threaten China

Nov 02, 2007

China's glaciers in western Xinjiang Uygur region are shrinking alarmingly due to global and regional warming, posing a threat to the oases in the area.

China's glaciers in meltdown mode: study

Oct 25, 2011

Sharp increases in temperature driven by global warming are melting China's Himalayan glaciers, an impact that threatens habitats, tourism and economic development, says a study released Tuesday.

Global glacier melt continues

Jan 29, 2009

Glaciers around the globe continue to melt at high rates. Tentative figures for the year 2007, of the World Glacier Monitoring Service at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, indicate a further loss of average ice thickness ...

Recommended for you

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

23 hours ago

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.

User comments : 54

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Allex
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 13, 2013
But...but the truthers/NWO conspiracy nuts say the Earth is cooling? *_* Oh no, my faith in unsupported pseudo-science has been shattered.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 13, 2013
Look. If you turn all of the graphs upside down, the temperature trend is downward.

Just stand on your head and look at this graph. Once upside down, it shows that temperatures have been falling for the last 20 years.

https://docs.goog...=sharing

The future of Denialism.

https://docs.goog...=sharing
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 13, 2013
Some fools think glacier shrinkage is all about temperatures. More learned folks know glacier activity has as much, or more to do with precipitation.

And Europe has been unusually cold this year...

http://www.washin...-europe/

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (11) Apr 13, 2013
Yes, but all of those fools seem to be writing denialist nonsense on the nonsense site Whatts-Up-With-That.

"Some fools think glacier shrinkage is all about temperatures. " - UbVonTard
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (11) Apr 13, 2013
As we have told you several hundred times by now, it is called "weather".

"Europe has been unusually cold this year" - UbVonTard

You seem to have an ideologically based inability to comprehend what weather is.

Stupid.
Lurker2358
2.9 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2013
cli·mate
noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

Climatologists seem to have an ideologically based inability to comprehend what climate is.

Since climate is the average of weather, then as goes the weather, so goes the climate. Climate is a less fundamental entity than weather, therefore weather determines the climate. Not the other way around.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (12) Apr 13, 2013
Climatologists seem to have an ideologically based inability to comprehend what climate is.

Since climate is the average of weather, then as goes the weather, so goes the climate. Climate is a less fundamental entity than weather, therefore weather determines the climate. Not the other way around.


Err no. Climate is the signal that weather follows. There is a greater truth in climate as it reveals the trends that weather follows. An analogy: So the sun rises each day and for 20500 years it will rise higher in the sky and then descend back to the same point. So you are saying that the daily variation in solar irradiation causes the earth's axial tilt changes? That's called "arse over tit" where I come from.
Lurker2358
1.9 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2013
No.

Climate is not solely dependent on Earth's rotatio nal, axial, or orbital parameters. Those parameters change weather.

Since climate is defined as an average of weather over a period of time, it is not possible to change climate without first changing weather.

Climate is an average, and averages do not stand as causes in causal relations.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2013
Climate is the signal that weather follows. There is a greater truth in climate as it reveals the trends that weather follows...

OK. I gave you a 5 for that.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 13, 2013
As we have told you several hundred times by now, it is called "weather".
Funny, didn't I tell you that last summer in regards to the heat and drought in the U.S., while you kept insisting it was caused by global warming? Why yes ...yes, I did.

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 13, 2013
Yes, but all of those fools seem to be writing denialist nonsense on the nonsense site Whatts-Up-With-That.

"Some fools think glacier shrinkage is all about temperatures. " - UbVonTard
-- VendiTurdi
Glaciers, on average, have shrank continually (albeit not as fast as the AGW Alarmist brain), even when the globe cooled during 1940 to 1980. In recent times several remain unchanged and some have grown.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2013
No.

Climate is not solely dependent on Earth's rotatio nal, axial, or orbital parameters. Those parameters change weather.


No, the parameters change climate - that is, on a global and temporal scale. We/I am not taking about a statistical analysis of past climate. I'm talking about the drivers of climate to come. And clearly the orbital parameters of the Earth is THE major driver, amongst others of climate. Therefore to say that climate is just the summation of weather is, as I said, "arse over tit".
You cant evaluate *weather* to come and summate to give you an answer, but what you can do is evaluate the drivers of climate, project into the future, and arrive at a climate prediction. Therefore climate comes first and weather is just the noise within the climate signal.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 14, 2013
ubavontuba lumbered (again) with
Some fools think glacier shrinkage is all about temperatures. More learned folks know glacier activity has as much, or more to do with precipitation.

And Europe has been unusually cold this year...
Not heard of the Atlantic Conveyor then- have you ?

That pattern of currents is under stress and may well shift equilibrium, there are signs it has dumped less heat than before due to global warming, don't you understand the combinatorial complexity - even a little and are you unable to see how additional heat in one location translates to cooling elsewhere as the climate system is complex (for you) ?
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2013
don't you understand the combinatorial complexity

Do you?
Please educate us.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2013
ubavontuba brilliantly stated
Some fools think glacier shrinkage is all about temperatures. More learned folks know glacier activity has as much, or more to do with precipitation.

And Europe has been unusually cold this year...
Not heard of the Atlantic Conveyor then- have you ?

That pattern of currents is under stress and may well shift equilibrium, there are signs it has dumped less heat than before due to global warming, don't you understand the combinatorial complexity - even a little and are you unable to see how additional heat in one location translates to cooling elsewhere as the climate system is complex (for you) ?
LOL. You're just a pretender, you don't even know what you're talking about. Try researching the Thermohaline circulation.

Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2013
antigoracle offered a challenge
don't you understand the combinatorial complexity
Do you?
Please educate us.
Sure since you asked nicely :-)

In Perth, Western Australia relatively close to Antarctica, increased temperatures results in more cold water coming up near the western coast but, it doesnt impact linearly upon coastal regions. In some places the water temperature is colder than it was decades ago in others it is warmer as currents arise from the north. The current interactions are complex and don't necessarily collide or merge in the same places or at the same times.

ie. A warming results in more cold water from ice melts impacting local regions, those who do not understand combinatorial complexity see the colder water off their coast as proof there is no global warming, obviously the situation is not as simple as most people are able to appreciate.

Here is a good example of such complexity & for ubavontuba
http://en.wikiped...culation
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 14, 2013
ubavontuba offered this for those interested in combinatorial complexity
Try researching the Thermohaline circulation.
In some parts of the world this is also called the "Atlantic Conveyor".

Which not only proves my point, thanks ubavontuba but, I wonder why ubavontuba won't read and understand it ?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2013
ie. A warming results in more cold water from ice melts impacting local regions,
LOL. How does that work, when more and more ice is freezing in the antarctic?

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

those who do not understand combinatorial complexity see the colder water off their coast as proof there is no global warming, obviously the situation is not as simple as most people are able to appreciate.
idiot. All you're saying is it's getting colder and trying to dismiss it as irrelevant, when it truth it's simply getting colder!

http://www.woodfo...13/trend

Here is a good example of such complexity & for ubavontuba
http://en.wikiped...culation
Posting it is nice, but did you even bother to read it?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2013
ubavontuba offered this for those interested in combinatorial complexity
Try researching the Thermohaline circulation.
In some parts of the world this is also called the "Atlantic Conveyor".
Which implies a regional circulation. It's a global circulation. Use the correct terminology.

Which not only proves my point, thanks ubavontuba but, I wonder why ubavontuba won't read and understand it ?
Obviously you're the one who fails to understand.

gmurphy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2013
@ubavontuba, the world is unquestionably warming, recall the climate change study commissioned by the Koch brothers to try to expose the 'fraud' in climate science. Not only did this study confirm the conclusion that the earth is warming but the lead author went so far as to state emphatically that the cause of the warming was CO2 due to human pollution. Of course the legions of 'skeptics' who had salivated in anticipation of overthrowing 'AGW Alarmism' instantly rejected the results and continued with on with the same old tired 'fraud' routine. So, what I'm saying, is that no matter how good the evidence, no matter how rigorous the experimental results, you and your tired old band of denialist cronies will cling to your belief that a global conspiracy of unprecedented proportions is the 'real' reason all the papers are being published. Good luck with that, you poor sad demented human being.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2013
@ubavontuba, the world is unquestionably warming,...

So, what I'm saying, is that no matter how good the evidence, no matter how rigorous the experimental results,
You mean evidence like this?

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

you and your tired old band of denialist cronies will cling to your belief that a global conspiracy of unprecedented proportions is the 'real' reason all the papers are being published.
When did I ever supposedly claim there's a conspiracy?

Good luck with that, you poor sad demented human being.
Ah, no science, just slander. What a surprise (not).

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates

Ergo, gmurphy = loser.

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 15, 2013
Cherry picking, UTube.

Look at the difference a single year makes - http://www.woodfo...99/trend]http://www.woodfo...99/trend[/url] http://www.woodfo...00/trend

The difference two years makes - http://www.woodfo...99/trend]http://www.woodfo...99/trend[/url]

The difference 10 years makes - http://www.woodfo...90/trend

How many times are you going to try this nonsense?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2013
When did I ever supposedly claim there's a conspiracy?


Really. What's the problem with HADCRUT4 again?

You're just another of those who claims a conspiracy but then claims he didn't claim a conspiracy because he didn't use the word "conspiracy" in his claim there is a conspiracy.
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2013
You know what? I now think Ubbatubba is GOP plant because just like the nonsense you hear from the GOP, Ubba says the same things. As the Deep so correctly points out The Ub loves to cherry pick and conclude things like; "Ergo, XXXX = loser."

Give it up ubba, you know deep down everything you believe is a lie. Your like the North Korean guy ... brain washed. You have fallen victim to the 0.001%'s dark money influence on debate of the global warming issue.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2013
Cherry picking, UTube.

Look at the difference a single year makes...
By changing the dataset, all you're doing is showing warming outside of the period of my claim. Adding it to my dataset allows you to include it in the trend, which gives a false warming signal for the entire period. But the truth remains that there's been no global significant warming for at least a dozen years (using HadCRUT4 data):

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

How many times are you going to try this nonsense?
How many times are you going to try and falsely skew the data?

deepsand
3 / 5 (12) Apr 16, 2013
A dozen years is weather, not climate. And, there's been no significant cooling for a least a dozen years.

http://www.woodfo...12/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2013
When did I ever supposedly claim there's a conspiracy?
Really. What's the problem with HADCRUT4 again?
The problem is it was specifically designed to show more global warming than actually measured. Didn't you read the paper on it I provided for you? They admit to the manipulations, themselves. For instance, they use the phrase "bias adjustment" 32 times!

http://www.metoff...pted.pdf

You're just another of those who claims a conspiracy but then claims he didn't claim a conspiracy because he didn't use the word "conspiracy" in his claim there is a conspiracy.
Just because I disagree with the assertions and/or actions of individuals, or even organizations, doesn't mean I'm claiming there's a conspiracy. If people did that, they'd see conspiracies everywhere (like how you've accused me of being part of a conspiracy). Sometimes people simply disagree. Is this not allowed, now?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2013
You know what? I now think Ubbatubba is GOP plant because just like the nonsense you hear from the GOP, Ubba says the same things. As the Deep so correctly points out The Ub loves to cherry pick and conclude things like; "Ergo, XXXX = loser."

Give it up ubba, you know deep down everything you believe is a lie. Your like the North Korean guy ... brain washed. You have fallen victim to the 0.001%'s dark money influence on debate of the global warming issue.
Hmm... nothing but slander. Need I say more?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2013
A dozen years is weather, not climate.
By definition, it's climate:

cli·mate
[klahy-mit]

noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

http://dictionary.../climate

And, there's been no significant cooling for a least a dozen years.

http://www.woodfo...12/trend
You only show 11 years and omit the last 1.084 years of available data.

Even so, I will admit there's been no significant cooling for at least a dozen years ...but there's been some cooling.

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2013
I eliminated only 2013, which is but a partial year.

In any case, any cooling shown is statistically insignificant; i.e., the long term warming trend has not been reversed.

http://www.woodfo...13/trend

Since the trend is not reversed, the most recent 12 years are not indicative of climate, but only of weather.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2013
I eliminated only 2013, which is but a partial year.
Nope. You're graph ends at 2011.9166666..., to be precise. To include all of 2012, you actually have to input 2013.0000...1 (2013.01 works).

In any case, any cooling shown is statistically insignificant;
To which I've already generally agreed.

i.e., the long term warming trend has not been reversed.
But it stopped, and is backsliding a little.

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

Since the trend is not reversed, the most recent 12 years are not indicative of climate, but only of weather.
Wrong. They represent a relatively stable climate.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2013
http://www.woodfo...13/trend

Since the trend is not reversed, the most recent 12 years are not indicative of climate, but only of weather.

Compare the rate of warming prior to 1940 and after 1980. Now compare the rate of cooling after 1940 to that of the present.

http://www.woodfo...13/trend
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2013
No, AO, we are not going to let you selectively slice time up into pieces that confirm your bias.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2013
I eliminated only 2013, which is but a partial year.
Nope. You're graph ends at 2011.9166666..., to be precise. To include all of 2012, you actually have to input 2013.0000...1 (2013.01 works).

In any case, any cooling shown is statistically insignificant;
To which I've already generally agreed.

i.e., the long term warming trend has not been reversed.
But it stopped, and is backsliding a little.

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

Since the trend is not reversed, the most recent 12 years are not indicative of climate, but only of weather.
Wrong. They represent a relatively stable climate.

The setting of a massive number of new records for temperature extremes is NOT a measure of stability.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2013
The setting of a massive number of new records for temperature extremes is NOT a measure of stability.
Funny that. Here's a list of continental record temperature extremes (both hot and cold records). None of them ...not a single one ...occurred in this century:

http://www.ncdc.n...mes.html

And here are national extreme weather records. None but hail occurred in this century:

https://www.ncdc....es/ncec/

deepsand
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2013
The key to UTube's supposed rebuttal is to cherry-pick using low resolution data such as "continental" extremes.

Not even worthy of substantive rebuttal.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2013
The key to UTube's supposed rebuttal is to cherry-pick using low resolution data such as "continental" extremes.
Isn't it funny how you ignored the national data too?

What's the matter? Are you unable to back up your assertion?

Not even worthy of substantive rebuttal.
You're right, so I kept it brief. LOL

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2013
UTube's usual clueless retort.

He doesn't understand what "low resolution" means.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2013
UTube's usual clueless retort.

He doesn't understand what "low resolution" means.
deepsand has no argument to make. Ergo deepsand admits defeat.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2013
The ubb is full of sh it, so he admits the feet. That pretty low ball stuff ubb. Especially given the article is all about how and why the Austria glaciers shrank. I think an intelligent man would logically say it has been hot in Austria and ask why.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2013
UTube's claims re. the absence of volatility not only draws on single point temperature measurements for a large geographical region, but TOTALLY IGNORE the TIME DOMAIN.

Let's see him support his position using DAILY LOCAL STATION data re: NEW RECORD:

1) HIGH high temps.;
2) LOW high temps.;
3) HIGH low temps.;
4) LOW low temps.;
5) HIGH degree days for cooling;
6) LOW degree days for cooling;
7) HIGH degree days for heating; and,
8) LOW degree days for heating.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2013
The ubb is full of sh it, so he admits the feet. That pretty low ball stuff ubb. Especially given the article is all about how and why the Austria glaciers shrank. I think an intelligent man would logically say it has been hot in Austria and ask why.
Heat isn't the only reason glaciers shrink.

And as you like to worry, you might as well worry about why the Laurentide ice sheet recently (in geologic time) disappeared, and then wonder why mankind thrived so afterwards.

Maybe that will alter you perspective enough to calm your shrill hysteria?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2013
UTube's claims re. the absence of volatility not only draws on single point temperature measurements for a large geographical region, but TOTALLY IGNORE the TIME DOMAIN.
What "time domain" are you talking about?

Let's see him support his position using DAILY LOCAL STATION data re: NEW RECORD:
Local and regional temperatures are irrelevant to the "global warming" debate. This is just weather.

When are you going to stop denying that globally the tempertures are trending cooler, and have been trending cooler for more than a dozen years?

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2013
UTube again trots out a cherry-picked data set that itself fails to support his own position, while claiming to not understand the meaning of "time domain" and then makes the ridiculous claim that weather records are irrelevant to determining climate trends, etal..

What an idiot.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2013
UTube again trots out a cherry-picked data set that itself fails to support his own position, while claiming to not understand the meaning of "time domain" and then makes the ridiculous claim that weather records are irrelevant to determining climate trends, etal..
And again, deepsand runs away from definitions and science. LOL. Why am I not surprised?

And deepsand thinks local weather trumps globally averaged temperatures in the global warming debate. LOL

What an idiot.
Indeed you are.

deepsand
3 / 5 (12) Apr 28, 2013
Continuing to trot out the same old cherry-picked data, UTube, data that does not even support your position, serves no purpose.

A lie, no matter how often you repeat it, remains a lie.

Your pointless repetition is egregiously juvenile

Grow up.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2013
Continuing to trot out the same old cherry-picked data, UTube, data that does not even support your position, serves no purpose.
Assertions without supporting data are meaningless.

A lie, no matter how often you repeat it, remains a lie.
So why do you do that?

Your pointless repetition is egregiously juvenile.
...and, so why do you do that?

Grow up.
Yes, why don't you?

deepsand
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2013
Continuing to trot out the same old cherry-picked data, UTube, data that does not even support your position, serves no purpose.
Assertions without supporting data are meaningless.

Then why do you persist in doing just that?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2013
Continuing to trot out the same old cherry-picked data, UTube, data that does not even support your position, serves no purpose.
Assertions without supporting data are meaningless.

Then why do you persist in doing just that?
This is your shtick.

Are you ready to admit the world has been cooling for more than a dozen years (even using the manipulated data which is currently in vogue)?

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

deepsand
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2013
Continuing to trot out the same old cherry-picked data, UTube, data that does not even support your position, serves no purpose.
Assertions without supporting data are meaningless.

Then why do you persist in doing just that?
This is your shtick.

Are you ready to admit the world has been cooling for more than a dozen years (even using the manipulated data which is currently in vogue)?

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

"No, Global Warming Has NOT Stopped"

http://www.slate....vid.html
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2013
Continuing to trot out the same old cherry-picked data, UTube, data that does not even support your position, serves no purpose.
Assertions without supporting data are meaningless.
Then why do you persist in doing just that?
This is your shtick.

Are you ready to admit the world has been cooling for more than a dozen years (even using the manipulated data which is currently in vogue)?

http://www.woodfo...01/trend
"No, Global Warming Has NOT Stopped"

http://www.slate....vid.html
LOL A blog opinion piece written by an astronomer, who doesn't even deny the temperature trend has fallen flat, is the best climate "science" you could muster? LOL

Here, I have astronomers too:

http://english.ru...-expect/

LOL
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2013
Unable to comprehend the article, UTube resorts to attacking the author, who he knows absolutely nothing about, and the forum in which published.

How very "scientific" of him. :rolleyes:
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) May 04, 2013
ubavontuba has trouble with intellectual dishonesty or is very good at it
Here, I have astronomers too:
http://english.ru...-expect/
The article has no study, it only makes a guess:-
".. may give way to global cooling.." and further on an expectation also with a study:-
"..will begin to decline as well.." and again:-
"..may affect the.."

You ignored the fact ubavontuba the article offers no references to the claim *and * the context of:- "..cooling are far from groundless.."

Why do you insist of finding pathetically vague articles ?

Do you have some mineral or dietary deficiency affecting your bias have you changed your meds ?

deepsand
2.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
Why does UTube persist in finding pathetically vague articles?

Because he's risen to the level of his incompetence. LOL

More news stories

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

LinkedIn membership hits 300 million

The career-focused social network LinkedIn announced Friday it has 300 million members, with more than half the total outside the United States.

Treating depression in Parkinson's patients

A group of scientists from the University of Kentucky College of Medicine and the Sanders-Brown Center on Aging has found interesting new information in a study on depression and neuropsychological function in Parkinson's ...

Sun emits a mid-level solar flare

The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare, peaking at 9:03 a.m. EDT on April 18, 2014, and NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory captured images of the event. Solar flares are powerful bursts of radiation. Harmful ...